Rights of the Priests

NUMBERS 5

<040509> NUMBERS 5:9, 10
9. And every offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they bring unto the priest, shall be his.	9. Omnis oblatio sanctificationum in filiis Israel, sacerdoti quam efferent erit ipsius.
10. And every man’s hallowed things shall be his: whatsoever any man giveth the priest, it shall be his.	10. Qued quisque sanctificaverit sacerdotis erit, et tradetur in manum ejus.

9. And every offering. Thus far I have brought together the passages, in which Moses treats of the office of the priests, and have briefly expounded them, I will now begin to treat of their rights, i.e., of the honor which God invested them with, that He might have them ready and cheerful in their obedience. Here, however, Moses lightly touches upon what he more fully sets forth in other passages, as we shall presently see, viz., He assigns to the priests all the holy oblations, the various kinds of which He afterwards enumerates. Now, there were three principal grounds for this law; — First, Lest what had been already dedicated to God should be profaned by its promiscuous use; for, that the sacrifices might retain their proper dignity, it was necessary to distinguish the sacred from ordinary meats. Secondly, A vainglorious excess in respect to the ceremonies was restrained; for if after the victims were killed all the flesh had been returned to the owners, a desire of ostentation ¹ would have grown up amongst foolish men, the rich would have come emulously to gain applause, and when they had feasted magnificently, they would have exposed the rest for sale. Thus would they have abused their false pretense of worshipping God to the acquirement of favor towards themselves. The third ground is that which Paul touches upon, viz., that it is just that the ministers of the altar should live by the altar, (1 Corinthians 9:13;) for though it is an unworthy thing that the servants of God should be attracted by their hire, yet was God unwilling that the priests, when they had freely bestowed their labor on the worship of the sanctuary, should suffer from hunger, lest their alacrity might thus be repressed. For if they desired to execute their office properly, it was necessary that they should attend altogether to spiritual things, and abandon the care of their domestic affairs. If any should object that these were incentives to avarice, and that an excellent and profitable calling was set before the priests, the reply is easy: whatever came to their share, since it was restricted to their own eating, could not have been excessive in quantity; for they were not allowed to sell any, nor even to give it away to others, as we have already seen, and as will hereafter be repeated. Thus then the foul dishonesty of those, who taunt Moses as if he had enriched the priests by the spoils of the people, is abundantly reftired; for if there were any whose interests he would have desired to consult, surely his own sons would have been preferred to all; yet to them there is no reference here. Nay, whatever he grants to the priests, he takes away from his own sons and their posterity; as if he purposely deprived them of advantages which were not otherwise unlawful. In a word, the dignity of holy things was alone consulted, without any endeavor being made to enrich the priests.

NUMBERS 28

GO TO NUMBERS 28: 8-19

8. And the Lord spake unto Aaron. He now proceeds to state more fully what he had been lately adverting to, as to the rights of the priests with respect to the sacred oblations. We must, however, remember the contrast, which I spoke of, between the priests of the higher order and the Levites; for, whilst the family of Aaron is invested with peculiar honors, the other families of the tribe of Levi are abased. God, then, assigns to the priests alone all the offerings, in which was the greater consecration, called “the holy of holinesses.” ² An exception will afterwards appear; viz., that the whole was to be deposited, by way of honor, with the priests, out of which they were to pay a part to the Levites, who were performing their office in the service of the sanctuary. He tells them that this privilege is given them “by reason of the anointing,” lest the priests should pride themselves or magnify themselves on this score; for God’s gratuitous liberality ought to instruct us in modesty and humility. It is by this argument that Paul corrects and represses all vain boasting: “Why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” (1 Corinthians 4:7.) Now, the sons of Aaron had obtained their anointing by no other right, than that God had been pleased to elect them to it. This is also indicated by their privilege being spoken of as “a gift:” but God thus more expressly commends His grace, for He makes mention of His gift for another reason, i.e., that none should enter into any dispute or controversy with the priests on this point.

