Sons of the Lord: Clean Food, Holy People, and the Tithe That Teaches Covenant Economics

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:3-21 With reference to food, the Israelites were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev 11 relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vv. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev 11); ); also in Deu 14:21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Exo 32:30 and Lev 17:15), and against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (as in Exo 23:19).

Deu 14:22-23 As the Israelites were to sanctify their food, on the one hand, positively by abstinence from everything unclean, so were they, on the other hand, to do so negatively by delivering the tithes and firstlings at the place where the Lord would cause His name to dwell, and by holding festal meals on the occasion, and rejoicing there before Jehovah their God. This law is introduced with the general precept, “ Thou shalt tithe all the produce of thy seed which groweth out of the field (יצא construes with an accusative, as in Gen 9:10, etc.)

year by year ” (שׁנה שׁנה, i. e. , every year; cf. Ewald , §313, a .) , which recalls the earlier laws concerning the tithe (Lev 27:30, and Num 18:21, Num 18:26.) , without repeating them one by one, for the purpose of linking on the injunction to celebrate sacrificial meals at the sanctuary from the tithes and firstlings. Moses had already directed (Deu 12:6.)

that all the sacrificial meals should take place at the sanctuary, and had then alluded to the sacrificial meals to be prepared from the tithes, though only causally, because he intended to speak of them more fully afterwards. This he does here, and includes the firstlings also, inasmuch as the presentation of them was generally associated with that of the tithes, though only causally, as he intends to revert to the firstlings again, which he does in Deu 15:19.

The connection between the tithes of the fruits of the ground and the firstlings of the cattle which were devoted to the sacrificial meals, and the tithes and first-fruits which were to be delivered to the Levites and priests, we have already discussed at Deut 12. The sacrificial meals were to be held before the Lord, in the place where He caused His name to dwell (see at Deu 12:5), that Israel might learn to fear Jehovah its God always; not, however, as Schultz supposes, that by the confession of its dependence upon Him it might accustom itself more and more to the feeling of dependence.

For the fear of the Lord is not merely a feeling of dependence upon Him, but also includes the notion of divine blessedness, which is the predominant idea here, as the sacrificial meals were to furnish the occasion and object of the rejoicing before the Lord. The true meaning therefore is, that Israel might rejoice with holy reverence in the fellowship of its God.

Deu 14:22-23 As the Israelites were to sanctify their food, on the one hand, positively by abstinence from everything unclean, so were they, on the other hand, to do so negatively by delivering the tithes and firstlings at the place where the Lord would cause His name to dwell, and by holding festal meals on the occasion, and rejoicing there before Jehovah their God. This law is introduced with the general precept, “ Thou shalt tithe all the produce of thy seed which groweth out of the field (יצא construes with an accusative, as in Gen 9:10, etc.)

year by year ” (שׁנה שׁנה, i. e. , every year; cf. Ewald , §313, a .) , which recalls the earlier laws concerning the tithe (Lev 27:30, and Num 18:21, Num 18:26.) , without repeating them one by one, for the purpose of linking on the injunction to celebrate sacrificial meals at the sanctuary from the tithes and firstlings. Moses had already directed (Deu 12:6.)

that all the sacrificial meals should take place at the sanctuary, and had then alluded to the sacrificial meals to be prepared from the tithes, though only causally, because he intended to speak of them more fully afterwards. This he does here, and includes the firstlings also, inasmuch as the presentation of them was generally associated with that of the tithes, though only causally, as he intends to revert to the firstlings again, which he does in Deu 15:19.

The connection between the tithes of the fruits of the ground and the firstlings of the cattle which were devoted to the sacrificial meals, and the tithes and first-fruits which were to be delivered to the Levites and priests, we have already discussed at Deut 12. The sacrificial meals were to be held before the Lord, in the place where He caused His name to dwell (see at Deu 12:5), that Israel might learn to fear Jehovah its God always; not, however, as Schultz supposes, that by the confession of its dependence upon Him it might accustom itself more and more to the feeling of dependence.

For the fear of the Lord is not merely a feeling of dependence upon Him, but also includes the notion of divine blessedness, which is the predominant idea here, as the sacrificial meals were to furnish the occasion and object of the rejoicing before the Lord. The true meaning therefore is, that Israel might rejoice with holy reverence in the fellowship of its God.

