Deuteronomy 12

The Title to the Code Like some other titles this is mixed of the Sg. and Pl. forms of address. Sam. confirms the Heb. text. The LXX harmonising gives Pl. throughout.

Deuteronomy 12:1

1. These are the statutes and the judgements] As in Deuteronomy 6:1 but minus the Commandment or Charge (Miṣ ?wah) because this, the introductory enforcement of the religious principles on which the laws are based, is now finished. observe to do] See on Deuteronomy 4:6, Deuteronomy 5:1. God of thy fathers] See on Deuteronomy 6:3. all the days, etc.] Cp. Deuteronomy 4:9-10, Deuteronomy 31:13.

Deuteronomy 12:2-28

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. Thus we may distinguish three statements or editions of the law, 1st Deuteronomy 12:2-7 Pl.; 2nd Deuteronomy 12:8-12 Pl.; 3rd Deuteronomy 12:13-19 Sg., with the practical corollary or supplement to the law, Deuteronomy 12:20-27, the whole enforced by a general exhortation in Deuteronomy 12:28. All three statements have much in common: defining the One Sanctuary as the place which Jehovah your (or thy) God shall choose to put His name there (1st and 3rd) or cause His name to dwell there (2nd); detailing the same list of sacrifices and offerings which are to be brought (1st and 2nd) or offered (3rd which has also take and go), but with some variations, for while all have burnt offerings, vows, tithes, contributions (A.V. and R.V. heave offerings), only the 1st and 3rd add sacrifices to burnt-offerings, the 2nd speaks of choice vows, the 3rd defines the tithes to be in kind, the 1st and 3rd add freewill offerings and firstlings and the 3rd speaks of holy things.

The variations in the descriptions of how the feasts are to be enjoyed and who are to enjoy them are just such as might be made by different but sympathetic writers with the same aim. But all three give different prefaces to the law, the first two containing different reasons for it. As it is uncertain whether we have these three readings of the law complete, it is impossible to say which of them is the earlier. It is natural to suppose priority for the Sg. statement; but as they stand the 1st is the least developed. And it is only the 3rd or Sg. statement which has added to it the practical corollary of permission for the non-sacrificial enjoyment of flesh.

Deuteronomy 12:8-12

8–12. Second Statement of the Law of the Single Sanctuary With a different preface from the first, contrasting Israel’s duty after settlement to concentrate on the one altar, not with the practice of the Canaanites, but with that of Israel itself in the time of the wanderings: for the rest substantially the same as the first statement, and like it in the Pl. address, with one doubtful transition to Sg.: see on Deuteronomy 12:9. Deuteronomy 12:8. Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day] That is in the time of Moses the speaker, and in Moab; but with reference (as the following vv. indicate) to the ritual practice of Israel during the whole forty years preceding their settlement. There may, however, be also here a reflection of the religious practice of the writer’s own time (Oettli). every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes] So with regard to the multiplication of local shrines after the settlement in Canaan, Judges 17:6, cp. Judges 21:25. But if Israel and even Moses—we!—worshipped, where every man thought good, what are we to make of P’s account of the institution of the Tabernacle at Sinai, and of its use during the rest of the forty years and of P’s rigorous and exact laws (e.g. Leviticus 17) concerning the ritual? Obviously P either did not exist when D’s law of the one altar was written, or was unknown to its author. Amos agrees with D. His challenge to Israel (Deuteronomy 5:25), did ye bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years? expects a negative answer in support of his polemic against all sacrifice. Jeremiah’s report of a word of God (Deuteronomy 7:22): I spake not unto your fathers in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices is also indicative of the non-existence of P in the 7th century; and though it continues to give expression to the essential contents of the deuteronomic covenant in deuteronomic language it is difficult to reconcile it with such a law as is now before us. Deuteronomy 12:9. for ye are not as yet come to the rest, etc.] The present irregular form of Israel’s worship is excused by their unsettled, wandering condition. It was then inevitable, but if so what becomes of P’s central sanctuary in the wilderness and his rigorous laws for the ritual? To the rest, 1 Kings 8:56 (deuteronomic); there the erection of the Temple marks the close of Israel’s struggles for possession of the land: cp. Deuteronomy 5:10 b. the inheritance which the Lord your God is about to give you] See on Deuteronomy 4:21. Heb. thy and thee. But probably your and you should be read with Sam. and some LXX codd. (most read our God giveth you). At the same time inheritance is elsewhere used with passages in the Sg. address: if the Sg. be retained here the clause must be a later insertion. Deuteronomy 12:10. when ye go over Jordan] The usual phrase with the Pl., see on Deuteronomy 3:18, Deuteronomy 4:21; but Deuteronomy 9:1 is Sg. causeth you to inherit] See on Deuteronomy 1:38. giveth you rest, etc.] See on Deuteronomy 12:9. Deuteronomy 12:11. See on Deuteronomy 12:5 f. where the expressions are the same or similar; only cause his name to dwell there for put his name there (Deuteronomy 12:5,); all I am about to command you (cp. Deuteronomy 12:14); firstlings and freewill offerings are omitted; and for vows there is choice vows, Heb. all the choice of your vows—ambiguous, and either only the choicest of the things you have vowed (cp. Exodus 14:7; Exodus 15:4) in which case the form of the law is a modification of the other, or the choice things, your vows. More probable is the former. Of the contrary opinion is Bertholet. Deuteronomy 12:12. See on Deuteronomy 12:7 : eat found there is here omitted; and your households is defined as sons, daughters, bondmen and bondmaids, and the Levite within your gates. So Deuteronomy 12:18, Deuteronomy 16:11; Deuteronomy 16:14 (+ stranger, fatherless, widow, cp. Deuteronomy 14:29), Deuteronomy 5:14 (stranger instead of Levite), Deuteronomy 14:26 f. (household and Levite), Deuteronomy 26:11 (thou, Levite and stranger). Wives are not mentioned, for they are included in those to whom the law is addressed; a significant fact. The Levite within your gates (the only instance of the phrase with the Pl. address, see on Deuteronomy 12:17) is the family or local minister of the ritual, who is deprived of the means of subsistence by the disestablishment of the rural shrines, and hath no portion nor inheritance with you, no land of his own: see on Deuteronomy 10:9 and further under Deuteronomy 18:1-8.