9. This shall be thine. He enumerates certain kinds of sacrifices which He desired to come to the share of the priests; viz., all the residue of the burnt-offerings; secondly, the minha, or meat-offering; thirdly, what was consecrated of the sin and trespass-offerings; although the following clause, “which they shall restore unto me,” seems to be added by way of restriction, as if it only designated those sacrifices of which mention will be elsewhere made, ³ and by which they purged themselves from the guilt of theft, unless it may perhaps be preferred to read it as if to the sin and trespass-offerings this third were added, wherein people restored what did not belong to them, that they might be freed from the guilt of theft. After this He adds the free gifts, which the children of Israel vowed, and the first-fruits of oil, as well as of wine and corn. But this distinction was laid down, that God might more surely prevent jealousy and ill-will; for if there had been any ambiguity, many disputes would have straightway arisen, and thus the reverence due to sacred things would have been impaired. At the same time, however, God prescribes to the priests, that none but males should eat of the burnt-offerings, and nowhere else but in the sanctuary; for there would have been danger (as we said before) that the dignity of these holy offerings would have been lessened, if they had been carried away to private houses and mixed with ordinary meats; besides, God was unwilling to indulge the priests in sumptuous living, but by the very sight of the sanctuary induced them to be frugal and sober in their repasts. For this was a kind of military discipline to encourage abstinence, that they should go away from their wife and family to take their meal. But whatever was offered as a vow, and the first-fruits, He allows to be eaten of by the women, and in their houses, provided only that no unclean person should touch what had once been sacred.

15. Every thing that openeth the matrix. The same thing is now ordained as to the first-born, viz., that the priests should have them also for themselves; though at the same time a distinction is inserted, that the first- born of man should be redeemed. With regard to unclean beasts, the owners were free either to redeem or to kill them. But, since this matter is not professedly treated of here, God only briefly declares that He gives to the priests whatever profit may be made of the first-born. The command that the first-born should be redeemed according to the estimation of the priests, does not mean that the priests should themselves prescribe the value, as if they had the authority to do so; but that estimation is referred to by which they were bound according to God’s command, as we saw elsewhere; and this may be readily gathered from the context, because the price is presently added, which God Himself had fixed. As to the firstborn of clean animals, another law is given, viz., that they should be killed at the altar, and their fat burned, whilst the flesh was to belong to the priests, like the breast and the right shoulder of the burnt-offerings. But, lest any of the Levites or of the people — since men are always eager for innovation — should ever attempt to violate this decree, all controversy is removed in future ages, when God declares that what He gave to the priests He would never have taken away from them. First, He uses the word edict or decree, ⁴ which others translate “statute:” and then adds the title “covenant,” ⁵ in order that its observation may be more sacred, and less exposed to contentions and quarrels; for nothing could be more indecent than that the priests should dispute regarding their rights and privileges. God, then, signifies that He shall be Himself outraged, if any one should trouble the priests. By the word “salt,” perpetuity is metaphorically expressed; in which, however, God appears to allude to the sacrifices, which it was not lawful to offer unless seasoned with salt; that the Israelites might learn that, by earthly and corruptible things, something greater was designated; for we know that salted meats do not so easily become corrupt. In a word, this metaphor implies inviolable stability.

LEVITICUS 6

GO TO LEVITICUS 6: 16-18, 26-29

16. And the remainder thereof. He repeats what we have seen just before, that the residue of those oblations, in which there was peculiar holiness, should belong to the priests; but upon condition that they should be eaten nowhere except in the sanctuary. A special precept is also given as to the minha, (meat-offering,) that it should not be made into leavened bread; for thus the meal, which had been already dedicated to God, would be changed into common food, which could not be done without profanation. Since, then, God admits the priests, as it were, to His own table, the dignity of their office is not a little heightened by this privilege; yet in such a manner as that by their liberty the reverence due to God’s service may not be impaired. Afterwards Moses confirms in general terms that right, which had been before assigned to them, that they should take what remained of the burnt-offerings, on condition that it should be eaten by males only, and in the sacred place; in order that God’s presence may not only act as a restraint on their luxury and intemperance, but, also instruct them in the sobriety due from His servants, and, in a word, accustom them to exceeding purity, whilst they reflect that they are separated from all others. At the end of ver. 18, some translate it in the neuter gender, “every thing that shall have touched them shall be holy:” but in this passage Moses seems to me to prescribe that none but the priests should touch the minha. It was said elsewhere of the altar and its vessels, that by virtue of their anointing they sanctified whatever was placed upon them; but we now see that ordinary men are prohibited from touching sacred things, that their sanctity may be inviolate. For we know that the sons of Aaron were anointed with this object, that they alone might be allowed to touch whatever was consecrated to God. Therefore the verb in the future tense is put for the imperative. So also it is soon afterwards said of the victims, ver. 27, “Whosoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy:” ⁶ because Moses enacts this special law for the priests, that they alone should handle the sacrifices. Nor does what immediately follows contradict this, “when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof on any garment,” etc.; for he does not mean to say that the garments or any vessels would be consecrated by the mere touch; but it is an argument from the less to the greater; if it were not lawful to take a garment sprinkled with the blood, or the pots in which the flesh was dressed, out of the tabernacle, unless the garment were washed, or the pots broken or rinsed, much more were they to beware lest any of the ordinary people should meddle with it. For how shall a mortal man dare to lay a hand upon that holy thing (sanctitati) which could not even cleave to the garment; of a priest without atonement? The sum is that a thing so holy should not be mixed with unhallowed things.

