Holy Bible

Thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. Deuteronomy 18:9-14 Heathen abominations avoided J. Wolfendale. One reason to shun the practices of idolatry springs from the nature of the evils themselves. 1. They are cruel. Children "pass through the fire." "Cruelty is one of the highest scandals to piety," says Seeker. "The dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty — homesteads of violence" ( Psalm 74:20 ). 2. They are enticing. Divination, enchanter, and witch have their spells. Idolatry, "a shameful creed of craft and cruelty," delights in what fills the sensuous imagination. "Who hath bewitched (fascinated) you, that ye should not obey the truths." ( Galatians 3:1 .) 3. They are defiling "abominations." Paintings and sculptures, laws and legends, reveal the awful corruptions of the heathen world. 4. They are destructive. "Because of these abominations the Lord doth drive them out." Sin drives away from God here and from heaven hereafter. The fruit of idolatry and superstitions is death ( Leviticus 20:23 ). ( J. Wolfendale. ) That useth divination Magical arts and divination H. Cowles, D. D. 1. Different names are here assigned to persons dealing in the arts of magic. "One that useth divination"; professing to gain power and knowledge more than human. "One that practiseth augury" or covert arts. "An enchanter": the original suggesting the serpent, and implying the practice of charming serpent, yet always connected with the arts of divination. "A sorcerer": the Hebrew word signifying one who mutters incantations, but only in the bad sense of seeking help from others than God. "A charmer": a word which suggests binding as with the spell of enchantment. "A consulter with a familiar spirit": the English phrase signifies spirits who stand in such a relation to the performer that they come at his call . Of course it is pretended that these spirits are other and greater than human. The original Hebrew (Ob) comes down to us in the African "Obe-man," who still follows the same profession, by means of similar arts. "A wizard" is one who claims superhuman wisdom, the old English accurately translating the Hebrew; the distinctively wise one. The word is restricted in usage to superior wisdom gained by the arts of magic. "A necromancer": precisely the spiritist of modern times, or rather of all time, who claims to have communion with the spirits of dead men. 2. This analysis of the original words may aid toward some just conception of the associated ideas which cluster round the magic arts of the Hebrew age. Their name and their arts are legion. Think of so many classes — professions — of men and women naturally shrewd, sharp, cunning; practising upon the superstitions and fears of the million; working upon their imagination, haunting them with the dread of unknown powers, bringing up to them ghosts from the invisible world, claiming to give auguries of the future, playing in every way upon their fears and hopes, to extort their money or to make sport of their fears or to gratify their own or others' malice. A system so near akin in spirit and influence to idolatry, which so thoroughly displaces God from the hopes and fears of men, and which seeks so successfully to install these horrible superstitions in His place — a system, which perverts the powers of the world to come to subserve ungodliness, and which practically rules out the blessed God from the sphere of men's homage, fears, and hopes — this system has always been worked by wicked and never by good men, has always subserved all, iniquity, but piety and morality never — this has been a master-stroke of Satan's policy, and one of the most palpable fields of his triumph through all the ages. ( H. Cowles, D. D. ) The Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do. The deterring power of Divine grace H. Melvill, B. D. It is recognised as a principle amongst legislators and magistrates, that the great end of punishment is the prevention of crime. And there is no doubt that, up to a certain point, this object is gained. The public execution will strike terror into many, though numbers, again, more hardened in wickedness, will depart from the spectacle, and perhaps commit the very crime for which they have just seen a fellow creature die. It is not, however, that they actually set at nought the punishment; it is rather that there are always so many chances of escape, the men transgress in the hope that they shall elude detection, The fearfulness of a threatening, even though combined with the certainty of execution, will not always, nor even commonly, deter men from violating the commandments of God. There is no need for having recourse to imagination for the destruction of a people on account of their wickedness, and their inheritance passing into the possession of others. This is only what actually occurred in the instance of the land of Canaan, whose inhabitants were exterminated because of their crimes, and it was then handed over to a new population. There was here what might strictly be called a public execution. There was no giving a secret commission to the angel of death to move through the doomed ranks, and lay them low; which might perhaps have left it doubtful whether or not there had been any judicial interference; but the Israelites were put visibly into the place of public executioners, being charged with the terrible commission — "Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them." They were sent expressly to punish a guilty and condemned population. And the first memorable thing, if you examine the Scriptural record, is that God Himself placed no dependence on the influence and effect of the public execution; for His Word is full of warning to the Israelites, that they would fall under the like condemnation if they imitated the practices of those whom they destroyed. So far from its being reckoned on as an insupposable or even an improbable thing, that they who had been commissioned to slay multitudes on account of their sin would themselves practise the sin so fearfully and openly visited, there is the frequent repetition of energetic denunciations of that sin; and Moses is directed to urge the Israelites, with all earnestness and affection, to take heed that they provoke not the Lord by following the example of their predecessors in the land. You must be further aware, that so far from having been unnecessary, the warning actually failed in deterring the Israelites from the accursed practices; so that it was not against improbable danger that Moses directed