The Year of Release: Debt, Poverty, and the Generosity of a People Who Remember Egypt

Deu 15:5-6 This blessing would not fail, if the Israelites would only hearken to the voice of the Lord; “ for Jehovah blesseth thee ” (by the perfect בּרכך, the blessing is represented not as a possible and future one only, but as one already bestowed according to the counsel of God, and, so far as the commencement was concerned, already fulfilled), “ as He hath spoken ” (see at Deu 1:11). “ And thou wilt lend on pledge to many nations, but thou thyself wilt not borrow upon pledge .

” עבט, a denom . verb, from עבוט, a pledge, signifies in Kal to give a pledge for the purpose of borrowing; in Hiphil , to cause a person to give a pledge, or furnish occasion for giving a pledge, i. e. , to lend upon pledge. “ And thou wilt rule over many nations ,” etc. Ruling is mentioned here as the result of superiority in wealth (cf. Deu 28:1 : Schultz ).

Deu 15:7-8 And in general Israel was to be ready to lend to the poor among its brethren, not to harden its heart, to be hard-hearted, but to lend to the poor brother מחסרו דּי, “the sufficiency of his need,” whatever he might need to relieve his wants.

Deu 15:7-8 And in general Israel was to be ready to lend to the poor among its brethren, not to harden its heart, to be hard-hearted, but to lend to the poor brother מחסרו דּי, “the sufficiency of his need,” whatever he might need to relieve his wants.

Deu 15:9-10 Thus they were also to beware “ that there was not a word in the heart, worthlessness, ” i. e. , that a worthless thought did not arise in their hearts (בּליּעל is the predicate of the sentence, as the more precise definition of the word that was in the heart); so that one should say, “ The seventh year is at hand, the year of release, ” sc. , when I shall not be able to demand what I have lent, and “ that thine eye be evil towards thy poor brother, ” i.

e. , that thou cherishest ill-will towards him (cf. Deu 28:54, Deu 28:56), “ and givest him not, and he appeals to Jehovah against thee, and it becomes sin to thee, ” sc. , which brings down upon thee the wrath of God.

Deu 15:9-10 Thus they were also to beware “ that there was not a word in the heart, worthlessness, ” i. e. , that a worthless thought did not arise in their hearts (בּליּעל is the predicate of the sentence, as the more precise definition of the word that was in the heart); so that one should say, “ The seventh year is at hand, the year of release, ” sc. , when I shall not be able to demand what I have lent, and “ that thine eye be evil towards thy poor brother, ” i.

e. , that thou cherishest ill-will towards him (cf. Deu 28:54, Deu 28:56), “ and givest him not, and he appeals to Jehovah against thee, and it becomes sin to thee, ” sc. , which brings down upon thee the wrath of God.

Deu 15:11 For the poor will never cease in the land, even the land that is richly blessed, because poverty is not only the penalty of sin, but is ordained by God for punishment and discipline.

Deu 15:12-14 These provisions in favour of the poor are followed very naturally by the rules which the Israelites were to be urged to observe with reference to the manumission of Hebrew slaves . It is not the reference to the sabbatical year in the foregoing precepts which forms the introduction to the laws which follow respecting the manumission of Hebrews who had become slaves, but the poverty and want which compelled Hebrew men and women to sell themselves as slaves.

The seventh year, in which they were to be set free, is not the same as the sabbatical year, therefore, but the seventh year of bondage. Manumission in the seventh year of service had already been commanded in Exo 21:2-6, in the rights laid down for the nation, with special reference to the conclusion of the covenant. This command is not repeated here for the purpose of extending the law to Hebrew women, who are not expressly mentioned in Ex 21; ; for that would follow as a matter of course, in the case of a law which was quite as applicable to women as to men, and was given without any reserve to the whole congregation.

It is rather repeated here as a law which already existed as a right, for the purpose of explaining the true mode of fulfilling it, viz. , that it was not sufficient to give a man-servant and maid-servant their liberty after six years of service, which would not be sufficient relief to those who had been obliged to enter into slavery on account of poverty, if they had nothing with which to set up a home of their own; but love to the poor was required to do more than this, namely, to make some provision for the continued prosperity of those who were set at liberty.

“ If thou let him go free from thee, thou shalt not let him go (send him away) empty: ” this was the new feature which Moses added here to the previous law. “ Thou shalt load (העניק, lit. , put upon the neck) of thy flock, and of thy floor (corn), and of thy press (oil and wine); wherewith thy God hath blessed thee, of that thou shalt give to him . ”

Deu 15:12-14 These provisions in favour of the poor are followed very naturally by the rules which the Israelites were to be urged to observe with reference to the manumission of Hebrew slaves . It is not the reference to the sabbatical year in the foregoing precepts which forms the introduction to the laws which follow respecting the manumission of Hebrews who had become slaves, but the poverty and want which compelled Hebrew men and women to sell themselves as slaves.

The seventh year, in which they were to be set free, is not the same as the sabbatical year, therefore, but the seventh year of bondage. Manumission in the seventh year of service had already been commanded in Exo 21:2-6, in the rights laid down for the nation, with special reference to the conclusion of the covenant. This command is not repeated here for the purpose of extending the law to Hebrew women, who are not expressly mentioned in Ex 21; ; for that would follow as a matter of course, in the case of a law which was quite as applicable to women as to men, and was given without any reserve to the whole congregation.