Deuteronomy 12:13-19

13–19. Third Statement of the Law of the One Sanctuary In the Sg. address and with phrases characteristic of that form. In substance much the same as the two previous statements, the zebaḥ ?im being curiously omitted from the list of offerings. Deuteronomy 12:15 f. are clearly a later insertion. We see from this statement how a law tended in the hands of the deuteronomists to grow both in content and form. Deuteronomy 12:13. Take heed to thyself] See on Deuteronomy 6:12. burnt offerings] ‘Olôth alone without zebaḥ ?im. This may have been the original form of the law. Contrast Deuteronomy 12:6; Deuteronomy 12:11. in every place that thou seest] Peculiar to this statement: i.e. every sacred place used as such by the Canaanites on the conspicuous positions described in Deuteronomy 12:2. Thou seest, cp. Ezekiel 20:28, when I had brought them into the land … then they saw (or looked out for) every high hill and every thick tree and offered there, etc. Deuteronomy 12:14. See on Deuteronomy 12:5 : here in one of thy tribes instead of out of all thy tribes. Deuteronomy 12:15-16. Notwithstanding … Only] Both = Heb. raḳ ?, used to introduce exceptions or qualifications to the laws, 10 times, and 10 more in the rest of the book (see on Deuteronomy 10:15). On the contents of these verses see Deuteronomy 12:20-25 which they anticipate, disturbing at the same time the list of offerings begun in Deuteronomy 12:13-14 and continued in Deuteronomy 12:17. The immediate connection of Deu 12:17 with Deuteronomy 12:14 is clear. On these grounds Deuteronomy 12:15-16 are generally taken as a later insertion. Note, too, the Pl. ye shall not eat in 16.

The Pl. does not occur in the rest of this statement of the law and may well be due to the hand that has made this addition; as so many of these sporadic changes of address are found in editorial additions. The LXX confirms the Pl. here: the Sam. Sg. may be due to harmonising. Deuteronomy 12:17. Direct continuation of Deu 12:13-14, completing the list of offerings to be brought to the one altar. On the contents see on Deuteronomy 12:6; Deuteronomy 12:11 : the phraseology is however, characteristic of the Sg. passages. Thou mayest not] Heb., lit. thou shalt not be able: in the sense thou must or darest not only in Sg. passages: here, Deuteronomy 16:5, Deuteronomy 17:15, Deuteronomy 22:3, or with he, Deuteronomy 21:16; Deuteronomy 22:19; Deuteronomy 22:29; Deuteronomy 24:4. within thy gates] Thy homestead or town of residence: used almost exclusively with Sg. (Deuteronomy 5:14, Deuteronomy 12:17 f., 21, Deuteronomy 14:21; Deuteronomy 14:27-29, Deuteronomy 15:22, Deuteronomy 16:11; Deuteronomy 16:14, Deuteronomy 17:8, Deuteronomy 24:14, Deuteronomy 26:12, Deuteronomy 31:12, cp. Deuteronomy 28:57). Only one Pl. passage has it, Deuteronomy 12:12. Deuteronomy 12:18. See on Deuteronomy 12:5; Deuteronomy 12:7; Deuteronomy 12:12. Deuteronomy 12:19. Take heed, etc.] See on Deuteronomy 6:12. thou forsake not the Levite, etc.] So Deuteronomy 14:27.