his parting admonitions. For when the Israelites had destroyed the Canaanites, and taken possession of their land, they quickly gave in to the very abominations which had been visited with all the fearfulness of a public execution. You read of them in the earliest period of their settlement — "They forsook the Lord, and served Baal and Ashtaroth." And their whole history, up to the time when God was provoked to let loose against them the power of the Assyrian, is a record of rebellion under those special and flagrant forms which had marked the guilty career of the tribes which had perished by their sword. Where, then, was the supposed influence of a public execution? What ground is there for the imagination, that even were the Almighty visibly to interfere, and in His character of moral Governor of the universe to anticipate in certain cases those judgments which shall hereafter be poured out on the impenitent, there would be wrought any permanent effect on the great mass of men? — as though the thing wanted in order to repress the actings of unrighteousness were only a more open and express demonstration that punishment is to follow upon sin. And now you may be disposed to ask with what view we have endeavoured to show, that even what might be called a public execution, the present visible descent of the vengeance of God on the perpetrators of certain sins, would probably be ineffectual in deterring others from the practice of those sins — ineffectual even in regard of such persons as had the best means of knowing that the infliction was the direct and judicial consequence of the crime. We have but one object; not that of merely presenting a severe and repulsive picture of the depravity of our nature, but that of shutting you up to the conviction of the necessity, the indispensableness of the Divine grace, in order to your being withheld from the commission of sin. We would withdraw you, if we could, from all reliance on anything but the immediate workings of the Spirit of God, when the matter in question is the being able to resist this or that temptation, or to keep oneself undefiled by this or that wickedness. We would teach you, however harsh the teaching may sound, that there is no wickedness of which you are not capable, and that if you think yourselves secure against a sin just because the sin may be held in abhorrence, or because you may be thoroughly aware of God's purpose of visiting it with extraordinary vengeance, you display a confidence in your own resolution and strength which, as savouring of pride, can only be expected to issue in defeat. This is virtually the doctrine of our text. For you will perceive that God ascribes it wholly to Himself that the Israelites were preserved from the abominations of the heathen. "These nations hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners; but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do." They would have been just as bad had they been left to themselves; but God had not suffered them to fall into such flagrant transgression. He had so acted upon them by His grace as to preserve them from sins, of which they had the seeds in their hearts, just as much as others, in whom those seeds were allowed to bring forth their fruits. And though the text speaks only of the past, making mention of preventing grace as having hitherto wrought upon the Israelites, it is clearly implied in the fact of a remonstrance against any future imitation of the heathen, that there would be no security for them except in their being still withheld by the influences of God's Spirit. ( H. Melvill, B. D. ) A Prophet...like unto me. Deuteronomy 18:15 Christ the greatest of the prophets Cunningham Geikie, D. D. I. THE OFFICE OF A PROPHET IN ANCIENT ISRAEL. He was the voice of God to the nation. 1. Prophets are found from the earliest times in Israel ( Genesis 20:7 ; Psalm 105:15 ). In the times of the Judges ( Judges 4:4, 6, 14 ; Judges 6:7 ). Samuel the founder of a settled order of prophets ( Acts 3:24 ). Continued now in Christian ministry. 2. Note that God appoints prophets (or speakers), not the priests, as His representatives and specially commissioned messengers. 3. The awful responsibility of the speaker for God to say only what God has commanded. 4. The word of the prophet was to be tested by its fulfilment (ver. 22). II. THE PROMISE OF THE TEXT PERMANENTLY FULFILLED IN CHRIST. Applied by Christ and His apostles ( Acts 3:22 ; Acts 5:37 ; John 5:46 ). 1. Christ and Moses alike in some points.(1) Both founders of God's kingdom.(2) Both received God's will from immediate and direct communion with God; not in visions, dreams, etc., like the other prophets. 2. Christ and Moses contrasted in other respects.(1) Moses a sinful man; Christ absolutely holy.(2) Moses gave the law which kills; Christ brought grace and truth, which take away sin.(3) Moses founded an outward worldly theocracy, which could only be imperfect and temporary; Christ a spiritual kingdom of God, which overcomes sin and death, and is eternal.(4) The relations of God to Moses were given among the terrors of Sinai, which men could not bear. Christ came veiling the splendours of God in His lowly humanity, and drawing men to Him. III. IMPERATIVE DUTY TO HEARKEN TO CHRIST ( Matthew 17:5 ). ( Cunningham Geikie, D. D. ) The similarity between Moses and Christ W. M. Taylor, D. D. As Moses, in the early part of his, career, refused the Egyptian monarchy, because it could be gained by him only by disloyalty to God, so Jesus turned away from the kingdoms of the World and the glory of them, because they were offered on condition that He would fall down and worship Satan. As Moses became the emancipator of his people from their house of bondage, so Jesus lived and died that He might save His people from their sins; as Moses, penetrating to the soul of the symbolism of idolatry, introduced a new dispensation wherein symbolism was allied to spirituality of worship, so Jesus, seizing the spirituality of the Mosaic system, freed it from its national restrictions, and ushered in the day when neither at Jerusalem nor at Gerizim would men seek to localise the service of Jehovah, but the true worshipper would worship the Father anywhere, believing that the character of the worship is of infinitely higher importance than the place where it is offered; as Moses was preeminently a lawgiver, so Jesus speaks with authority, and has, in His Sermon on the Mount, laid down a code which not only expounds, but expands and glorifies, or, in one word, fulfils the precepts of the Decalogue; as Moses stood the mediator of a covenant between God and Israel, representing God to the people, and representing the people to God, interceding for them when they sinned, while at the same time he admitted and condemned their guilt, so Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant, standing between God and man, and bridging, by His atonement and intercession, the gulf between the two. We cannot wonder, therefore, that, in the vision of the Apocalypse, they who have gotten the victory over the beast and his image are represented as singing "the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb." ( W. M. Taylor, D. D. ) The prophet like unto Moses I. THE NECESSITY for a Mediator. 