It is rather repeated here as a law which already existed as a right, for the purpose of explaining the true mode of fulfilling it, viz. , that it was not sufficient to give a man-servant and maid-servant their liberty after six years of service, which would not be sufficient relief to those who had been obliged to enter into slavery on account of poverty, if they had nothing with which to set up a home of their own; but love to the poor was required to do more than this, namely, to make some provision for the continued prosperity of those who were set at liberty.

“ If thou let him go free from thee, thou shalt not let him go (send him away) empty: ” this was the new feature which Moses added here to the previous law. “ Thou shalt load (העניק, lit. , put upon the neck) of thy flock, and of thy floor (corn), and of thy press (oil and wine); wherewith thy God hath blessed thee, of that thou shalt give to him . ”

Deu 15:12-14 These provisions in favour of the poor are followed very naturally by the rules which the Israelites were to be urged to observe with reference to the manumission of Hebrew slaves . It is not the reference to the sabbatical year in the foregoing precepts which forms the introduction to the laws which follow respecting the manumission of Hebrews who had become slaves, but the poverty and want which compelled Hebrew men and women to sell themselves as slaves.

The seventh year, in which they were to be set free, is not the same as the sabbatical year, therefore, but the seventh year of bondage. Manumission in the seventh year of service had already been commanded in Exo 21:2-6, in the rights laid down for the nation, with special reference to the conclusion of the covenant. This command is not repeated here for the purpose of extending the law to Hebrew women, who are not expressly mentioned in Ex 21; ; for that would follow as a matter of course, in the case of a law which was quite as applicable to women as to men, and was given without any reserve to the whole congregation.

It is rather repeated here as a law which already existed as a right, for the purpose of explaining the true mode of fulfilling it, viz. , that it was not sufficient to give a man-servant and maid-servant their liberty after six years of service, which would not be sufficient relief to those who had been obliged to enter into slavery on account of poverty, if they had nothing with which to set up a home of their own; but love to the poor was required to do more than this, namely, to make some provision for the continued prosperity of those who were set at liberty.

“ If thou let him go free from thee, thou shalt not let him go (send him away) empty: ” this was the new feature which Moses added here to the previous law. “ Thou shalt load (העניק, lit. , put upon the neck) of thy flock, and of thy floor (corn), and of thy press (oil and wine); wherewith thy God hath blessed thee, of that thou shalt give to him . ”

Deu 15:15 They were to be induced to do this by the recollection of their own redemption out of the bondage of Egypt, - the same motive that is urged for the laws and exhortations enjoining compassion towards foreigners, servants, maids, widows, orphans, and the poor, not only in Deu 5:15; Deu 10:19; Deu 16:12; Deu 24:18, Deu 24:22, but also in Exo 22:20; Exo 23:9, and Lev 19:34.

Deu 15:16-17 But if the man-servant and the maid-servant should not wish for liberty in the sixth year, because it was well with them in the house of their master, they were not to be compelled to go, but were to be bound to eternal, i. e. , lifelong bondage, in the manner prescribed in Exo 21:5-6. This is repeated from Ex 21, to guard against such an application of the law as might be really cruelty under the circumstances rather than love.

Manumission was only an act of love, when the person to be set free had some hope of success and of getting a living for himself; and where there was no such prospect, compelling him to accept of freedom might be equivalent to thrusting him away.

Deu 15:16-17 But if the man-servant and the maid-servant should not wish for liberty in the sixth year, because it was well with them in the house of their master, they were not to be compelled to go, but were to be bound to eternal, i. e. , lifelong bondage, in the manner prescribed in Exo 21:5-6. This is repeated from Ex 21, to guard against such an application of the law as might be really cruelty under the circumstances rather than love.

Manumission was only an act of love, when the person to be set free had some hope of success and of getting a living for himself; and where there was no such prospect, compelling him to accept of freedom might be equivalent to thrusting him away.

Deu 15:18 If, on the other hand, the servant (or maid) wished to be set free, the master was not to think it hard; “ for the double of the wages of a day-labourer he has earned for thee for six years ,” i. e. , not “twice the time of a day-labourer, so that he had really deserved twice the wages” ( Vatablius, Ad. Osiander, J. Gerhard ), for it cannot be proved from Isa 16:14, that a day-labourer generally hired himself out for three years; nor yet, “he has been obliged to work much harder than a day-labourer, very often by night as well as day” ( Clericus, J.

H. Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Baumgarten ); but simply, “he has earned and produced so much, that if you had been obliged to keep a day-labourer in his place, it would have cost you twice as much” ( Schultz, Knobel ).

Deu 15:19-23 Application of the first-born of Cattle. - From the laws respecting the poor and slaves, to which the instructions concerning the tithes (Deu 14:22-29) had given occasion, Moses returns to appropriation of the first-born of the herd and flock to sacrificial meals, which he had already touched upon in Deu 12:6, Deu 12:17, and Deu 14:23, and concludes by an explanation upon this point.