Deuteronomy 12:20-28

20–28. Practical Corollary to the Law of the One Altar Originally among the Semites as among some other races all slaughter of domestic animals was sacramental1[132]: cp. the Heb. and Arab. word ‘for altar, lit. slaughter-place (see on Deuteronomy 12:3). But if this law was still to prevail when sacrifice was limited to one altar the flesh of these animals could only be enjoyed at it, and the lawful or ‘clean’ enjoyment of flesh became impossible to all who lived out of reach of the altar. Compare the analogy in Hosea 9:3 f. where it is said that when Israel are exiled and cease to dwell in Jehovah’s land, where alone sacrifice is legal for them, they must eat unclean food, and become polluted for their food has not first come into a house of Jehovah (cp. Amos 7:17). The confinement of sacrifice to one place therefore rendered it necessary to sanction non-ritual slaughter and eating of animals. This is done in the following verses but on two conditions, (1) that God shall have enlarged Israel’s territory, and (2) that the eaters do not live in the neighbourhood of the altar.

On these conditions the eating of domestic animals shall be as that of game, in need of no ritual sanction (Deuteronomy 12:22). Only their blood must be poured on the ground (Deuteronomy 12:23-25).

And all holy things, specially consecrated, must be brought to the one altar, and the ‘olôth and the blood of the zebaḥ ?im put upon it (Deuteronomy 12:26 f.). The section closes with a general injunction of obedience (Deuteronomy 12:28).—There appears no reason to doubt the unity of this supplement to the law of the one sanctuary (apart from small, possibly editorial, insertions). It is throughout in the Sg. address, and logical in its arrangement. The return to the keynote of the law is natural. Note the religious advance which it involves. By separating the enjoyment of animal food from religious rites (as well as by directing the blood of the animals to be poured on the ground), the law cut off the ancient primitive superstitions of the physical kinship of a tribe and their god with their animals, and rendered less possible the animal idolatry which these engendered. [132] For the argument that this practice was due to belief in the kinship of the tribe (and its god) with its animals and that in consequence these were too sacred to be slain except with solemn rites and in the presence and with the consent of the whole family, clan or tribe, who all partook of the flesh and set apart certain portions and the blood for their god, see W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem. Lects. viii., ix.Deuteronomy 12:20. shall enlarge thy border] So Deuteronomy 19:8, also Exodus 34:24, probably editorial. as he hath promised thee] Heb. has said. To regard this as an editorial addition, on the ground that it anticipates 21 b (Steuern., Berth.), is precarious. The spirit of such a promise is in several previous passages: e.g. Deuteronomy 1:21. thy soul desireth] On the soul as seat of the appetite see Deuteronomy 14:26, Deuteronomy 24:15; Genesis 27:9; Proverbs 27:7. The frankness of this statement is noteworthy. after all the (or every) desire of thy soul] The utmost freedom is granted. But the whole passage implies that flesh was eaten only seldom in early Israel, which is confirmed by Nathan’s parable and the Book of Ruth (W. R. Smith, OTJC2, 249 n.). Deuteronomy 12:21. If] Rather, Because. the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, etc.] See on Deuteronomy 12:5. thou shalt kill] The same vb. as is used of sacrifice but here in a non-ritual sense. as I have commanded thee] Can only refer to Deuteronomy 12:15 and if that, as we have seen probable, is a later insertion, this must be of the same character (Steuern., Bertholet). within thy gates] See on Deuteronomy 12:17. Deuteronomy 12:22. Even as the gazelle and as the hart is eaten] Gazelle. Heb. Ṣ ?ebî, and Ar. ẓ ?aby or thobby (Doughty, Ar. Des. ii. 468) are both properly the gazella Dorcas, a horned animal about the size of a roebuck, but more graceful, numerous in Arabia and Syria; but as ẓ ?aby was used as the more general term for ghazâl or gazelle (Lane), so ṣ ?ebî probably covered several species of gazelle and antelope. Hart, Heb. ’ayyal, from ’ul to precede, as leader of the herd, perhaps the fallow deer cervus dama; but Ar. ’iyyal is mountain-goat (Lane). The two names occurring together here, Deuteronomy 12:15, Deuteronomy 14:5, Deuteronomy 15:22, are not to be taken specifically, but generally of many kinds of gazelle, antelope and deer eaten by Israel and the Arabs, but not allowed for sacrifice (except in certain cases among the Arabs, Wellh.

