that all the flesh of the firstlings belongs to the priests, nor in DE1uteronomy that the people are to eat all of it" (Curtiss). According to Exod. xxix. 27, 28, and Lev. vii. 28-34, the breast and the right shoulder of all thank offerings belonged t9 the priest; according to eh. XYiii. 3, he was to receive the fore leg, the two cheeks, and the maw. This latter ordinance is said to he an alteration of the earlier law, which cannot be supposed to have proceeded from Moses. But what is prescribed in Deuteronomy as the priest's due is not said there to be all that he shall receive; it appears rather as an addition to what the earlier law assigned to him. This is "eYidcnt from the context, since the heave leg and the Wa'l'"e breast belonged to the firings of Jehonh mentioned in ver. 1, which the priests had received as an inheritance from the Lord; that is to say, to the tenuplwth of the children of Israel, which the priests might eat with their sons and daughters, though only with such members of their house as were Le'l'"itically clean (Numb. xviii. 11); and also from the words of the present command, Tiz. that the portions mentionnd were to be a right of the priests on the part of the people, on the part of those who slaughtereci slain offerings, i.e. to be paid to the priest as a right that was due to him on the part of the people" (Keil). Whether it was from animals offered in sacrifice alone that this portion was to be given to the priests, or whether the right of the priests extended also to animals slain for domestic use, has been made a matter of question. But this is immaterial as regards the relation of the law in Deuteronomy to the law in Exodus and Leviticus; for in either case the portions assigned to the priests were a gift from the people, distinct from and in addition to what the priest claimed as part of his inheritance from the Lord. "In the other books the Levites appear always as servants of the s~nctuary, in sharp distinction from the priests the sons of Aaron.· In Deuteronomy the Le'l'"ites appear as sustaining priestly functions, and the priests are called 'BODS of Levi' or 'the priests the Levites,' as elsewhere only in the later books" (Bleek). That the priests should be d"escribed as" the sons of Aaron" is only what might be expected, inasmuch as the priesthood was restricted to the Aaronic family; and that they should be called " sons of Levi" and" Levites" is equally natural, seeing all the priests were descended from Levi, and belonged to that tribe. The only thing to be accounted for is that in the earlier books they should be described as "sons of Aaron" and never be called " Levites " or described as " sons of Levi," and that in Deute- ronomy they should never be described as "sons of Aaron" but always as "Levite,; " or "sons of Levi." Is this a mere difference of phraseology, or does it imply such a difference in the actual constitution of the priestly order as to necessitate the conclusion that the Book of Deuteronomy belongs to a later age than that of Moses? In regard to this it may be observed: ( 1) The mere fact that an author uses expressions, names, or titles which are found elsewhere only in books of later date, affords no proof that his book itself is of later date than that traditionally assigned to it, because the THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. u:v
expression11, names, or titles may bave originated with him or come into use in his time. (2) The mere fact that certain phrases or names used by an author are not found in books confessedly written by him but older than the date assigned to this particular book, affords no proof that his book was written at a much Inter date, because the new words, names, or phrases may have come into use during his lifetime, but after his earlier writings were issued. (3) As a considerable time elapsed between the writing of Exodus and Leviticus and the writing of Deuteronomy, phraseology which was :fitting at the earlier period may have become less :fitting at the later, and consequently Moses may have felt it necessary to depart in his latest writing from phraseology which he used freely in his earlier writings. ( 4) The appointment of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood preceded the consecration of the tribe of Levi to the service of the sanctuary, and was an appointment wholly independent of that tribe. The priesthood was at first that of a family, not that of a tribe; it was purely Aaronic,'not in any proper sense Levitical. At first, then, it was only as "sons of Aaron" that the priests could be designated ; but after the consecration of the tribe to which that family belonged, such designations as "sons of Levi," "the priests the Levites," became :fitting designations of the priests. The phrase "sons of Aaron" was thus the earlier, the phrase "sons of Levi" the later, formula of designation. It is not improbable that gradually the earlier designation fell into desuetude, and the later came to be that alone in use; and in this case Moses, writing near the end of his life, would naturally use the designation which by that time had come to be the pr0per designation of the priests. As respects the discharge of priestly functions by the Levites, it may be observed: (1) In the general that, as the tribe of Levi included the priestly order, what was done by the priests may be popularly described as done by Levites; just as one might say that a certain act was the act of the Church, though properly it was the act of only certain officials in the Church. On this principle we may account for its being stated that the tribe of Levi was separated by Jehovah to bless in his Name (eh. x. 8), though this was the special function of the priests ; just as in eh. x. 8 and xxxi. 25 it is said that it was the duty of the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the covenant, whereas this belonged specially to the Kohathites, a family in that tribe. (2) As in a graduated hierarchy the higher office includes the lower, so the duties properly belonging to the lower functionary may, on occasions of special solemnity, be undertaken by the higher. Thus we may account for the priests on special occasions bearing the ark, which ordinarily it was the part of the Kohathites to do ( cf. eh. uxi. 9). (3) When those who are set apart as ministers to a superior functionary are called actually to assist him in his service, they may without offence partake of the privileges which belong properly to the superior. On this ground we may account for the statement in eh. xviii. 1, 8, that the Levite who might of his own choice attend upon the service of the sanctuary INTRODUCTION TO