The command, which the Lord had given when first they came out of Egypt (Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12), that all the first-born of the herd and flock should be sanctified to Him, is repeated here by Moses, with the express injunction that they were not to work with the first-born of cattle (by yoking them to the plough or waggon), and not to shear the first-born of sheep; that is to say, they were not to use the first-born animals which were sanctified to the Lord for their own earthly purposes, but to offer them year by year as sacrifices to the Lord, and consume them in sacrificial meals. To this he adds (Deu 15:21, Deu 15:22) that further provision, that first-born animals, which were blind or lame, or had any other bad fault, were not to be offered in sacrifice to the Lord, but, like ordinary animals used for food, could be eaten in all the towns of the land.

Although the first part of this law was involved in the general laws as to the kind of animal that could be offered in sacrifice (Lev 22:19.) , it was by no means unimportant to point out distinctly their applicability to the first-born, and add some instructions with regard to the way in which they were to be applied. (On Deu 15:22 and Deu 15:23, see Deu 12:15 and Deu 12:16.)

The annual feasts appointed by the law were to be celebrated, like the sacrificial meals, at the place which the Lord would choose for the revelation of His name; and there Israel was to rejoice before the Lord with the presentation of sacrifices. From this point of view Moses discusses the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, assuming the laws previously given concerning these festivals (Ex 12; Lev 23:1, and Num 28 and 29) as already known, and simply repeating those points which related to the sacrificial meals held at these festivals.

This serves to explain the reason why only those three festivals are mentioned, at which Israel had already been commanded to appear before the Lord in Exo 23:14-17, and Exo 34:18, Exo 34:24-25, and not the feast of trumpets or day of atonement: viz. , because the people were not required to assemble at the sanctuary out of the whole land on the occasion of these two festivals.

Deu 15:19-23 Application of the first-born of Cattle. - From the laws respecting the poor and slaves, to which the instructions concerning the tithes (Deu 14:22-29) had given occasion, Moses returns to appropriation of the first-born of the herd and flock to sacrificial meals, which he had already touched upon in Deu 12:6, Deu 12:17, and Deu 14:23, and concludes by an explanation upon this point.

The command, which the Lord had given when first they came out of Egypt (Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12), that all the first-born of the herd and flock should be sanctified to Him, is repeated here by Moses, with the express injunction that they were not to work with the first-born of cattle (by yoking them to the plough or waggon), and not to shear the first-born of sheep; that is to say, they were not to use the first-born animals which were sanctified to the Lord for their own earthly purposes, but to offer them year by year as sacrifices to the Lord, and consume them in sacrificial meals. To this he adds (Deu 15:21, Deu 15:22) that further provision, that first-born animals, which were blind or lame, or had any other bad fault, were not to be offered in sacrifice to the Lord, but, like ordinary animals used for food, could be eaten in all the towns of the land.

Although the first part of this law was involved in the general laws as to the kind of animal that could be offered in sacrifice (Lev 22:19.) , it was by no means unimportant to point out distinctly their applicability to the first-born, and add some instructions with regard to the way in which they were to be applied. (On Deu 15:22 and Deu 15:23, see Deu 12:15 and Deu 12:16.)

The annual feasts appointed by the law were to be celebrated, like the sacrificial meals, at the place which the Lord would choose for the revelation of His name; and there Israel was to rejoice before the Lord with the presentation of sacrifices. From this point of view Moses discusses the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, assuming the laws previously given concerning these festivals (Ex 12; Lev 23:1, and Num 28 and 29) as already known, and simply repeating those points which related to the sacrificial meals held at these festivals.

This serves to explain the reason why only those three festivals are mentioned, at which Israel had already been commanded to appear before the Lord in Exo 23:14-17, and Exo 34:18, Exo 34:24-25, and not the feast of trumpets or day of atonement: viz. , because the people were not required to assemble at the sanctuary out of the whole land on the occasion of these two festivals.

Deu 15:19-23 Application of the first-born of Cattle. - From the laws respecting the poor and slaves, to which the instructions concerning the tithes (Deu 14:22-29) had given occasion, Moses returns to appropriation of the first-born of the herd and flock to sacrificial meals, which he had already touched upon in Deu 12:6, Deu 12:17, and Deu 14:23, and concludes by an explanation upon this point.

The command, which the Lord had given when first they came out of Egypt (Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12), that all the first-born of the herd and flock should be sanctified to Him, is repeated here by Moses, with the express injunction that they were not to work with the first-born of cattle (by yoking them to the plough or waggon), and not to shear the first-born of sheep; that is to say, they were not to use the first-born animals which were sanctified to the Lord for their own earthly purposes, but to offer them year by year as sacrifices to the Lord, and consume them in sacrificial meals. To this he adds (Deu 15:21, Deu 15:22) that further provision, that first-born animals, which were blind or lame, or had any other bad fault, were not to be offered in sacrifice to the Lord, but, like ordinary animals used for food, could be eaten in all the towns of the land.

Although the first part of this law was involved in the general laws as to the kind of animal that could be offered in sacrifice (Lev 22:19.) , it was by no means unimportant to point out distinctly their applicability to the first-born, and add some instructions with regard to the way in which they were to be applied. (On Deu 15:22 and Deu 15:23, see Deu 12:15 and Deu 12:16.)