1. There was a necessity for a mediator in the case of the Israelites, first, because of the unutterable glory of God, and their own inability to endure that glory, either with their eye, their ear, or their mind. 2. This sufficient reason is supported by another most weighty fact, namely, that God cannot commune with men because of their sin. II. THE PERSON of the appointed Mediator. Dwell upon this fact, that our Lord Jesus was raised up from the midst of us, from among our brethren. In Him is fulfilled that glorious prophecy, "I have exalted One chosen out of the people." He was not one who boasted His descent, or gloried in the so-called blue blood, or placed Himself among the Porphyro-geniti , who must not see the light except in marble halls. He was born in a common house of entertainment where all might come to Him, and He died with His arms extended as a pledge that He continued to receive all who came to Him. The main point, however, upon which I want to dwell is, that Jesus is like to Moses. There had been no better mediator found than Moses up to Moses' day; the Lord God, therefore, determined to work upon that model with the great prophet of His race, and He has done so in sending forth the Lord Jesus. 1. I can only mention in what respects, as a Mediator, Jesus is like to Moses, and surely one is found in the fact that Moses beyond all that went before him was peculiarly the depositary of the mind of God. 2. Moses, to take another point, is the first of the prophets with whom God kept up continuous revelation. To other men He spake in dreams and visions, but to Moses by plain and perpetual testimony. 3. Moses is described as a prophet mighty in word and deed, and it is singular that there never was another prophet mighty in word and deed till Jesus came. 4. Moses, again, was the founder of a great system of religious law, and this was not the case with any other but the Lord Jesus. 5. Moses was faithful before God as a servant over all His house, and so was Jesus as a Son over His own house. He is the faithful and true Witness, the Prince of the kings of the earth. 6. Moses, too, was zealous for God and for His honour. Remember how the zeal of God's house did cat him up. When he saw grievous sin among the people, he said, "Who is on the Lord's side?" and there came to him the tribe of Levi, and he said, "Go in and out, and slay ye everyone his men that were joined to Baal-peor." Herein he was the stern type of Jesus, who took the scourge of small cords, and drove out the buyers and sellers, and said, "Take these things hence: it is written, My Father's house shall be a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves"; for the zeal of God's house had eaten Him up. 7. Moses, by Divine grace, was very meek, and perhaps this is the chief parallel between him and Jesus. I have said, "by Divine grace," for I suppose by nature he was strongly passionate. There are many indications that Moses was not meek, but very far from it, until the Spirit of Cod rested upon him. He slew the Egyptian hastily, and in after years he went out from the presence of Pharaoh "in great anger." Once and again you find him very wroth: he took the tables of stone and dashed them in pieces in his indignation, for "Moses' anger waxed hot"; and that unhappy action which, occasioned his being shut out of Canaan was caused by his "being provoked in sprat so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips." Divine grace had so cooled and calmed him that in general he was the gentlest of men. But what shall I say of my Master? Let Him speak for Himself! "Come unto Me, all ye," etc. 8. Our Lord was like to Moses in meekness, and then to sum up all — Moses was the mediator for God with the people, and so is our blessed Lord. Moses came in God's name to set Israel free from Pharaoh's bondage, and he did it: Jesus came to set us free from a worse bondage still, and He has achieved our freedom. III. THE AUTHORITY of our great Mediator; and let this be the practical lesson — Hear ye Him. If sin had not maddened men they would listen to every word of God through such a Mediator as Jesus is. Alas! it is not so; and the saddest thing of all is that some hear of Him as if His story were a mere tale or an old Jewish ballad of eighteen hundred years ago. Yet, remember, God speaks by Jesus still, and every word of His that is left on record is as solemnly alive today as when it first leaped from His blessed lips. Note how my text puts it. It saith here, "Whosoever shall not hearken unto My words which He shall speak in My name, I will require it of him." Today God graciously requires it of some of you, and asks why you have not listened to Christ's voice. You have not accepted His salvation. Why is this? You know all about Jesus, and you say it is true, but you have never believed in Him: why is this? God requires it of you. ( C. H. Spurgeon . ) Of Christ's prophetical office This passage foretells the Saviour; it is spoken of Christ. There are several names given to Christ as a Prophet: He is called "the Counsellor" in Christ alone the angel of the Covenant is completed; "the Messenger of the covenant," "a Lamp," "the Morning Star." Jesus Christ is the great Prophet of His Church. I. HOW DOTH CHRIST TEACH? 1. Externally, by His Word ( Psalm 119:105 ). 2. Christ teaches these sacred mysteries inwardly by the Spirit ( John 16:13 ). II. WHAT ARE THE LESSONS CHRIST TEACHES? 1. He teaches us to see into our own hearts. The heart of man is a great deep, which is not easily fathomed. But Christ, when He teacheth, removes the veil of ignorance, and lights a man into his own heart; and now he sees swarms of vain thoughts, he blusheth to see how sin mingles with his duties, his stars are mixed with clouds, he prays, as Austin, that God would deliver him from himself. 