NUMBERS 5

NUMBERS 5:8

<040508> NUMBERS 5:8
8. But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto the Lord, even to the priest, beside the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him.	8. Si non fuerit viro redhibitor cui restituat delictum, delictum restituetur Jehovae, sacerdotis erit, procter arietem expiationum quo expiebit eum.

8. But if the man have no kinsman. This passage, which I have inserted from chapter 5 is connected ⁷ indeed with another subject, and yet, because it directly refers to the right of the priests, it was necessary to remove it to this place, especially since it expresses that kind of sacrifice which Moses has lately adverted to, i.e., when they expiated the crime of theft. God did not indeed desire that the priests should be enriched by others’ losses, nor that thieves should go free, if they offered what they had stolen to the priests; but, if there were no one to whom they could restore it, He would have their houses delivered from (the proceeds of) their sin; and with very good reason, since otherwise the very gross offender would have never hesitated to plunder the goods of a dead man, if he were without heirs. First, therefore, He commanded their property to be restored to the lawful owners; and, if they were dead, He substituted their kinsmen, who are called גאלים, goelim, on account of the right of redemption, which God granted in the Law to relatives, as we shall see elsewhere; and because he who was next of kin was commanded to marry the widow of one who had left no seed. It was therefore a very uncommon thing that a person who had defrauded another had to recompense the loss to the priest; for in most cases some successor to the dead man would be found.

LEVITICUS 7

GO TO LEVITICUS 7: 6-10, 14, 31-36

GO TO NUMBERS 18: 20, 21, 23, 24

DEUTERONOMY 12:19

<051219> DEUTERONOMY 12:19
19. Take heed to thyself that thou forsake not the Levite as long as thou livest upon the earth.	19. Cave autem tibi ne derelinquas Levitam omnibus diebus tuis super terrain tuam.

NUMBERS 18:20. And the Lord spake unto Aaron. This passage only refers in general to the payment of those tithes which were common to all the Levites. We shall soon afterwards see that the Levites, by God’s command, paid other tithes to the priest; and a third sort will be added, which were only offered every third year. As to the present passage, God requires tithes of the people for the maintenance of the tribe of Levi. It is indeed certain that the custom had existed of old among the ancient patriarchs before the Law, that they should vow or offer tithes to God, as appears from the example of Abraham and Jacob. Moreover, the Apostle infers that the priesthood of Melchisedec was superior to that of the Law, because, when Abraham paid him tithes, he also received tithes of Levi himself. (Genesis 14:20; 28:22; Hebrews 7:11.) But there were two different and special reasons for this payment of tithes, which God ordained by Moses. First, because the land had been promised to the seed of Abraham, the Levites were the legitimate inheritors of a twelfth part of it; but they were passed over, and the posterity of Joseph divided into two tribes: unless, therefore, they had been provided for in some other way, the distribution would have been unequal. Again, forasmuch as they were employed in the sanctuary, their labor was worthy of some remuneration, nor was it reasonable that they should be defrauded of their subsistence, when they were set apart for the performance of the sacred offices, and for the instruction of the people. Two reasons are consequently laid down why God would have them receive tithes from the rest of the people, viz., because they had no part in Israel, and because they were engaged in the service of the tabernacle. Besides, God, who as their King laid claim to the tithes as His own right, resigns them to the Levites, and appoints them to be as it were His representatives. To this the words, “I am thine inheritance,” refer.