The annual feasts appointed by the law were to be celebrated, like the sacrificial meals, at the place which the Lord would choose for the revelation of His name; and there Israel was to rejoice before the Lord with the presentation of sacrifices. From this point of view Moses discusses the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, assuming the laws previously given concerning these festivals (Ex 12; Lev 23:1, and Num 28 and 29) as already known, and simply repeating those points which related to the sacrificial meals held at these festivals.

This serves to explain the reason why only those three festivals are mentioned, at which Israel had already been commanded to appear before the Lord in Exo 23:14-17, and Exo 34:18, Exo 34:24-25, and not the feast of trumpets or day of atonement: viz. , because the people were not required to assemble at the sanctuary out of the whole land on the occasion of these two festivals.

Deu 15:19-23 Application of the first-born of Cattle. - From the laws respecting the poor and slaves, to which the instructions concerning the tithes (Deu 14:22-29) had given occasion, Moses returns to appropriation of the first-born of the herd and flock to sacrificial meals, which he had already touched upon in Deu 12:6, Deu 12:17, and Deu 14:23, and concludes by an explanation upon this point.

The command, which the Lord had given when first they came out of Egypt (Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12), that all the first-born of the herd and flock should be sanctified to Him, is repeated here by Moses, with the express injunction that they were not to work with the first-born of cattle (by yoking them to the plough or waggon), and not to shear the first-born of sheep; that is to say, they were not to use the first-born animals which were sanctified to the Lord for their own earthly purposes, but to offer them year by year as sacrifices to the Lord, and consume them in sacrificial meals. To this he adds (Deu 15:21, Deu 15:22) that further provision, that first-born animals, which were blind or lame, or had any other bad fault, were not to be offered in sacrifice to the Lord, but, like ordinary animals used for food, could be eaten in all the towns of the land.

Although the first part of this law was involved in the general laws as to the kind of animal that could be offered in sacrifice (Lev 22:19.) , it was by no means unimportant to point out distinctly their applicability to the first-born, and add some instructions with regard to the way in which they were to be applied. (On Deu 15:22 and Deu 15:23, see Deu 12:15 and Deu 12:16.)

The annual feasts appointed by the law were to be celebrated, like the sacrificial meals, at the place which the Lord would choose for the revelation of His name; and there Israel was to rejoice before the Lord with the presentation of sacrifices. From this point of view Moses discusses the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, assuming the laws previously given concerning these festivals (Ex 12; Lev 23:1, and Num 28 and 29) as already known, and simply repeating those points which related to the sacrificial meals held at these festivals.

This serves to explain the reason why only those three festivals are mentioned, at which Israel had already been commanded to appear before the Lord in Exo 23:14-17, and Exo 34:18, Exo 34:24-25, and not the feast of trumpets or day of atonement: viz. , because the people were not required to assemble at the sanctuary out of the whole land on the occasion of these two festivals.

Deu 15:19-23 Application of the first-born of Cattle. - From the laws respecting the poor and slaves, to which the instructions concerning the tithes (Deu 14:22-29) had given occasion, Moses returns to appropriation of the first-born of the herd and flock to sacrificial meals, which he had already touched upon in Deu 12:6, Deu 12:17, and Deu 14:23, and concludes by an explanation upon this point.

The command, which the Lord had given when first they came out of Egypt (Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12), that all the first-born of the herd and flock should be sanctified to Him, is repeated here by Moses, with the express injunction that they were not to work with the first-born of cattle (by yoking them to the plough or waggon), and not to shear the first-born of sheep; that is to say, they were not to use the first-born animals which were sanctified to the Lord for their own earthly purposes, but to offer them year by year as sacrifices to the Lord, and consume them in sacrificial meals. To this he adds (Deu 15:21, Deu 15:22) that further provision, that first-born animals, which were blind or lame, or had any other bad fault, were not to be offered in sacrifice to the Lord, but, like ordinary animals used for food, could be eaten in all the towns of the land.

Although the first part of this law was involved in the general laws as to the kind of animal that could be offered in sacrifice (Lev 22:19.) , it was by no means unimportant to point out distinctly their applicability to the first-born, and add some instructions with regard to the way in which they were to be applied. (On Deu 15:22 and Deu 15:23, see Deu 12:15 and Deu 12:16.)

The annual feasts appointed by the law were to be celebrated, like the sacrificial meals, at the place which the Lord would choose for the revelation of His name; and there Israel was to rejoice before the Lord with the presentation of sacrifices. From this point of view Moses discusses the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, assuming the laws previously given concerning these festivals (Ex 12; Lev 23:1, and Num 28 and 29) as already known, and simply repeating those points which related to the sacrificial meals held at these festivals.

This serves to explain the reason why only those three festivals are mentioned, at which Israel had already been commanded to appear before the Lord in Exo 23:14-17, and Exo 34:18, Exo 34:24-25, and not the feast of trumpets or day of atonement: viz. , because the people were not required to assemble at the sanctuary out of the whole land on the occasion of these two festivals.