Deu 14:24 In the land of Canaan, however, where the people would be scattered over a great extent of country, there would be many for whom the fulfilment of this command would be very difficult-would, in fact, appear almost impossible. To meet this difficulty, permission was given for those who lived at a great distance from the sanctuary to sell the tithes at home, provided they could not convey them in kind, and then to spend the money so obtained in the purchase of the things required for the sacrificial meals at the place of the sanctuary.

ממּך ירבּה כּי, “ if the way be too great (too far) for thee ,” etc. , sc. , for the delivery of the tithe. The parenthetical clause, “if Jehovah thy God shall bless thee,” hardly means “if He shall extend thy territory” ( Knobel ), but if He shall bless thee by plentiful produce from the field and the cattle.

Deu 14:25-27 “ Turn it into money ,” lit., “give it up for silver,” sc., the produce of the tithe; “and bind the silver in thy hand,” const. praegnans for “bind it in a purse and take it in thy hand...and give the silver for all that thy soul desireth, for oxen and small cattle, for wine and strong drink,” to hold a joyous meal, to which the Levite was also to be invited (as in Deu 12:12, Deu 12:18, and Deu 12:19).

Deu 14:25-27 “ Turn it into money ,” lit., “give it up for silver,” sc., the produce of the tithe; “and bind the silver in thy hand,” const. praegnans for “bind it in a purse and take it in thy hand...and give the silver for all that thy soul desireth, for oxen and small cattle, for wine and strong drink,” to hold a joyous meal, to which the Levite was also to be invited (as in Deu 12:12, Deu 12:18, and Deu 12:19).

Deu 14:25-27 “ Turn it into money ,” lit., “give it up for silver,” sc., the produce of the tithe; “and bind the silver in thy hand,” const. praegnans for “bind it in a purse and take it in thy hand...and give the silver for all that thy soul desireth, for oxen and small cattle, for wine and strong drink,” to hold a joyous meal, to which the Levite was also to be invited (as in Deu 12:12, Deu 12:18, and Deu 12:19).

Deu 14:28-29 Every third year, on the other hand, they were to separate the whole of the tithe from the year’s produce (“bring forth,” sc. , from the granary), and leaven it in their gates (i. e. , their towns), and feed the Levites, the strangers, and the widows and orphans with it. They were not to take it to the sanctuary, therefore; but according to Deu 26:12.

, after bringing it out, were to make confession to the Lord of what they had done, and pray for His blessing. “ At the end of three years: ” i. e. , when the third year, namely the civil year, which closed with the harvest (see at Exo 23:16), had come to an end. This regulation as to the time was founded upon the observance of the sabbatical year, as we may see from Deu 15:1, where the seventh year is no other than the sabbatical year.

Twice, therefore, within the period of a sabbatical year, namely in the third and sixth years, the tithe set apart for a sacrificial meal was not to be eaten at the sanctuary, but to be used in the different towns of the land in providing festal meals for those who had no possessions, viz. , the Levites, strangers, widows, and orphans. Consequently this tithe cannot properly be called the “third tithe,” as it is by many of the Rabbins, but rather the “poor tithe,” as it was simply in the way of applying it that it differed from the “second” (see Hottinger, de decimies, exerc.

viii. pp. 182ff. , and my Archäol . i. p. 339). As an encouragement to carry out these instructions, Moses closes in Deu 14:29 with an allusion to the divine blessing which would follow their observance.

Deu 14:28-29 Every third year, on the other hand, they were to separate the whole of the tithe from the year’s produce (“bring forth,” sc. , from the granary), and leaven it in their gates (i. e. , their towns), and feed the Levites, the strangers, and the widows and orphans with it. They were not to take it to the sanctuary, therefore; but according to Deu 26:12.

, after bringing it out, were to make confession to the Lord of what they had done, and pray for His blessing. “ At the end of three years: ” i. e. , when the third year, namely the civil year, which closed with the harvest (see at Exo 23:16), had come to an end. This regulation as to the time was founded upon the observance of the sabbatical year, as we may see from Deu 15:1, where the seventh year is no other than the sabbatical year.