The manner in which the tithes were employed will be seen afterwards in its proper place: it will be sufficient now to remember that the part which God had taken away from them and transferred to the sons of Joseph was thus compensated for; and since they were withdrawn from domestic cares, that in the name of all the people they might be more at liberty for, and more intent upon, sacred things, an income for their maintenance was thus given them. Wherefore the Papal priests draw a silly inference, when they claim the tithes for themselves, as if due to them in right of the priesthood; else must they needs prove that those, whom they call the laity, are their tenants, as if they were themselves the lords of the twelfth part of all landed property; and again, it would be sacrilege to appropriate the tithes to their own use, and to possess other lands of which they receive the rent. Nor does that expression of the Apostle, which they no less dishonestly than ignorantly allege, help them at all,

“The priesthood being changed, the right also is at the same time transferred.” (Hebrews 7:12.)

The Apostle there contends, that whatever the Law had conferred on the Levitical priests now belongs to Christ alone, since their dignity and office received its end in Him. These blockheads, just as if they had robbed Christ, appropriate to themselves the honor peculiar to Him. If they duly performed their duties, and, giving up all earthly business, devoted themselves altogether to the instruction of the people, and to the execution of all the other offices of good and faithful pastors, unquestionably they ought to be maintained by the public; as Paul correctly infers that a subsistence is now no less due to the ministers of the Gospel than of old to the priests who waited at the altar, (1 Corinthians 9:14;) but under this pretext they unjustly lay hands on the tithes, as if they were their owners, and with still greater impudence accumulate landed properties and other revenues.

It is probable that when the Roman Emperors ⁸ first professed themselves Christians, either induced by just and proper feelings, or out of superstition, or impressed with a pious solicitude that the Church should not be without ministers, they gave the tithes for the maintenance of the clergy; for whilst the Roman State was kee, the people used to exact tithes from their tributary nations. And this was the case, too, where there were kings; for the Sicilians ⁹ paid tithes before the Romans obtained dominion over them. Moreover, if there was a scarcity of corn in the city, the senate demanded a second tithe of the provinces. Nay, we gather from 1 Samuel 8:15, that it was a most ancient custom for kings to receive tithes; so that we need not be surprised that the Romans should have imitated this example. Whence we may infer that, when the Emperors wished to bestow a maintenance on pastors out of the public stock, they rather chose a tenth than any other proportion, that they might imitate God. And in fact some traces of this still remain; for the tithes do not everywhere belong to the priests; and it is well known that a good part of them are swallowed up by monks and abbots, who were not formerly reckoned among the clergy. I need not say that some lands are tithe free. But how would the Pope have allowed them to be held by laymen, if, by divine right, (as they stupidly prate,) they had been the sacred inheritance of the clergy? In conclusion, inasmuch as titlies are to be counted amongst public imposts and tributes, let not private individuals refuse to pay them, unless they wish to destroy the political state and government of kingdoms; but let pious princes take care to correct abuses, so that idle bellies may not devour public revenues which are devoted to the Church.

I am thy part. I have just before explained the meaning of this clause, viz., that, because the Levites were excluded from the common inheritance, God compensates this loss out of what is His, as if they received it from His hand; as much as to say, that He in Himself afforded a supply abundantly sufficient for their remuneration. Meanwhile, they are commanded to be contented in Him alone. Nor can we doubt but that David alludes to this passage when he exclaims,

“The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance; the lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places,” (Psalm 16:5;)

for he intimates not only that God is more to him than all earthly wealth, but that in comparison with Him all that others accounted to be most excellent and delectable was worthless. Since now we are all made priests in Christ, this condition is imposed upon us, that we should seek no other portion. Not that we are actually to renounce all earthly goods, but because our felicity is so securely based on Him, that, contented with Him, we should patiently endure the want of all things, whilst those who possess anything should be no less free and unentangled than as if they possessed nothing.

