Deuteronomy 12:14

But in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy tribes,.... Which tribe is not named, nor what place in that tribe; [See comments on Deuteronomy 12:5], there thou shalt offer thy burnt

Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest: Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest: No JFB commentary on these verses.

Deuteronomy 12:14 But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee.Ver. 14. But in the place.] This taught them unity and uniformity in divine worship; as also that there was but one only way to obtain pardon of their sin, and acceptance of their services, viz., by Jesus Christ, of whom their tabernacle and temple was a type.

(13, 14) Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest: But in the place which the Lord shall choose.—An attempt is made by some modern writers to establish a contradiction between this precept and the one in Exodus 20:24 : “In all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.” But they are not really contradictory. The choice of Jehovah makes the place of acceptance. He need not always choose the same spot-Either this law in Deuteronomy was written by Moses or it was not. If it was, it must be taken in the same sense as Exodus 20:24. If it was the work of later times, the writer must have known perfectly that Jehovah had varied His choice from time to time, and therefore the injunction must still have the same sense. Rashi remarks upon the words “Take heed that thou offer not . . . in every place that thou seest”—i.e. which comes into thy mind—“but thou must offer at the command of a prophet, as, for instance, Elijah on Mount Carmel.” It seems clear that the general principle inculcated here is the same with that of Exodus 20 and of Leviticus 17. The choice of Jehovah makes the place of worship. Details may safely be left to the direction of the authorised Divine representatives at any given time. If the Jews themselves saw no difficulty or discrepancy in these Scriptures, is it any proof of wisdom for us to make difficulties? Do we not rather prove the imperfection of our own understanding?

Verse 14. The place which the Lord shall choose] To prevent idolatry and bring about a perfect uniformity in the Divine worship, which at that time was essentially necessary; because every rite and ceremony had a determinate meaning, and pointed out the good things which were to come, therefore one place must be established where those rites and ceremonies should be carefully and punctually observed. Had it not been so, every man would have formed his worship according to his own mind, and the whole beauty and importance of the grand representative system would have been destroyed, and the Messiah and the glories of his kingdom could not have been seen through the medium of the Jewish ritual. For uniformity in every part of the Divine worship the same necessity does not now exist; because that which was typified is come, and the shadows have all fled away. Yet, when it can be obtained, how desirable is it that all sincere Christians should with one mouth, as well as with one heart, glorify their common Lord and Saviour!

I. First Division of the Laws: on Worship and Religious Institutions—Deuteronomy 12:2 to Deuteronomy 16:17, Deuteronomy 16:21 to Deuteronomy 17:7 Some 16 laws occupying because of their subject the premier place in the Code. 2–28. The Law of the One Altar and its Corollary As we have seen the law of One Sanctuary for Israel was, in the circumstances of that people in the 7th century, an inevitable consequence from the prophetic proclamation of One God for Israel. For the practice of worshipping Him at many shrines, sanctioned by Himself in the earlier period of Israel’s settlement, had, especially as many of the sites chosen were those of the Canaanite worship of local Ba‘alim, tended to break up the people’s belief in His Unity. He became to their minds many Jehovahs (see above on Deuteronomy 6:4); and at the same time their conceptions of Him were degraded by the confusion of His attributes with those of the deities to whose shrines He had succeeded. Therefore as the Unity of Jehovah and His ethical character are the burden of the Miṣ ?wah or Charge introductory to the Code it is appropriate that the first of the laws should be that abolishing the custom of sacrifice at many sanctuaries and limiting His ritual to a single altar. Note, too, how this is immediately followed by a warning against the worship of other gods (Deuteronomy 12:29-31); and that the next laws (Deuteronomy 12:32 to Deuteronomy 13:18) deal with those who entice, or are enticed, to that worship. Nothing could more clearly show how urgently the concentration of the worship of Jehovah was required in the interest of faith in His Unity and in His spiritual nature. How thoroughly such a law contradicts the earlier legislation about altars, as well as the divinely sanctioned practice of sacrifice in Israel after the settlement; and how far it is incompatible with the corresponding laws in P, will appear in the notes. The chapter has some obvious editorial insertions disturbing the connection (Deuteronomy 12:3; Deuteronomy 12:15-16; Deuteronomy 12:32); but there are besides repetitions of the central injunction of the law in the same or similar phraseology and introduced or followed by different reasons for it. A careful analysis shows that these are not due to the discursiveness of one writer, but are statements of the same law from different writers of the same religious school. This conclusion is confirmed by the prevalence in Deuteronomy 12:2-12 of the Pl. and in Deuteronomy 12:13-28 of the Sg. form of address. But even within Deuteronomy 12:2-12 there is a double statement of the central injunction; on the other hand in Deuteronomy 12:13-28 the repetitions are either clearly editorial insertions, or due to the necessity of repeating the central injunction of the law in a practical corollary permitting the non-sacrificial enjoyment of flesh to Israelites, too far from the One Altar to be able regularly to consecrate it there.