Twice, therefore, within the period of a sabbatical year, namely in the third and sixth years, the tithe set apart for a sacrificial meal was not to be eaten at the sanctuary, but to be used in the different towns of the land in providing festal meals for those who had no possessions, viz. , the Levites, strangers, widows, and orphans. Consequently this tithe cannot properly be called the “third tithe,” as it is by many of the Rabbins, but rather the “poor tithe,” as it was simply in the way of applying it that it differed from the “second” (see Hottinger, de decimies, exerc.

viii. pp. 182ff. , and my Archäol . i. p. 339). As an encouragement to carry out these instructions, Moses closes in Deu 14:29 with an allusion to the divine blessing which would follow their observance.

Deu 15:1-2 On the Year of Release. - The first two regulations in this chapter, viz. , Deu 15:1-11 and Deu 15:12-18, follow simply upon the law concerning the poor tithe in Deu 14:28-29. The Israelites were not only to cause those who had no possessions (Levites, strangers, widows, and orphans) to refresh themselves with the produce of their inheritance, but they were not to force and oppress the poor.

Debtors especially were not to be deprived of the blessings of the sabbatical year (Deu 15:1-6). “ At the end of seven years thou shalt make a release . ” The expression, “at the end of seven years,” is to be understood in the same way as the corresponding phrase, “at the end of three years,” in Deu 14:28. The end of seven years, i. e. , of the seven years’ cycle formed by the sabbatical year, is mentioned as the time when debts that had been contracted were usually wiped off or demanded, after the year’s harvest had been gathered in (cf.

Deu 31:10, according to which the feast of Tabernacles occurred at the end of the year). שׁמטּה, from שׁמט morf ,, to let lie, to let go (cf. Exo 23:11), does not signify a remission of the debt, the relinquishing of all claim for payment, as Philo and the Talmudists affirm, but simply lengthening the term, not pressing for payment. This is the explanation in Deu 15:2 : “ This is the manner of the release ” ( shemittah ): cf.

Deu 19:4; 1Ki 9:15. “ Every owner of a loan of his hand shall release (leave) what he has lent to his neighbour; he shall not press his neighbour, and indeed his brother; for they have proclaimed release for Jehovah . ” As שׁמוט (release) points unmistakeably back to Exo 23:11, it must be interpreted in the same manner here as there. And as it is not used there to denote the entire renunciation of a field or possession, so here it cannot mean the entire renunciation of what had been lent, but simply leaving it, i.

e. , not pressing for it during the seventh year. This is favoured by what follows, “ thou shalt not press thy neighbour ,” which simply forbids an unreserved demand, but does not require that the debt should be remitted or presented to the debtor (see also Bähr, Symbolik , ii. pp. 570-1). “The loan of the hand:” what the hand has lent to another. “The master of the loan of the hand:” i.

e. , the owner of a loan, the lender. “His brother” defines with greater precision the idea of “a neighbour. ” Calling a release, presupposes that the sabbatical year was publicly proclaimed, like the year of jubilee (Lev 25:9). קרא is impersonal (“they call”), as in Gen 11:9 and Gen 16:14. “ For Jehovah: ” i. e. , in honour of Jehovah, sanctified to Him, as in Exo 12:42.

- This law points back to the institution of the sabbatical year in Exo 23:10; Lev 25:2-7, though it is not to be regarded as an appendix to the law of the sabbatical year, or an expansion of it, but simply as an exposition of what was already implied in the main provision of that law, viz. , that the cultivation of the land should be suspended in the sabbatical year.

If no harvest was gathered in, and even such produce as had grown without sowing was to be left to the poor and the beasts of the field, the landowner could have no income from which to pay his debts. The fact that the “ sabbatical year ” is not expressly mentioned, may be accounted for on the ground, that even in the principal law itself this name does not occur; and it is simply commanded that every seventh year there was to be a sabbath of rest to the land (Lev 25:4).

In the subsequent passages in which it is referred to (Deu 15:9 and Deu 31:10), it is still not called a sabbatical year, but simply the “year of release,” and that not merely with reference to debtors, but also with reference to the release ( Shemittah ) to be allowed to the field (Exo 23:11).

Deu 15:1-2 On the Year of Release. - The first two regulations in this chapter, viz. , Deu 15:1-11 and Deu 15:12-18, follow simply upon the law concerning the poor tithe in Deu 14:28-29. The Israelites were not only to cause those who had no possessions (Levites, strangers, widows, and orphans) to refresh themselves with the produce of their inheritance, but they were not to force and oppress the poor.