Deu 16:1-8 Israel was to make ready the Passover to the Lord in the earing month (see at Exo 12:2). The precise day is supposed to be known from Ex 12, as in Exo 23:15. פּסח עשׂה ( to prepare the Passover ), which is used primarily to denote the preparation of the paschal lamb for a festal meal, is employed here in a wider signification viz. , “ to keep the Passover .

” At this feast they were to slay sheep and oxen to the Lord for a Passover, at the place, etc. In Deu 16:2, as in Deu 16:1, the word “Passover” is employed in a broader sense, and includes not only the paschal lamb, but the paschal sacrifices generally, which the Rabbins embrace under the common name of chagiga ; not the burnt-offerings and sin-offerings, however, prescribed in Num 28:19-26, but all the sacrifices that were slain at the feast of the Passover (i.

e. , during the seven days of the Mazzoth , which are included under the name of pascha ) for the purpose of holding sacrificial meals. This is evident from the expression “of the flock and the herd;” as it was expressly laid down, that only a שׂה, i. e. , a yearling animal of the sheep or goats, was to be slain for the paschal meal on the fourteenth of the month in the evening, and an ox was never slaughtered in the place of the lamb.

But if any doubt could exist upon this point, it would be completely set aside by Deu 16:3 : “ Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it: seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith . ” As the word “therewith” cannot possibly refer to anything else than the “Passover” in Deu 16:2, it is distinctly stated that the slaughtering and eating of the Passover was to last seven days, whereas the Passover lamb was to be slain and consumed in the evening of the fourteenth Abib (Exo 12:10).

Moses called the unleavened bread “ the bread of affliction ,” because the Israelites had to leave Egypt in anxious flight (Exo 12:11) and were therefore unable to leaven the dough (Exo 12:39), for the purpose of reminding the congregation of the oppression endured in Egypt, and to stir them up to gratitude towards the Lord their deliverer, that they might remember that day as long as they lived. (On the meaning of the Mazzothy , see at Exo 12:8 and Exo 12:15.)

- On account of the importance of the unleavened bread as a symbolical shadowing forth of the significance of the Passover, as the feast of the renewal and sanctification of the life of Israel, Moses repeats in Deu 16:4 two of the points in the law of the feast: first of all the one laid down in Exo 13:7, that no leaven was to be seen in the land during the seven days; and secondly, the one in Exo 23:18 and Exo 34:25, that none of the flesh of the paschal lamb was to be left till the next morning, in order that all corruption might be kept at a distance from the paschal food. Leaven, for example, sets the dough in fermentation, from which putrefaction ensues; and in the East, if flesh is kept, it very quickly decomposes.

He then once more fixes the time and place for keeping the Passover (the former according to Exo 12:6 and Lev 23:5, etc.) , and adds in Deu 16:7 the express regulation, that not only the slaughtering and sacrificing, but the roasting (see at Exo 12:9) and eating of the paschal lamb were to take place at the sanctuary, and that the next morning they could turn and go back home.

This rule contains a new feature, which Moses prescribes with reference to the keeping of the Passover in the land of Canaan, and by which he modifies the instructions for the first Passover in Egypt, to suit the altered circumstances. In Egypt, when Israel was not yet raised into the nation of Jehovah, and had as yet no sanctuary and no common altar, the different houses necessarily served as altars.

But when this necessity was at an end, the slaying and eating of the Passover in the different houses were to cease, and they were both to take place at the sanctuary before the Lord, as was the case with the feast of Passover at Sinai (Num 9:1-5). Thus the smearing of the door-posts with the blood was tacitly abolished, since the blood was to be sprinkled upon the altar as sacrificial blood, as it had already been at Sinai.

- The expression “ to thy tents ,” for going “home,” points to the time when Israel was till dwelling in tents, and had not as yet secured any fixed abodes and houses in Canaan, although this expression was retained at a still later time (e. g. , 1Sa 13:2; 2Sa 19:9, etc.) The going home in the morning after the paschal meal, is not to be understood as signifying a return to their homes in the different towns of the land, but simply, as even Riehm admits, to their homes or lodgings at the place of the sanctuary.

How very far Moses was from intending to release the Israelites from the duty of keeping the feast for seven days, is evident from the fact that in Deu 16:8 he once more enforces the observance of the seven days’ feast. The two clauses, “six days thou shalt eat mazzoth ,” and “on the seventh day shall be azereth (Eng. Ver. 'a solemn assembly') to the Lord thy God,” are not placed in antithesis to each other, so as to imply (in contradiction to Deu 16:3 and Deu 16:4; Exo 12:18-19; Exo 13:6-7; Lev 23:6; Num 28:17) that the feast of Mazzoth was to last only six days instead of seven; but the seventh day is brought into especial prominence as the azereth of the feast (see at Lev 23:36), simply because, in addition to the eating of mazzoth , there was to be an entire abstinence from work, and this particular feature might easily have fallen into neglect at the close of the feast.

