The Pulpit Commentary — Deuteronomy — Section 476

guote~ as further ev,i,den~e of diversity of ~~thor~hip._ S~ one bo~~ uses the expression to ~111 any rerson,. wh)le th_o other bas to _kill his neighbour -a difference snrely n?t mcompo.t1bl0 with 1dent1ty ?f authorsh!P: '.' The_ dcta,'.ed description of tho d1fforenco between murder and accidental hom1c1de 1s entirely diverse in hn"uage anrl detail." Ilut in Deuteronomy there is no "detailed description" of the kind referred to. 'fhere is in Numbers (xxxv. 16-24); but Deuteronomy confines itself to OilP- simple illustration from concrete life, arlmirahly adapted, it will be admitted, to the speaker•~ popular purpose (eh. xix. 5). 'l'he statement in Deuteronomy, it is evident, presupposes the earlier law, and is incomplete without it, occupying only a dozen verses, as compared with over twenty in Numbers, while even of the dozen, three are occupied with a new provision for the number of the cities being ultimately raised to nine (eh. xix. 8-10). II. DISOREPANCIES IN LAWS. Considering the number of the laws, the alleC;ed dis- crepancies are singularly few. On the "tithes," see eh. xxvi. 12; on the "finitlin"s," eh. xv. 20; "the priests' due," in eh. xviii. 3, seems, like the "fleece" of eh. xviii. 4~ to be in addition to the provision in Numb. xviii. 11-18; the law of carrion (eh. xiv. 21) is slightly modified in view of the altered circumstances of settlement in C,maan (cf. Lev. xvii. 15); and so with other instances. The chief modifications arise from the new legislation in re~ard to the central sanctuary, with the permission to kill and eat flesh at home (eh. xii. 20-24). On this depends the new tithe-laws (provision for the sanctuary feasts), the additions to the priests' portions, anrl various minor changes. nr. PECULIARITIES IMPLYING A LATER DATE. We need not delay on stray phrases, such as "unto this day" ( eh. iii. 14), or "as ls,ael did unto the land of his possession" (eh. ii. 12). 'fhe instances usually cited are not of great force, and are easily explicable as glosses. More important. cases are: 1. The central altar. On this, see under eh. xii. It suffices to meet, most objections to observe that, 0n the face of it, the Law bears that it was not intended to be put strictly in force till certain important conditions had been fulfilled-conditions which, owing to the disobedience of the people, who during the time of the judges so often put back the clock of their own history, were not fulfillc,l till as late as the days of David and Solom?n. For thus it reads (ver. 10), "When ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; then there shall be a place," etc. (cf. 2 Sam. vii. 1; 1 Kings iii. 2; v. 4). 2. Priests and Levites. The distinction between priests and Levites, which counts for so much in Leviticus and Numbers, is not, it is alleged, recognized in Deuteronomy. The phrase in use is not "pries ls and Levites" (which, however, as little as the other, occurs in the earlier books), but "the priests the Levites" ( eh. xvii. 9, 18; xviii. 1 ; xxiv. 8; xxvii. 9). They are not distinctively" the sons of .Aaron," but" sons of Levi" (eh. xxi, 5; xxxi, 9). "All Levites are possible priests." But the objection is deprived of its force when we discover, what any one can verify, that these same expressions were freely used, and used interchangeably with others, at a time when it is not doubted that the Levitical system was in full operation. This is the case in the Books of Chronicles, written, it is asserted, in the interest of that system, yet using this phrase, "the priests the Levites," without hesitation or sense of ambiguity (2 Chron. v. 5 ; xxiii. 18; xxx. 27). "'l'he priests the Levites" mean simply the Levitical priests; and when the tribe of Levi as a whole is meant, it is either expressly designated as such (eh. x. 8), or the designation is appended to tho other phrase as a wider denomination (eh. xviii. 1). Nor is the idiom a strange one. .At first, the priests," the sons of Aaron," stood out from tho people with sharp distinctness, as alone invested with sacred office. The case was greatly altered after the separation of the tribe of Levi; when the designa- tion" sons of Aaron" seems speedily to have been dropped for another identifying the priests more directly with their tribe. "Sons of Aaron '' is not found in the latter part of Numbers. Priests and Levites had more in common with each other than either class had with the body of the people; and besides, the priests were Levite8. So that to the popular eye, the tribo of Levi stood apart, forming, as a whole, one sacred body, engaged in ministerina in holy things to God. Sacerdotal functions are attributed to the tribe, but not necessarily to all members of it ( eh. x. 8; xviii. 7). (On the ministering of the Levites, comp. 1 Chron. xv. 2; 2 Chron. xxix. 11; xxxi. 2). The counter-theory, that this dis- tinction had no existence under the kings, and first originated in the time of the exile, is without a jot of evidence in the Books of Kings, and only escapes fou:oclcring on the 488 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. ten. xut. 1-80.