Reste d. Arab. Heid. 112). The reason was that wild animals taken in hunting were not akin to man, and therefore needed not to be eaten sacramentally. Hence the following clause— unclean and clean shall eat thereof alike] Both adj., used also in physical and ethical sense, here mean ritually unclean and clean: the injunction is found elsewhere in D, Deuteronomy 12:15, Deuteronomy 15:22, and in P. Sam., LXX add among thee. Alike, Heb. together, the one as well as the other. so thou shalt eat thereof] i.e. of domestic animals: out of reach of the sanctuary they may be slain and eaten without rites. What freedom the deuteronomic law thus effected, in contrast to petty and embarrassing scrupulousness engendered by the legislation of P and its elaboration in later Judaism, can be appreciated only by a study of the N.T. texts on the question of meats. Cp. Acts 10:15, what God hath cleansed make not thou common; 1 Corinthians 10:25; 1 Corinthians 11:20 ff.; Romans 14:20; 1 Timothy 4:4, and for the expression of a still higher principle Matthew 15:11. Deuteronomy 12:23. Only] Heb. raḳ ?, see on Deuteronomy 10:15, and Deuteronomy 12:15-16. be sure] Lit. be firm or strong: usually in D with another verb—be strong and courageous; see on Deuteronomy 1:38, Deuteronomy 3:28. that thou eat not the blood] That there was at once a strong temptation to partake of the blood and from the earliest times a national conscience against doing so, is seen in 1 Samuel 14:32 ff., according to which the people flew upon the spoil—sheep, oxen and calves—and slew them on the ground, without altar or rites, and ate them with the blood.… So the people sin against Jehovah in that they eat with the blood, and he said, Ye have transgressed. For a similar conscience, and violation of it, among the Arabs, see Doughty, Ar. Des. ii. 238. for the blood is the life] The identification of blood and life was a matter of ordinary observation; as the one ebbed so did the other. As life, the blood belonged to the Deity. Cp. P (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:11; Leviticus 17:14), in which, however, the belief was strengthened by the stress that P lays on the expiatory value of sacrifice. Other Semitic peoples shared the same belief. ‘In all Arabian sacrifices, except the holocaust … the godward side of the ritual is summed up in the shedding of the victim’s blood, so that it flows over the sacred symbol, or gathers in a pit (ghabghab) at the foot of the altar idol.… What enters the pit is held to be conveyed to the deity’ (W. R.

Smith, Rel. Sem. 321). The same authority points out that the practice existed also in some Syrian sanctuaries. That it was still older than the Semites is proved by Mr R. A. S.

Macalister’s discovery of the neolithic sanctuary at Gezer. Note, however, that D (unlike P) sets no atoning value on the shedding of the blood or life, nor any ritual significance on the slaughter of animals apart from the one altar, but simply states— Deuteronomy 12:24. Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water] It shall have no other significance than that! Deuteronomy 12:26-27. The return to the fact that solemn sacrifices shall nevertheless be made at the one altar is natural. On holy things cp. Numbers 5:9 f., Deuteronomy 18:19. On burnt offerings which, of course, included the blood, and on sacrifices see on Deuteronomy 12:6. Of both the blood had a religious significance. Deuteronomy 12:28. A closing injunction to keep the whole law of the One Sanctuary. Observe and hear] See on Deuteronomy 6:3, Deuteronomy 7:12. that it may go well with thee] Deuteronomy 4:40.

Deuteronomy 12:29-31

29–31. Transition to the Laws in 13 (and those in Deuteronomy 16:21 to Deuteronomy 17:7) When settled in W. Palestine Israel shall not inquire into the manner of the worship of the local deities, and so be enticed to imitate it in the worship of their own God, for the Canaanites in their worship practise every abomination to Jehovah: they even burn their children to the gods.—Here we meet one of the greater difficulties raised by the order of the laws in the code. For unless this short passage be merely one of the many exhortations, which, like a chorus, break in upon both the narratives and the laws of D, it is meant as an introduction to the laws against seducers to idolatry, which follow in ch. 13. Yet, as such, it is abrupt and incomplete; Deuteronomy 12:31 warns against every abomination to Jehovah, and then, instead of a list of those abominations, gives only one. Now others are given in Deuteronomy 16:21 to Deuteronomy 17:7; and that passage is clearly out of place where it stands, between laws relating to judicial authorities and procedure. The suggestion has therefore been made (first by Dillmann, cp.