But just as the eating of mazzoth for seven days is not abolished by the first clause, so the suspension of work on the first day is not abolished by the second clause, any more than in Exo 13:6 the first day is represented as a working day by the fact that the seventh day is called “a feast to Jehovah. ”

Deu 16:1-8 Israel was to make ready the Passover to the Lord in the earing month (see at Exo 12:2). The precise day is supposed to be known from Ex 12, as in Exo 23:15. פּסח עשׂה ( to prepare the Passover ), which is used primarily to denote the preparation of the paschal lamb for a festal meal, is employed here in a wider signification viz. , “ to keep the Passover .

” At this feast they were to slay sheep and oxen to the Lord for a Passover, at the place, etc. In Deu 16:2, as in Deu 16:1, the word “Passover” is employed in a broader sense, and includes not only the paschal lamb, but the paschal sacrifices generally, which the Rabbins embrace under the common name of chagiga ; not the burnt-offerings and sin-offerings, however, prescribed in Num 28:19-26, but all the sacrifices that were slain at the feast of the Passover (i.

e. , during the seven days of the Mazzoth , which are included under the name of pascha ) for the purpose of holding sacrificial meals. This is evident from the expression “of the flock and the herd;” as it was expressly laid down, that only a שׂה, i. e. , a yearling animal of the sheep or goats, was to be slain for the paschal meal on the fourteenth of the month in the evening, and an ox was never slaughtered in the place of the lamb.

But if any doubt could exist upon this point, it would be completely set aside by Deu 16:3 : “ Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it: seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith . ” As the word “therewith” cannot possibly refer to anything else than the “Passover” in Deu 16:2, it is distinctly stated that the slaughtering and eating of the Passover was to last seven days, whereas the Passover lamb was to be slain and consumed in the evening of the fourteenth Abib (Exo 12:10).

Moses called the unleavened bread “ the bread of affliction ,” because the Israelites had to leave Egypt in anxious flight (Exo 12:11) and were therefore unable to leaven the dough (Exo 12:39), for the purpose of reminding the congregation of the oppression endured in Egypt, and to stir them up to gratitude towards the Lord their deliverer, that they might remember that day as long as they lived. (On the meaning of the Mazzothy , see at Exo 12:8 and Exo 12:15.)

- On account of the importance of the unleavened bread as a symbolical shadowing forth of the significance of the Passover, as the feast of the renewal and sanctification of the life of Israel, Moses repeats in Deu 16:4 two of the points in the law of the feast: first of all the one laid down in Exo 13:7, that no leaven was to be seen in the land during the seven days; and secondly, the one in Exo 23:18 and Exo 34:25, that none of the flesh of the paschal lamb was to be left till the next morning, in order that all corruption might be kept at a distance from the paschal food. Leaven, for example, sets the dough in fermentation, from which putrefaction ensues; and in the East, if flesh is kept, it very quickly decomposes.

He then once more fixes the time and place for keeping the Passover (the former according to Exo 12:6 and Lev 23:5, etc.) , and adds in Deu 16:7 the express regulation, that not only the slaughtering and sacrificing, but the roasting (see at Exo 12:9) and eating of the paschal lamb were to take place at the sanctuary, and that the next morning they could turn and go back home.

This rule contains a new feature, which Moses prescribes with reference to the keeping of the Passover in the land of Canaan, and by which he modifies the instructions for the first Passover in Egypt, to suit the altered circumstances. In Egypt, when Israel was not yet raised into the nation of Jehovah, and had as yet no sanctuary and no common altar, the different houses necessarily served as altars.

But when this necessity was at an end, the slaying and eating of the Passover in the different houses were to cease, and they were both to take place at the sanctuary before the Lord, as was the case with the feast of Passover at Sinai (Num 9:1-5). Thus the smearing of the door-posts with the blood was tacitly abolished, since the blood was to be sprinkled upon the altar as sacrificial blood, as it had already been at Sinai.

- The expression “ to thy tents ,” for going “home,” points to the time when Israel was till dwelling in tents, and had not as yet secured any fixed abodes and houses in Canaan, although this expression was retained at a still later time (e. g. , 1Sa 13:2; 2Sa 19:9, etc.) The going home in the morning after the paschal meal, is not to be understood as signifying a return to their homes in the different towns of the land, but simply, as even Riehm admits, to their homes or lodgings at the place of the sanctuary.

How very far Moses was from intending to release the Israelites from the duty of keeping the feast for seven days, is evident from the fact that in Deu 16:8 he once more enforces the observance of the seven days’ feast. The two clauses, “six days thou shalt eat mazzoth ,” and “on the seventh day shall be azereth (Eng. Ver. 'a solemn assembly') to the Lord thy God,” are not placed in antithesis to each other, so as to imply (in contradiction to Deu 16:3 and Deu 16:4; Exo 12:18-19; Exo 13:6-7; Lev 23:6; Num 28:17) that the feast of Mazzoth was to last only six days instead of seven; but the seventh day is brought into especial prominence as the azereth of the feast (see at Lev 23:36), simply because, in addition to the eating of mazzoth , there was to be an entire abstinence from work, and this particular feature might easily have fallen into neglect at the close of the feast.