LEVITICUS 27

GO TO LEVITICUS 27: 30-33

30. And all the tithe of the land. In these words God shews that in assigning the tithes to the Levites, He ceded His own rights, inasmuch as they were a kind of royal revenue; and thus He bars all complaint, since otherwise the other tribes might have murmured on being unduly burdened. He therefore appoints the priests as His receivers, to collect in His name what could not be refused without impious and sacrilegious fraudulency. In the provision that, where the tithes are redeemed by a money payment, a fifth part should be added to their value, the object is not that the Levites should make a gain of the loss of others; but, because the owners of property craftily aimed at some advantage in this commutation of corn for money, frauds are thus prevented whereby something would be lost to the Levites by this deceptive exchange. On the same grounds He commands that the animals, whatever they might be, should be given as tithe, and does not permit them to be redeemed by money, since, if the choice had been free, no fat or healthy animal would have ever come to the Levites. Therefore, in this law a remedy was applied to avarice and meanness, and not without good cause; for if the proverb be true, that “good laws spring from evil habits,” ¹⁰ it was necessary that so covetous and ill-disposed a people should be restrained in the path of duty by the utmost severity. And although such careful provision was made for the Levites, yet there was scarcely any period in which they did not suffer from want, and sometimes they wandered about half-starved; nay, after the return from the Babylonish captivity, the memory of so great a blessing did not prevent a part of the tithes from being surreptitiously withheld from them; as God complains in Malachi 3:8. Whence it appears that it was not without purpose that the people were so imperiously enjoined to pay them.

DEUTERONOMY 14

GO TO DEUTERONOMY 14: 22, 27-29

22. Thou shalt truly tithe. He repeats in general terms the law before enacted, whereby he claims for God the tithe of all the fruit. He does not, however, immediately declare to whom they are to be paid, but inserts some provisions respecting other offerings, which I have elsewhere explained. But when, soon afterwards, in verse 27, he recommends the Levites to them, he shews what is the proper use to which they are to be applied. He signifies that it would be cruel to defraud the Levites of them, ¹¹ and that they would be wicked and unjust if they were grudgingly to pay them the tithes, which were theirs by hereditary right, since their tribe possessed no inheritance in land.

28. At the end of three years. Those are mistaken, in my opinion, who think that another kind of tithe is here referred to. It is rather a correction or interpretation of the Law, lest the priests and Levites alone should consume all the tithes, without applying a part to the relief of the poor, of strangers, and widows. In order to make this clearer, we must first observe, that not every third year is here prescribed, ¹² but that the years are counted from the Sabbatical year; for we shall elsewhere see that on every seventh year the land was to rest, so that there was no sowing nor reaping. After two harvests, therefore, the tithes of the third year were not the entire property of the Levites, but were shared also by the poor, the orphans, and widows, and strangers. This may easily be seen by calculating the years; for otherwise the third year would have often fallen on the Sabbatical one, in which all agriculture was at a stand-still. Now, this was a most equitable arrangement, that the priests and Levites having been well provided for during two years, should admit their poor brethren and strangers to a share. Some part was thus withdrawn from their abundance, lest they should give themselves up to luxurious habits; and thus it was brought about that not more than a twelfth portion every year should remain to them. In sum, there was one peculiar year in every seven in which the Levites did not alone receive the tithes for their own proper use, but shared them with the orphans, and widows, and strangers, and the rest of the poor. “They shall eat (He says) and be satisfied,” who would otherwise have to suffer hunger, “that the Lord may bless thee,” (verse 29;) by which promise He encourages them to be liberal.

DEUTERONOMY 26

GO TO DEUTERONOMY 26: 12-15

12. When thou hast made an end of tithing. In this passage Moses urgently stimulates them to offer the tithes willingly and abundantly, by placing God, as it were, before their eyes, as if they paid them into his hand: for a solemn protestation is enjoined, in which they condemn themselves as guilty before God, if they have not faithfully paid the tax imposed upon them; but they pray for grace and peace if they have honestly discharged their duty. For nothing can be more awakening to men, than when ¹³ God is introduced as the judge of any particular matter. This is the reason why he commands them to protest in God’s sight that they have obeyed His ordinance in the payment of their tithes. To separate, or “bring away out of the house,” is equivalent to their being conscious of no fraud in withholding from God what was His; and thus that they were guiltless of sacrilege, since they had not diverted anything holy to their private use. What follows, “I have not transgressed thy commandments, neither have I forgotten them,” must only be referred to the matter in hand; for it would have been too great an act of temerity and arrogance in them, to have boasted that they had kept and fulfilled the Law in every part and parcel. Still this manner of speaking signifies desire rather than perfection; as if they had said, that it was the full purpose of their minds to obey God’s precepts. We must remember, however, what I have said, that this properly refers to the legal ceremonies. With the same meaning it is soon after said, “I have done according to all that thou hast commanded me:” for if they had gloried in their perfection, they had no need of sacrifices, or other means of purification. But as I have just said, God only invites them to examine themselves, ¹⁴ so that they may in sincerity of heart call upon Him as the witness of their piety.