2. He shows us the vanity of the creature. A natural man sets up his happiness here, worships the golden image, but he that Christ hath anointed with His eye-salve hath a spirit of discerning, he looks upon the creature in its night dress, sees it to be empty and unsatisfying, not commensurate to a heaven-born soul. 3. The excellency of the things unseen. Christ gives the soul a sight of glory, a prospect of eternity. III. HOW DOES CHRIST'S TEACHING DIFFER FROM OTHER TEACHING? 1. Christ teaches the heart. All that the dispensers of the Word can do is but to work knowledge, Christ works grace; they can but give you the light of the truth, Christ gives you the love of the truth; they can only teach you what to believe, Christ teacheth how to believe. 2. Christ gives us a taste of the Word. The light of knowledge is one thing, the savour another. Christ makes us taste a savouriness in the Word. 3. Christ, when He teaches, makes us obey. 4. Christ teaches easily. He can with the least touch of His Spirit convert; He can say, "Let there be light"; with a word He conveys grace. 5. Christ, when He teacheth, makes men willing to learn. 6. Christ, when He teacheth, doth not only illuminate, but animate. He doth so teach, as He doth quicken.Use — 1. See here an argument of Christ's Divinity: had He not been God He could never have known the mind of God, or revealed to us those secrets of heaven, those deep mysteries, which no man or angel could find out. Who but God can anoint the eyes of the blind, and give thee not only light but sight? 2. See what a cornucopia , or plenty of wisdom is in Christ, who is the great Doctor of His Church, and gives saving knowledge to all the elect. The body of the sun must needs be full of clarity and brightness, which enlightens the whole world: Christ is the great luminary, "in whom are hid all treasures of knowledge." 3. See the misery of man in the state of nature. 4. See the happy condition of the children of God, they have Christ to be their Prophet: "all thy children shall be taught of the Lord": "God is made to us wisdom." Labour to have Christ for your Prophet; He teacheth savingly, He is an interpreter of a thousand, He can untie those knots which puzzle very angels. Till Christ teach, we never learn any lesson; till Christ is made to us wisdom, we shall never be wise to salvation. IV. WHAT SHALL WE DO TO HAVE CHRIST FOR OUR TEACHER? 1. See your need of Christ's teaching. You cannot see your way without this Morning Star. 2. Go to Christ to teach you. And that we may be encouraged to go to our great Prophet —(1) Jesus Christ is very willing to teach us. Why else did He enter into the calling of the ministry but to teach the mysteries of heaven?(2). There are none so dull and ignorant but Christ can teach them. Everyone is not fit to make a philosopher's scholar of — a Mercury is not made out of every block of wood; but there is none so dull but Christ can make a good scholar of. Even such as are ignorant, and of low parts, Christ teacheth them in such a manner, that they know more than the great sages and wise men of the world.(3) Wait upon the means of grace which Christ hath appointed. Though Christ teacheth by His Spirit, yet He teacheth in the use of ordinances. Wait at the gates of wisdom's door.(4) If you would have the teachings of Christ, walk according to that knowledge which you have already. Use your little knowledge well, and Christ will teach you more. ( T. Watson . ) Our great Prophet J. Irons. I. First, consider THE PROPHETIC OFFICE OF CHRIST IN HIS CHURCH, for which He was preeminently qualified; and the first feature of His qualifications for that office which we shall mention is His Divine prescience. He sees the end from the beginning. Moreover, orthodox teaching pertains to the prophet's office, and here also our blessed Lord hath the preeminence, for He taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes. The sum of His teaching when on earth, as well as by His Spirit to this day, is life in Himself alone. II. Now proceed TO THE UNION AND AFFINITY DESCRIBED; "like unto Moses, and of their brethren." This sets forth Moses eminently a type of Christ, and we will name a few particulars in which the type and antitype are alike, though the latter infinitely surpasses the former. Moses was a man of fame, he was proclaimed "king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together." Jesus was proclaimed King of Zion by God the Father, saying, "I have set My King upon My holy hill of Zion," and there He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet; but here the antitype infinitely exceeds the type, for Moses could only reign over the people, but Jesus reigns both over and in their hearts. Moses was famed as a warrior, and Amalek and Moab felt his prowess — Sihon and Og fell before him; hut Jesus, as the Captain of our salvation, has "spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them," yea, He has vanquished death, hell, and the grave, and is still going forth upon His white horse (Gospel truth) from conquering to conquer. Moses was famed for meekness ( Numbers 12:3 ). Jesus, our Prophet, was like unto Moses, meek and lowly, and His meekness never failed, even when He endured the contradiction of sinners against Himself. The faithfulness of Moses is also recorded by the apostle to his honour, "Moses, verily, was faithful in all His house as a servant." He was faithful to God for his people, and he was faithful to the people for God. So our glorious Prophet was like him, and far surpassed him, as a Son over His own house: His very name is "Faithful and True," as the Holy Ghost tells us in the Apocalypse; and by His servant Isaiah He says, "Faithfulness is the girdle of His reins." III. Notice HIS BEING RAISED UP SUPERNATURALLY — "The Lord thy God" raised Him up. In fact, everything pertaining to Christianity must of necessity be supernatural; and all that religion which originates with fallen nature, and which fallen nature can comprehend, must be spurious. The question which our Lord put to the Jews respecting the ministry of John fixes the standard of real religion — "Is it from heaven or of me?" "Every good gift, and every perfect gift is from above," and, consequently, is supernatural — every act of faith, as well as the gift of it, is supernatural; yea, the very life of godliness in the soul is supernatural life. IV. This brings us to show THAT OUR GREAT PROPHET IS ENTITLED TO OBEDIENCE, YEA, THAT IT IS DEMANDED, "Unto Him ye shall hearken." Without this we cannot be reckoned among His sheep, for He says, "My sheep