Debtors especially were not to be deprived of the blessings of the sabbatical year (Deu 15:1-6). “ At the end of seven years thou shalt make a release . ” The expression, “at the end of seven years,” is to be understood in the same way as the corresponding phrase, “at the end of three years,” in Deu 14:28. The end of seven years, i. e. , of the seven years’ cycle formed by the sabbatical year, is mentioned as the time when debts that had been contracted were usually wiped off or demanded, after the year’s harvest had been gathered in (cf.

Deu 31:10, according to which the feast of Tabernacles occurred at the end of the year). שׁמטּה, from שׁמט morf ,, to let lie, to let go (cf. Exo 23:11), does not signify a remission of the debt, the relinquishing of all claim for payment, as Philo and the Talmudists affirm, but simply lengthening the term, not pressing for payment. This is the explanation in Deu 15:2 : “ This is the manner of the release ” ( shemittah ): cf.

Deu 19:4; 1Ki 9:15. “ Every owner of a loan of his hand shall release (leave) what he has lent to his neighbour; he shall not press his neighbour, and indeed his brother; for they have proclaimed release for Jehovah . ” As שׁמוט (release) points unmistakeably back to Exo 23:11, it must be interpreted in the same manner here as there. And as it is not used there to denote the entire renunciation of a field or possession, so here it cannot mean the entire renunciation of what had been lent, but simply leaving it, i.

e. , not pressing for it during the seventh year. This is favoured by what follows, “ thou shalt not press thy neighbour ,” which simply forbids an unreserved demand, but does not require that the debt should be remitted or presented to the debtor (see also Bähr, Symbolik , ii. pp. 570-1). “The loan of the hand:” what the hand has lent to another. “The master of the loan of the hand:” i.

e. , the owner of a loan, the lender. “His brother” defines with greater precision the idea of “a neighbour. ” Calling a release, presupposes that the sabbatical year was publicly proclaimed, like the year of jubilee (Lev 25:9). קרא is impersonal (“they call”), as in Gen 11:9 and Gen 16:14. “ For Jehovah: ” i. e. , in honour of Jehovah, sanctified to Him, as in Exo 12:42.

- This law points back to the institution of the sabbatical year in Exo 23:10; Lev 25:2-7, though it is not to be regarded as an appendix to the law of the sabbatical year, or an expansion of it, but simply as an exposition of what was already implied in the main provision of that law, viz. , that the cultivation of the land should be suspended in the sabbatical year.

If no harvest was gathered in, and even such produce as had grown without sowing was to be left to the poor and the beasts of the field, the landowner could have no income from which to pay his debts. The fact that the “ sabbatical year ” is not expressly mentioned, may be accounted for on the ground, that even in the principal law itself this name does not occur; and it is simply commanded that every seventh year there was to be a sabbath of rest to the land (Lev 25:4).

In the subsequent passages in which it is referred to (Deu 15:9 and Deu 31:10), it is still not called a sabbatical year, but simply the “year of release,” and that not merely with reference to debtors, but also with reference to the release ( Shemittah ) to be allowed to the field (Exo 23:11).

Deu 15:3 The foreigner thou mayest press, but what thou hast with thy brother shall thy hand let go. נכרי is a stranger of another nation, standing in no inward relation to Israel at all, and is to be distinguished from גּר, the foreigner who lived among the Israelites, who had a claim upon their protection and pity. This rule breathes no hatred of foreigners, but simply allows the Israelites the right of every creditor to demand his debts, and enforce the demand upon foreigners, even in the sabbatical year.

There was no severity in this, because foreigners could get their ordinary income in the seventh year as well as in any other.

Deu 15:4 “ Only that there shall be no poor with thee . ” יהיה is jussive, like the foregoing imperfects. The meaning in this connection is, “Thou needest not to remit a debt to foreigners in the seventh year; thou hast only to take care that there is no poor man with or among thee, that thou dost not cause or increase their poverty, by oppressing the brethren who have borrowed of thee.

” Understood in this way, the sentence is not at all at variance with Deu 15:11, where it is stated that the poor would never cease out of the land. The following clause, “for Jehovah will bless thee,” etc. , gives a reason for the main thought, that they were not to press the Israelitish debtor. The creditor, therefore, had no need to fear that he would suffer want, if he refrained from exacting his debt from his brother in the seventh year.