But just as the eating of mazzoth for seven days is not abolished by the first clause, so the suspension of work on the first day is not abolished by the second clause, any more than in Exo 13:6 the first day is represented as a working day by the fact that the seventh day is called “a feast to Jehovah. ”

Deu 16:1-8 Israel was to make ready the Passover to the Lord in the earing month (see at Exo 12:2). The precise day is supposed to be known from Ex 12, as in Exo 23:15. פּסח עשׂה ( to prepare the Passover ), which is used primarily to denote the preparation of the paschal lamb for a festal meal, is employed here in a wider signification viz. , “ to keep the Passover .

” At this feast they were to slay sheep and oxen to the Lord for a Passover, at the place, etc. In Deu 16:2, as in Deu 16:1, the word “Passover” is employed in a broader sense, and includes not only the paschal lamb, but the paschal sacrifices generally, which the Rabbins embrace under the common name of chagiga ; not the burnt-offerings and sin-offerings, however, prescribed in Num 28:19-26, but all the sacrifices that were slain at the feast of the Passover (i.

e. , during the seven days of the Mazzoth , which are included under the name of pascha ) for the purpose of holding sacrificial meals. This is evident from the expression “of the flock and the herd;” as it was expressly laid down, that only a שׂה, i. e. , a yearling animal of the sheep or goats, was to be slain for the paschal meal on the fourteenth of the month in the evening, and an ox was never slaughtered in the place of the lamb.

But if any doubt could exist upon this point, it would be completely set aside by Deu 16:3 : “ Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it: seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith . ” As the word “therewith” cannot possibly refer to anything else than the “Passover” in Deu 16:2, it is distinctly stated that the slaughtering and eating of the Passover was to last seven days, whereas the Passover lamb was to be slain and consumed in the evening of the fourteenth Abib (Exo 12:10).

Moses called the unleavened bread “ the bread of affliction ,” because the Israelites had to leave Egypt in anxious flight (Exo 12:11) and were therefore unable to leaven the dough (Exo 12:39), for the purpose of reminding the congregation of the oppression endured in Egypt, and to stir them up to gratitude towards the Lord their deliverer, that they might remember that day as long as they lived. (On the meaning of the Mazzothy , see at Exo 12:8 and Exo 12:15.)

- On account of the importance of the unleavened bread as a symbolical shadowing forth of the significance of the Passover, as the feast of the renewal and sanctification of the life of Israel, Moses repeats in Deu 16:4 two of the points in the law of the feast: first of all the one laid down in Exo 13:7, that no leaven was to be seen in the land during the seven days; and secondly, the one in Exo 23:18 and Exo 34:25, that none of the flesh of the paschal lamb was to be left till the next morning, in order that all corruption might be kept at a distance from the paschal food. Leaven, for example, sets the dough in fermentation, from which putrefaction ensues; and in the East, if flesh is kept, it very quickly decomposes.

He then once more fixes the time and place for keeping the Passover (the former according to Exo 12:6 and Lev 23:5, etc.) , and adds in Deu 16:7 the express regulation, that not only the slaughtering and sacrificing, but the roasting (see at Exo 12:9) and eating of the paschal lamb were to take place at the sanctuary, and that the next morning they could turn and go back home.

This rule contains a new feature, which Moses prescribes with reference to the keeping of the Passover in the land of Canaan, and by which he modifies the instructions for the first Passover in Egypt, to suit the altered circumstances. In Egypt, when Israel was not yet raised into the nation of Jehovah, and had as yet no sanctuary and no common altar, the different houses necessarily served as altars.

But when this necessity was at an end, the slaying and eating of the Passover in the different houses were to cease, and they were both to take place at the sanctuary before the Lord, as was the case with the feast of Passover at Sinai (Num 9:1-5). Thus the smearing of the door-posts with the blood was tacitly abolished, since the blood was to be sprinkled upon the altar as sacrificial blood, as it had already been at Sinai.

- The expression “ to thy tents ,” for going “home,” points to the time when Israel was till dwelling in tents, and had not as yet secured any fixed abodes and houses in Canaan, although this expression was retained at a still later time (e. g. , 1Sa 13:2; 2Sa 19:9, etc.) The going home in the morning after the paschal meal, is not to be understood as signifying a return to their homes in the different towns of the land, but simply, as even Riehm admits, to their homes or lodgings at the place of the sanctuary.

How very far Moses was from intending to release the Israelites from the duty of keeping the feast for seven days, is evident from the fact that in Deu 16:8 he once more enforces the observance of the seven days’ feast. The two clauses, “six days thou shalt eat mazzoth ,” and “on the seventh day shall be azereth (Eng. Ver. 'a solemn assembly') to the Lord thy God,” are not placed in antithesis to each other, so as to imply (in contradiction to Deu 16:3 and Deu 16:4; Exo 12:18-19; Exo 13:6-7; Lev 23:6; Num 28:17) that the feast of Mazzoth was to last only six days instead of seven; but the seventh day is brought into especial prominence as the azereth of the feast (see at Lev 23:36), simply because, in addition to the eating of mazzoth , there was to be an entire abstinence from work, and this particular feature might easily have fallen into neglect at the close of the feast.