hear My voice"; when He speaks in His Word, by His ministers, or in the secret whispers of His love; they hearken to Him in these communications, whether they be for instruction, reproof, or comfort. As a Prophet He hath graciously said, "I will instruct thee, and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go." It is, therefore, our privilege, and must be our wisdom, to sit at His feet and hearken to His words. By hearkening to Him I understand the embracing of His embassy, as the sent of God the Father on the great errand of salvation; and this will include the receiving of every doctrine He preached — every privilege He bestows — and every precept He enjoins; all which requires great grace from Him. Again, in embracing His embassy, and so hearkening to this Prophet, there will be a settled reliance upon His person and work as the great subject of Old Testament prophecy; so that whoever reads the prophecies without an eye to Jesus, will find them but a dead letter without spirit or life. ( J. Irons. ) The need of a Mediator between God and man felt and acknowledged Essex Remembrancer. I. ON THIS GREAT OCCASION GOD WAS DEALING WITH THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AS THE MORAL GOVERNOR OF MEN, THE LAWGIVER AND JUDGE OF HIS ACCOUNTABLE CREATURES. II. THIS GRAND PUBLICATION OF GOD'S HOLY LAW AND SOVEREIGN WILL TO THE ASSEMBLED ISRAELITES, WAS ACCOMPANIED WITH SUITABLE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF AWE AND MAJESTY. III. THE ISRAELITES, BY THESE SYMBOLS OF AWFUL POWER AND HOLINESS, WERE FILLED WITH SOLEMN DREAD AND MADE APPLICATION TO MOSES, THAT IMMEDIATE COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOD MIGHT NO MORE BE GIVEN; BUT THAT HE WOULD BE THEIR MEDIATOR, RECEIVE THE COMMANDS OF GOD, AND DECLARE THEM TO THE PEOPLE. IV. OBSERVE GOD'S APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PEOPLE AND HIS COMPLIANCE WITH IT. ( Essex Remembrancer. ) The resemblance between Moses and Christ H. Melvill, B. D. I. CONSIDER MOSES AS A LEADER AND LAWGIVER. You are to observe that both Moses and Christ proved their commission by miracles — a thing that cannot be affirmed of any among the prophets of Israel. They both came to an enslaved race; they both set loose the prisoners; and, when proof of their authority was demanded, they both wrought wonders beyond human power — wonders which equally showed their dominion over the elements, and over life and death. Though one used his might in destroying, and the other only in works of benevolence, yet there was much the same opposition raised against the one and the other — the magicians contending with Moses, and evil spirits contending with Christ. And the deliverances effected by the two were singularly alike, bearing evidently the one towards the other, the relation of type and antitype. Moses broke the yoke from the necks of the captive people; Christ the yoke from the necks of the whole human race. But when Moses made a passage for Israel out of Egypt, all danger was not escaped, nor all difficulties surmounted. The former tyrants pursued the free tribes, and sought to recover the ascendency they had lost; and though Christ hath redeemed us from the power of Satan, and opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers, who knows not that evil spirits, eager to regain their former dominion, pursue those that follow the Captain of Salvation, and strive, with ceaseless energy, to prevent their final escape? When Moses led Israel out of Egypt, he did indeed tell them of a rich and goodly land, which God appointed as their inheritance, but he did not at once put them in possession of it; on the contrary, he conducted them into a dreary wilderness, where they were exposed to continual trials, and harassed with various afflictions. Is it not thus, also, with regard to our redemption? By Christ we hear of a mighty Canaan, reserved for the followers of the Redeemer, but there is not an immediate entrance; a wide desert has to be traced, set with snares and peopled with enemies, and it is only through much tribulation that we can take possession of the heritage. It is not only as a leader, but equally as a lawgiver, that Moses bears a striking resemblance to Christ. II. But we do not think that it was in his capacity as a leader and a lawgiver that Moses most eminently typified Christ. We go on to observe that MOSES ACTED AS A MEDIATOR between God and the Israelites; and if as mediator, then was he indeed like the Lord our Redeemer. The name of mediator is expressly given by St. Paul to Moses; for you will remember that, in writing to the Galatians, be says, "The law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." The reference here is unquestionably to Moses; and, therefore, his claim to being reckoned a mediator rests upon evidence which admits of no dispute. III. OBSERVE, MORE MINUTELY, THE PARTICULARS OF MOSES' LIFE. With regard to the very infancy of the two whom we wish to set before you as type and antitype, you will remember that Moses was wonderfully preserved when in childhood — preserved from Pharaoh's order; and thus was Christ preserved when Herod slew all the children in Bethlehem. Moses fled from his country to escape the wrath of the king, and then there came to him a message, "Go, return into Egypt for all the men are dead which sought thy life." Christ fled in like manner, and then there came a message, in almost the same words, to Joseph, "Return, for they are dead which sought the young child's life." Moses, as we before said, contended with the magicians, and forced them to acknowledge his power — Christ contended with evil spirits, and obtained from them a similar confession. Immediately before the emancipation of Israel, Moses instituted the Passover — immediately before redeeming mankind, Christ instituted the Lord's Supper. When Moses had to appoint elders, he appointed seventy — when Christ chose His disciples, He also chose seventy. Into the land that was to be conquered Moses sent twelve men as spies — when the world was to be subdued, Christ sent twelve men as apostles. How did Moses overcome Amalek? By extending both his arms, and keeping them stretched out. How did Christ subdue all men? Only by suffering His hands to be nailed to the Cross. As a prophet, Moses had to deal with a barbarous generation, who were not to be won over to the obeying of God; and who, consequently, with the exception of two, all pe