14. I have not eaten thereof in my mourning (tristitia). It is clear that the sacred offerings are here spoken of; but the question is, what is meant by eating in mourning? This is the exposition received by almost universal consent; that although want may have tempted them to theft and fraud, yet the people assert that, even in their poverty and straits, they have abstained from the hallowed things; and to this I willingly assent; although this word “mourning” may be taken for the anxiety of a mind conscious of its iniquity in this sense, “I have not knowingly and willingly eaten anything consecrated to God, so that the hot iron (cauterium) of an evil conscience should burn me, in the way in which man’s guilt ever torments and troubles him.” As to the second clause, interpreters differ. Some translate the word ‘בער bagnar, ¹⁵ “to destroy:” as if it were said, that they had suffered nothing to perish through uncleanness; but others explain it, I have taken away nothing for a profane purpose. My own opinion is, however, that the word ‘טמא, tama, is used adverbially for “impurely,” so that the people testify that they are not polluted, or contaminated by withholding anything. ¹⁶ Thus, in my idea, some do not badly translate it “by uncleanness:” for it was not possible for the Israelites to apply the tithes to other uses, without contracting pollution by their wicked abuse of them. The ambiguity in the third clause is still greater; literally it is, “I have not given thereof to the dead.” In my version I have followed those who refer it to funeral rites; but some suppose that the word “dead” is used metaphorically for an unclean thing; others, in a less natural sense, for expenses, which do not contribute to support man’s life. But it does not yet appear wherefore it should he said that nothing had been spent on funeral rites. It is true that whatever had touched a dead body was unclean; and therefore some expound it, that the victims had not been polluted by any connection with funeral preparations. But if this sense is preferred, the expression must be taken by synecdoche for anything unclean. My own opinion however, is, that under this particular head all things are included which have a shew of piety. The burial of the dead was a praiseworthy office and a religious exercise; ¹⁷ so that it might afford a colorable pretext for peculiar laxity; in this word, therefore, God would have the Israelites declare, that they offered no excuse if they had misemployed any of the consecrated things.

15. Look down from thy holy habitation. Whilst they are commanded to offer their prayers and supplications, that God would bless the land, on this condition, that they had not defiled themselves by any sacrilege, at the same time they are reminded, on the other hand, that God’s blessing was not else to be hoped for. Meanwhile the expression is remarkable, “Bless the land which thou hast given us, a land that floweth with milk and honey:” for we infer from hence that the land was not so much fertile by nature, as because God daily watered it by His secret blessing to make it so.

NUMBERS 18

GO TO NUMBERS 18: 25-32

25. And the Lord spake unto Moses. This is another kind of tithe, i.e., a hundredth part of the whole produce, which the Levites paid to the priests. Some reckon a third kind; but I have given my reasons why I do not agree with this opinion. Assuredly it is not probable that in the same year double tithes were exacted and paid. Let this twofold division, therefore, be enough for us. A larger portion was given to the priests, not only as an honorable distinction, but. because greater holiness and integrity in expending them was expected from them; and also that they might meet many peculiar burdens. Lest then the Levites should be too sordid and niggardly, God declares that their theft would be no less wicked if they dealt dishonestly towards the priests, than as if the people should withhold any part of their own just share; for this is the object of the words, that the tithe of the tithes, which they are commanded to pay, should be as if they paid it from the threshing-floor and the wine-press, (ver. 27;) as though it were said that they were no more exempted from the second tithes, than the people from the first. The precept is then still further extended, viz., that they should offer a part of all the offerings. Thirdly, sincere liberality is inculcated upon them, that they should not lay aside as the priests’ portion anything that was lean or out of condition, or in any respect of inferior quality, but that they should rather offer whatever was most choice; for this is what is meant by the word חלב, cheleb, ¹⁸ which some translate adeps; the word pinguedo seemed more suitable, in which, however, there is a metaphor contained.