But just as the eating of mazzoth for seven days is not abolished by the first clause, so the suspension of work on the first day is not abolished by the second clause, any more than in Exo 13:6 the first day is represented as a working day by the fact that the seventh day is called “a feast to Jehovah. ”

Deu 16:1-8 Israel was to make ready the Passover to the Lord in the earing month (see at Exo 12:2). The precise day is supposed to be known from Ex 12, as in Exo 23:15. פּסח עשׂה ( to prepare the Passover ), which is used primarily to denote the preparation of the paschal lamb for a festal meal, is employed here in a wider signification viz. , “ to keep the Passover .

” At this feast they were to slay sheep and oxen to the Lord for a Passover, at the place, etc. In Deu 16:2, as in Deu 16:1, the word “Passover” is employed in a broader sense, and includes not only the paschal lamb, but the paschal sacrifices generally, which the Rabbins embrace under the common name of chagiga ; not the burnt-offerings and sin-offerings, however, prescribed in Num 28:19-26, but all the sacrifices that were slain at the feast of the Passover (i.

e. , during the seven days of the Mazzoth , which are included under the name of pascha ) for the purpose of holding sacrificial meals. This is evident from the expression “of the flock and the herd;” as it was expressly laid down, that only a שׂה, i. e. , a yearling animal of the sheep or goats, was to be slain for the paschal meal on the fourteenth of the month in the evening, and an ox was never slaughtered in the place of the lamb.

But if any doubt could exist upon this point, it would be completely set aside by Deu 16:3 : “ Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it: seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith . ” As the word “therewith” cannot possibly refer to anything else than the “Passover” in Deu 16:2, it is distinctly stated that the slaughtering and eating of the Passover was to last seven days, whereas the Passover lamb was to be slain and consumed in the evening of the fourteenth Abib (Exo 12:10).

Moses called the unleavened bread “ the bread of affliction ,” because the Israelites had to leave Egypt in anxious flight (Exo 12:11) and were therefore unable to leaven the dough (Exo 12:39), for the purpose of reminding the congregation of the oppression endured in Egypt, and to stir them up to gratitude towards the Lord their deliverer, that they might remember that day as long as they lived. (On the meaning of the Mazzothy , see at Exo 12:8 and Exo 12:15.)

- On account of the importance of the unleavened bread as a symbolical shadowing forth of the significance of the Passover, as the feast of the renewal and sanctification of the life of Israel, Moses repeats in Deu 16:4 two of the points in the law of the feast: first of all the one laid down in Exo 13:7, that no leaven was to be seen in the land during the seven days; and secondly, the one in Exo 23:18 and Exo 34:25, that none of the flesh of the paschal lamb was to be left till the next morning, in order that all corruption might be kept at a distance from the paschal food. Leaven, for example, sets the dough in fermentation, from which putrefaction ensues; and in the East, if flesh is kept, it very quickly decomposes.

He then once more fixes the time and place for keeping the Passover (the former according to Exo 12:6 and Lev 23:5, etc.) , and adds in Deu 16:7 the express regulation, that not only the slaughtering and sacrificing, but the roasting (see at Exo 12:9) and eating of the paschal lamb were to take place at the sanctuary, and that the next morning they could turn and go back home.

This rule contains a new feature, which Moses prescribes with reference to the keeping of the Passover in the land of Canaan, and by which he modifies the instructions for the first Passover in Egypt, to suit the altered circumstances. In Egypt, when Israel was not yet raised into the nation of Jehovah, and had as yet no sanctuary and no common altar, the different houses necessarily served as altars.

But when this necessity was at an end, the slaying and eating of the Passover in the different houses were to cease, and they were both to take place at the sanctuary before the Lord, as was the case with the feast of Passover at Sinai (Num 9:1-5). Thus the smearing of the door-posts with the blood was tacitly abolished, since the blood was to be sprinkled upon the altar as sacrificial blood, as it had already been at Sinai.

- The expression “ to thy tents ,” for going “home,” points to the time when Israel was till dwelling in tents, and had not as yet secured any fixed abodes and houses in Canaan, although this expression was retained at a still later time (e. g. , 1Sa 13:2; 2Sa 19:9, etc.) The going home in the morning after the paschal meal, is not to be understood as signifying a return to their homes in the different towns of the land, but simply, as even Riehm admits, to their homes or lodgings at the place of the sanctuary.

How very far Moses was from intending to release the Israelites from the duty of keeping the feast for seven days, is evident from the fact that in Deu 16:8 he once more enforces the observance of the seven days’ feast. The two clauses, “six days thou shalt eat mazzoth ,” and “on the seventh day shall be azereth (Eng. Ver. 'a solemn assembly') to the Lord thy God,” are not placed in antithesis to each other, so as to imply (in contradiction to Deu 16:3 and Deu 16:4; Exo 12:18-19; Exo 13:6-7; Lev 23:6; Num 28:17) that the feast of Mazzoth was to last only six days instead of seven; but the seventh day is brought into especial prominence as the azereth of the feast (see at Lev 23:36), simply because, in addition to the eating of mazzoth , there was to be an entire abstinence from work, and this particular feature might easily have fallen into neglect at the close of the feast.

But just as the eating of mazzoth for seven days is not abolished by the first clause, so the suspension of work on the first day is not abolished by the second clause, any more than in Exo 13:6 the first day is represented as a working day by the fact that the seventh day is called “a feast to Jehovah. ”