Benson Commentary Deuteronomy 18:1 The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance. Deuteronomy 18:1 . His inheritance — The Lord’s portion or inheritance, which God had reserved to himself, as tithes and first-fruits, and other oblations distinct from those which were made by fire. Deuteronomy 18:2 Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them. Deuteronomy 18:3 And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. Deuteronomy 18:3 . The maw — The Hebrew word here rendered maw, or stomach, may have another signification; and some render it the breast; others take it for the part which lies under the breast. Deuteronomy 18:4 The firstfruit also of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him. Deuteronomy 18:5 For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for ever. Deuteronomy 18:6 And if a Levite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel, where he sojourned, and come with all the desire of his mind unto the place which the LORD shall choose; Deuteronomy 18:6 . With all the desire of his mind — With full purpose to fix his abode, and to spend his whole time and strength in the service of God. It seems, the several priests were to come from their cities to the temple by turns, before David’s time; and it is certain they did so after it. But if any of them were not contented with this attendance upon God in his tabernacle, and desired more entirely and constantly to devote himself to God’s service there, he was permitted so to do, because this was an eminent act of piety, joined with self-denial, to part with those great conveniences which he enjoyed in the city of his possession. Deuteronomy 18:7 Then he shall minister in the name of the LORD his God, as all his brethren the Levites do , which stand there before the LORD. Deuteronomy 18:8 They shall have like portions to eat, beside that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony. Deuteronomy 18:8 . Like portions — With their brethren, who were in actual ministration: as they share with them in the work, so shall they in the encouragements. Besides that which cometh — The reason of this law was, because he that waited on the altar, ought to live by the altar; and because it was fit he should keep his money, wherewith he might redeem what he sold, if afterward he saw occasion for it. Mr. Henry adds a remarkable note here, especially considering he wrote upward of fourscore years ago. “A hearty, pious zeal to serve God and his church, though it may a little encroach upon a settled order, and there may be somewhat in it that looks irregular, yet ought to be gratified, and not discouraged. He that loves dearly to be employed in the service of the sanctuary, in God’s name let him minister. He shall be as welcome to God as the Levites, whose course it is to minister, and should be so to them.” Deuteronomy 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. Deuteronomy 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Deuteronomy 18:10 . That maketh his son or daughter pass through the fire — By a superstitious dedicating, or a cruel sacrificing of them, see on Leviticus 18:21 . That useth divination — Of which there were many sorts, as is implied in the original expressions here: ??? ????? , kosem kesamim, divining divinations, or with divinations. The meaning undoubtedly is, That seeketh to know or foretel things secret, or to come, by unlawful arts and practices. An observer of times — Superstitiously pronouncing some days lucky and others unlucky: or, an observer of the clouds, or heavens; for the word ????? , megnonen, here used, may be derived from ??? , gnanan, a cloud; and then it means, That divineth by the motion or figure of the clouds, the appearance or passage of meteors, by thunder, lightning, by the stars, the flying or chattering of birds, and the like. Or, deriving the word from ??? , gnain, an eye, qui præstigiis utitur, a juggler, one who causes things to assume a false appearance, practises illusions on people’s fancies, or deceives them by sleight of hand. An enchanter — Or a conjecturer, that endeavours, or pretends, to discover hidden things by a superstitious use of words or ceremonies, by observation of water or smoke, or tiny contingencies. Or, as the original word seems to be derived from ???? , nachash, a serpent, it means one that divines by means of serpents, of which kind of diviners we have many instances in the heathen poets, particularly Homer and Virgil. A witch — Supposed to be in covenant with the devil, and by his help to delude people’s senses, or hurt their persons, their cattle, or other property, through the use of evil arts. The same Hebrew word is translated witch also, Exodus 22:18 , where it is evidently intended to be taken in the same sense as here. But, Exodus 7:11 ; Daniel 2:2 , and Malachi 3:5 , where it occurs in the plural number, it is translated sorcerers, and interpreted by Aben Ezra of those who change and transform natural things so as to deceive the eyes of the beholders. Le Clerc translates the word, hariolus, soothsayer, because it is joined in the Scriptures with other species of divination. Deuteronomy 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. Deuteronomy 18:11 . Or a charmer — One that charmeth serpents or other creatures. Or rather, as the Hebrew ??? ??? , chober chaber, seems to mean, an astrologer, or such as, by the conjunction of the planets, pretended to foretel the events of men’s lives, or other future things. It must be observed that the eastern people were much addicted to divination of all kinds, and undertook no enterprise of importance without consulting their soothsayers; and therefore Moses uses these sundry expressions that he might prohibit it in all its forms. A consulter with familiar spirits — The original words ???? ??? , shoel ob, are here rendered by the Seventy, ????????????? , one that speaks out of his belly: but literally, it is one that consults or inquires of Ob. This word originally means a bottle, and was the name which the Hebrews gave to the spirit which was supposed to agitate these ventriloquists, because their bodies were violently distended, like leather bottles full of wine and ready to burst. See Doddridge on Acts 16:16 , where both St. Paul and St. Luke evidently consider the girl spoken of as being really possessed by what is there termed ?????? ??????? , a spirit of python, or divination, because the Greeks supposed it to be an inspiration from their god Apollo, whom they termed Pythius. A wizard — Hebrew, A knowing man; who by any forbidden ways undertakes the revelation of secret things. The Seventy render the word ???????????? , an observer of prodigies. A necromancer — Hebrew, One that seeketh unto the dead; that calleth up and inquires of them, as the witch of Endor is represented to have done. Dr. Waterland, after the Seventy, renders it, very properly, one that consults the dead. Their manner of doing this is stated to have been by visiting their graves in the night, and there lying down and muttering certain words with a low voice, by which means they pretended to have communion with them by dreams, or by the dead appearing to them. To this Isaiah has been thought to allude, Deuteronomy 8:19 ; Deuteronomy 29:4 . Deuteronomy 18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. Deuteronomy 18:13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 18:13-14 . Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God — Sincerely and wholly his, seeking him and cleaving to him, and to his word alone, and therefore abhorring all commerce and conversations with devils. Hath not suffered thee so to do — Hath not suffered thee to follow these superstitious and diabolical practices, as he hath suffered other nations to do, but hath instructed thee better by his word and Spirit, and will more fully instruct thee by a great Prophet. Deuteronomy 18:14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do . Deuteronomy 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; Deuteronomy 18:15 . Will raise up — Will produce and send into the world in due time. A Prophet of thy brethren, like unto me — These words are very remarkable, and deserve our very particular attention. Moses was now about to leave his people, and therefore informs them, for their comfort, that God would raise them up another prophet, who should speak unto them God’s words, and instruct them in his will. He has been understood by many eminent persons as foretelling hereby that God would raise up a succession of prophets in the Jewish Church for the instruction of his people. And, perhaps, this interpretation is not to be altogether rejected, 1st, Because this prediction is alleged here as a reason why they need not consult with diviners, as they should have prophets at hand to advise them whenever it was needful. 2d, Because the prophet here spoken of is opposed to the false prophets, and a general rule is hereupon given for the discovery of all succeeding prophets, whether true or false, Deuteronomy 18:20-22 . 3d, Because, as is here threatened, whenever the people did not hearken to, and obey these prophets, God required it of them, punishing them repeatedly, and that in a signal manner, by the sword of their enemies, by famine, and by captivity, especially the captivity of the ten tribes under Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria, and the captivity of Judah and Benjamin by Nebuchadnezzar, with the awful calamities preceding and following. The prediction, however, must of necessity be primarily interpreted of the Messiah. 1st, Because the text speaks of one prophet only, in the singular number, and not of many. 2d, Because the Messiah alone can with propriety be said to have been a prophet like unto Moses, it being simply denied, and that repeatedly, that any other prophet did, or should arise, like unto him. See Deuteronomy 34:10 ; Numbers 12:6-8 . God spoke to the other prophets in dreams and visions, or by the appearance of angels, but he conversed with Moses in a free and familiar way, mouth to mouth, and face to face, as it is expressed, as a man converses with his friend, Moses having his light in the divine will immediately from God, without the intervention of dreams, visions, or the appearance of angels. They only expounded and enforced the laws of God already given, none of them being, properly speaking, lawgivers, in the intermediate space between Moses and Christ. But Moses was properly a lawgiver, and that in a very extraordinary sense, delivering a law which was in general entirely new, and that with such authority and attestations from God, as had never been witnessed on earth before. Not many of these prophets wrought miracles, and those who did, can with no propriety be said to have resembled Moses in that respect. The first and the last of these instances of dissimilitude are particularly noticed in one of the passages above referred to. “There arose not a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face; in all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt; and in all that mighty hand and great terror which Moses showed in the sight of all Israel.” Add to all this that Moses was a mediator and a king as well as a prophet, in the former of which characters none of the ancient prophets resembled him, and none, except David, in the latter. But Christ was truly like him in all these greater, and in a variety of lesser respects. He was not only a prophet, but a priest and mediator, a king and lawgiver; and not only fully equalled, but infinitely surpassed Moses in the excellence of his ministry and work, the glory of his miracles, and in his familiar and intimate converse with God; being in the bosom of the Father, and the wisdom and word of God incarnate. 3d, The awful threatening denounced in this passage, ( Deuteronomy 18:19 ,) was most signally fulfilled with respect to those of the Jews that did not hearken to this prophet: the Lord most terribly required it of them, and continues to require it. For wrath came upon them to the uttermost, ( 1 Thessalonians 2:16 ,) by the Roman armies, in the siege and destruction of their cities, and especially of Jerusalem their capital city, and the utter ruin of their country; and the sad effects of that wrath they have felt for upward of seventeen hundred years, and continue to feel to this day. But, 4th, What perfectly places the matter beyond all doubt, this prophecy is expounded by God himself of Christ, and of Christ alone, in the New Testament. See Acts 3:22 ; Acts 7:37 ; John 1:45 ; John 5:45-46 ; John 6:14 . Deuteronomy 18:16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. Deuteronomy 18:17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. Deuteronomy 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. Deuteronomy 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. Deuteronomy 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? Deuteronomy 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Deuteronomy 18:22 . If the thing follow not — Which he gives as a sign of the truth of his prophecy. That is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken — The falsehood of his prediction shows him to be a false prophet. He hath spoken it presumptuously — Impudently ascribing his own vain and lying fancies to the God of truth. For though the mere fulfilling of a sign, or working of a bare miracle, was not to be considered as sufficient of itself to establish a false and wicked doctrine, as is stated Deuteronomy 13:1-3 ; yet, on the other hand, a man that pretended to work a miracle, or predict a future event, in confirmation of a message said to be received from Jehovah, or from some other god, and who failed in the performance of the miracle, or the thing foretold not coming to pass, evidently proved himself to be an impostor. Thou shalt not be afraid of him — That is, of his predictions or threatenings, so as to be deterred thereby from doing thy duty in bringing him to deserved punishment. 