Driver on Deuteronomy 16:21 and Bertholet on Deuteronomy 12:29 and Marti in Kautzsch’s Heil. Schrift des A.T.) that Deuteronomy 16:21 to Deuteronomy 17:7 originally stood between Deuteronomy 12:29-31 and Deuteronomy 13:2 ff. There is much in favour of this suggestion; Deuteronomy 16:21 to Deuteronomy 17:7 naturally continues Deuteronomy 12:29-31 and has phrases in common with this (which thy God hateth and abomination), while its second part commanding the punishment of idolatrous Israelites as naturally leads up to the three laws in Deuteronomy 13:2 ff. (Deuteronomy 13:1 ff.). On the relation to Deuteronomy 12:29-31 of Deuteronomy 18:9-12, also on the sacrifice of children, see on the latter passage. A further difficulty is Deuteronomy 12:32 (Deuteronomy 13:1), see the note on it. Deuteronomy 12:29. When the Lord thy God shall cut off the nations] So Deuteronomy 19:1 (cp. deuter. Joshua 23:4 f.); beyond this the verses differ. whither thou goest in to dispossess them] Characteristic of the Sg. passages, cp. Deuteronomy 9:5; Deuteronomy 19:1 has whose land the Lord thy God is about to give thee. and thou shalt have dispossessed them] So Deuteronomy 19:1 : R.V. succeedest them. and dwellest in their land] Deuteronomy 19:1, their cities. Deuteronomy 12:30. take heed to thyself] See Deuteronomy 6:12. ensnared to follow them] snared away after them; cp. Deuteronomy 7:16; Deuteronomy 7:25. inquire not after] See on seek, Deuteronomy 12:5. How do these nations, serve, etc.] Rather How used these nations to worship. so will I do, I also or in my turn] The lighter form of the pronoun, ’anî, used in the Song of Solomon 32 and throughout P, is found in D (which elsewhere uses the heavier form ’ânôki) only here and Deuteronomy 29:5; and is to he explained by the common O.T. usage of preferring ’anî when the pronoun is employed in emphasis as here. The whole verse is true to the religious situation in which Israel found themselves after settlement in Canaan. They came under the belief, prevalent in antiquity, that not only must the gods of a land be propitiated by its invaders, but that worship must be offered only after the local mishpat or ritual (1 Samuel 26:19; 2 Kings 17:25 ff.). So they inquired what that mishpat was and conformed to it the worship of their own God, with the result of confusing Him with the gods of the land. for even their sons and their daughters do they burn] or used to burn. That the Semites (as well as other ancient races) sacrificed children has been amply proved. Mesha of Moab, hard pressed by Israel, slew his first-born to Kemosh (2 Kings 3:27) just as we know, through the Greeks (Diod. Sic. xx. 14, Porph. apud Euseb. Praep. Evang. iv. (64, 4), was the practice of Phoenicians and Carthaginians in times of national danger or disaster. On human sacrifices among them, the Syrians, and ancient Arabs see notes to pp. 346 ff. of W. R. Smith’s Rel. Sem. For the Canaanites the evidence of the sacrifice of children by slaughter and burning is conclusive, both from the O.T. texts, and recent discoveries:— At Gezer round the feet of the maṣ ?ṣ ?eboth (see on Deuteronomy 16:22) and ‘over the whole area of the High Place the earth was discovered to be a regular cemetery in which the skeletons of young infants were buried. These infants were never more than a week old. Two at least showed marks of fire.’ They were buried in jars, each with a lamp and a bowl, as if symbols of fire and blood (R. A. S. Macalister, PEFQ, 1903, Bible Side Lights etc., 73 f.). At Ta‘anak Sellin found jars with the remains of 20 infants, some up to 5 years of age close to a rock altar (Tell Ta‘annek, 35 ff.). At Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim) under the corner of a temple four jars with remains of infants were dug up from a stratum probably of the late Israelite period.