31. And ye shall eat it. Because the tithes were reckoned to be amongst the sacred oblations, a question might arise, whether it was lawful to eat them anywhere except in the sanctuary. God therefore declares, that when the Levites had separated the δευυτεροδεκάτας (the second tithes,) the residue passed into the nature and condition of ordinary meats; inasmuch as they might then eat in any place of the bread made of tithe-corn, like the produce of their own fields. The reason, which is subjoined, seems to be by no means appropriate; via, that it was the reward for the labor which they bestowed on the service of the tabernacle; for hence it was rather to be inferred, that this food was peculiarly destined for the ministers, whilst they were discharging their official duties, and keeping watch in the tabernacle, or killing the victims at the altar. But since by God’s command they were scattered over the whole land, and did not cease to be ministers of the tabernacle on account of the distance of their residence, it was justly permitted that, wherever they might be, they should eat of the meat appointed them by God. If it were allowable to take the particle כי, ki, ¹⁹ adversatively, the sense would be clearer. In the next verse he confirms the same declaration, i.e., that they should be free from all guilt when they had honestly paid the priests. Yet at the same time they are strictly admonished that they should not commit themselves by any fraud; for God declares that it would amount to sacrilege, if they should have thievishly embezzled any of it, and threatens them with capital punishment; for “to pollute the holy things” of the people, is equivalent to profaning whatever was consecrated in the name of the whole people.

DEUTERONOMY 18

GO TO DEUTERONOMY 18: 1-8

1. The priests, the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi. This chapter contains three principal heads; for first, God shews that there was no reason why the Israelites should be aggrieved at paying tithes to the Levites, and at remitting the first-fruits and other oblations to the priests, since this tribe was deprived of their inheritance. Secondly, He obviates all quarrels, and prevents unlawful gains and pilferings, by assigning their just share to the priests and Levites. Thirdly, He defines how the oblations should be parted among them, and what part of the victims the priests were to take. As to the first clause, since God was as it were the lot of their inheritance, they justly claimed to themselves the right which he had transferred to them. If it were disagreeable to the people that their revenue should be tithed, God came as it were between, and declaring that it was His property in His right as King, appointed the Levites to be His stewards and collectors for receiving it. There was then no ground for any one to raise a dispute, unless he chose professedly to rob God. But this declaration often occurs; since it was of great importance that the people should be assured that God accounted as received by Himself what He had assigned to the Levites; not. only lest any portion should be withheld from them, but also that every one should willingly pay the lawful dues of God’s ministers; and again, lest any should wickedly murmur because the first-fruits and some portion of the sacrifices were appropriated for the subsistence of the priests. Another reason is also expressed, why the honor assigned to the priests should be paid without grudging; viz., because God had appointed them to be the ministers of His service; but “the laborer is worthy of his hire.”

3. And this shall be the priests’ due. It is not only for the sake of the priests that God enumerates what He would have them receive, that they may obtain what is their own without murmuring or dispute; but He also has regard to the people, lest the priests should basely and greedily take more than their due; which sacred history relates to have been done by the sons of Eli, (1 Samuel 2:23,) for they had advanced to such a degree of licentiousness, that, like robbers, they seized violently on whatever their lust desired. Lest therefore they should give way to this gross covetousness, God prescribes to them certain limits, to which they were to confine themselves, so that if they transgressed them, it was easy for any of the people to convict them of avarice.

6. And if a Levite come. This third head more clearly explains what is elsewhere more obscurely declared; for God seemed to curtail from the Levites whatever He gave to the priests. But He now more distinctly places the priests in the first rank, yet so that they should admit the Levites on the score of their labor’s to a share of the oblations. This is the sum of the law, that the Levites who remained at home, should be content with the tithes, and touch nothing of the other offerings; but that from whithersoever they should come to the sanctuary, they were to be accounted as ministers and take their proper place. By this law then, it was provided that none should be excluded on the ground of the intermission of their duties; and that the condition of those that dwelt elsewhere should not be worse than of those who lived at Jerusalem. For although they might reside in other cities, they did not altogether cease from their ministry, since they had other duties to perform besides that of sacrificing the victims. Yet those who entirely devoted themselves to the work of the sanctuary, were endowed by God with double honor; since it was by no means just that they should be defrauded of their maintenance, who bade adieu to domestic cares and labors, and occupied themselves totally in holy offices. That this distribution was not superfluous, will best appear from the narrative of Josephus, who relates that the ²⁰ priests seized on the tithes by violence, and deprived the Levites of their subsistence by hostile measures.