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 18:1 The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance. SPEAKERS FOR GOD - II. THE PRIEST Deuteronomy 18:1-8 THE priesthood naturally follows the kingship in the regulations regarding the position of the governing classes. But it was an older and much more radical constituent in the polity of Israel than we have seen the kingship to be. Originally, the priests were the normal and regular exponents of Yahweh’s will. They received and gave forth to the people oracles from Him, and they were the fountain of moral and spiritual guidance. The Torah of the priests, which on the older view was the Pentateuch as we have it, or its substance at least, which Moses had put into their hands, is much more probably now regarded as the guidance given by means of the sacred lot and the Urim and Thummim. Because of their special nearness to and intimacy with God, the priests were in contact with the Divine will and could receive special Divine guidance; and in days when the voice of prophecy was dumb, or in matters which it left untouched, the priestly Torah, or direction, was the one authorized Divine voice. But this was not the only function of the priests. Sacrificial worship was a more fundamental function. Wellhausen and his school indeed seem inclined to deny that as priests of Yahweh they had any Divinely ordered connection with sacrifice. But the truer view is that their power to give Torah to Israel depended entirely upon their being the custodians of the places where Yahweh had caused His name to be remembered. The theory was that, as they approached Him with sacrifices in His sanctuaries, they consequently could speak for Him; so that the guarding of His shrines, and the offering of the people’s sacrifices there were their first duties. In fact they were the mediators between Yahweh and Israel Yahweh was King, but He was invisible, and the priests were His visible earthly representatives. The dues, which in a merely secular state would have gone to the king, as rent for the lands held of him, were employed for their appointed uses by the priests, as the servants and representatives of the heavenly King who had bestowed the land upon Israel and allotted to each family its portion. Occupying a middle position, then, between the two parties to the Covenant by which Israel had become Yahweh’s chosen people, they spoke for the people when they appeared before Yahweh, and for Him when they came forth to the people. They were, as we have said, the oldest and most important of the ruling classes, and must have been from early times a special order set apart for the service of Israel’s God. The main passages in Deuteronomy which bear upon the position and character of the priesthood and of the tribe of Levi are the following. In Deuteronomy 18:1-8 ; Deuteronomy 10:6-9 , and Deuteronomy 27:9-14 the strictly priestly functions of the tribe of Levi are dealt with; in Deuteronomy 17:9 ff; Deuteronomy 19:17 , the judicial functions; in Deuteronomy 21:1-5 their function in connection with sanitary matters is referred to. Besides these there are the various injunctions to invite the Levites to the sacrificial feasts, because they have no inheritance, and a number of references to the priesthood as a well-known body, the constitution and duties of which did not need special treatment. These last are of themselves sufficient to prove beyond question that in dealing with the priests and Levites the author of this book writes from out of the midst of a long established system. He does not legislate for the introduction of priests, neither does he refer to a priestly system recently elaborated by himself, and only now coming into operation. He does not tell us how priests are to be appointed, nor from whom, nor with what ceremonies of consecration they are to be inducted into their office. In fact the writer speaks of what concerns the priests and Levites in a manner which makes it certain that in his day there were, and had long been, Levites who were priests, and Levites of whom it may at least be said that they were probably nothing more than subordinates in regard to religious duty. In a word, while presupposing an established system of priestly and Levitical service, he nowhere attempts to give any clear or complete view of that system. His whole mind is turned towards the people. It is about their duties and their rights he is anxious, about their duties perhaps more than their rights; and he touches upon matters connected with others than the people only in a cursory way. In this matter, especially, he clearly needs to be supplemented by information drawn from other sources, and his every word about it shows that he is not introducing or referring to anything new. Any modifications he makes are plainly stated and are limited to a few special points. The chief passage for our purpose is, however, Deuteronomy 18:1-8 , where we have the agents of the cultus defined, and directions for the dues to be given them. In Deuteronomy 18:1 these agents are clearly said to be the whole tribe of Levi; for the phrase "The priests, the Levites, the whole tribe of Levi," cannot mean the priests and the Levites who together make up the whole tribe of Levi. Notwithstanding the arguments of Keil and Curtiss and other ingenious scholars, the unprejudiced mind must, I think, accept Dillmann’s rendering, "The Levitical priests, the whole tribe of Levi," the latter clause standing in apposition to the former. In that case Deuteronomy must be held to regard every Levite as in some sense priestly. This view is confirmed by Deuteronomy 10:8 f., where distinctly priestly duties are assigned to the "tribe of Levi." Some indeed assert that this verse was written by a later edito