Others have been found under the walls of houses, but whether these were of still-born infants or of such as died naturally is not known; in Egypt, as the present writer has been informed by the American missionaries, the still-born children of Copts are buried in the house (whether with the hope that they may be re-born into it?). See further Frazer, Adonis, Attis etc. 78. But there can be no doubt of the fate of those found in the sanctuaries; the marks of fire on some and the presence of lamps and bowls prove slaughter and sacrifice by fire. So too the vb. burn used here and in Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 19:5, as well as the story of Abraham and Isaac, indicates a full sacrifice, slaughter and at least partial consumption by fire on an altar. On this Ezekiel 16:21 (cp. Ezekiel 23:39) is explicit: thou hast slain my children and didst deliver them up in causing them to pass through (sc. the fire) to them.

The fire was the means of their conveyance to the deity. Therefore the expression to make son or daughter pass through the fire (Deuteronomy 18:10) cannot he explained as merely a consecration or ordeal by fire.

The data do not enable us to determine whether at any time the practice of devoting the firstborn was binding and universal among the Canaanites, or was confined to periods of calamity. That even among the Canaanites there was a revolt from it is proved by Mr Macalister’s discovery (op. cit. 170 f., PEFQ, 1903, 8 f.), in some strata of the pre-Israelite period, of lamps and bowls buried with the jars instead of children and as if in substitution for these. The practice by Israel of sacrificing children after the same fashion and from the same motives is proved by the narratives and laws of the Old Testament as well as by the prophets:— The story, which is found in E, Genesis 22, that the divine word bade Abraham sacrifice Isaac and then revealed a substitute in the ram, is evidence that at one time among the Hebrews the belief had prevailed in the duty of fathers to slay their children, if required, us proof of their fidelity to their God, but that by His mercy a substitute was allowed. This is confirmed by the form of the law in J, Exodus 13:12. Though this sanctions the redemption of the firstborn son by an animal, the way in which it opens—thou shalt cause to pass over unto Jehovah all that openeth the womb and every firstling which thou hast that Cometh of a beast—indicates that the original principle, on which Israel acted, was that the firstborn of men, equally with those of animals, were due to the deity by sacrifice. In Judah in the 7th century the popular belief was that Jehovah Himself had given a law obliging the burning of children, for Jeremiah (or a deuteronomic writer whose words have been here placed among his prophecies) emphatically denies the existence of such a law: which I commanded not, neither came it into my mind (Jeremiah 7:31, Jeremiah 19:5). On the other hand Ezekiel supports the opinion that Israel’s God had given such a law and explains that this was in order to punish the second generation in the wilderness. 20:25: moreover I gave them also statutes not good and judgements whereby they should not live, and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through (sc. the fire) all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate (see A. B. Davidson’s note on this passage in Ezekiel in this series). There was therefore a memory in Israel that the fathers of the race had shared the general Semitic conscience that the sacrifice of children was sanctioned or even expressly commanded by God, but that from an early time He had permitted the substitution of an animal, which permission, J tells us, was expressly dictated by Moses at the Exodus. In the early centuries after the settlement there are no instances of child-sacrifice in Israel except in the story of Jephthah (and more doubtfully in that of Hiel, the re-builder of Jericho). And the cases which recur later are all explicable by the bad influence of the neighbouring heathen, and the panic produced by national disaster, either actual or threatened. So in the case of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:4), the historical character of which there is no reason to doubt (see as against Moore, E.B. art. ‘Molech’ the present writer’s Jerusalem, ii. 127, 264); and so with the recrudescence of the practice in the 7th century under Manasseh, and the use of the horrible Topheth or Tephath in the valley of Hinnom (Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 19:5; ‘Mi.’ Deuteronomy 6:6 f.; Ezekiel 16:21; Ezekiel 20:18 ff; Ezekiel 23:39). The present Hebrew text of Jer. says that these sacrifices were offered to ‘Molech,’ but ‘there are grounds for believing that this was a divine title, Melek or King, rather than a name; and that the awful despot who demanded such a propitiation was regarded by the Jews as none other than their own God’ (Jerusalem, ii. 264). This is clear, as we have seen above, from the passages in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. And the reason is plain why D, a work of the 7th century, should alone of all Israel’s law-books be ardent, equally with the great prophets of the time, in repudiating child-sacrifice.

Deuteronomy 12:32

32. (Deuteronomy 13:1 in Heb.) is remarkable here; and would seem more in place at the beginning of the section before 29. The text is not certain; LXX A harmonises to Sg. throughout, but other versions confirm the Heb., though variously (LXX B you and the rest Sg., but Sam. thee and the rest Pl.), in a change of address. This and the use of common formulas mark the verse as editorial. It may have been thought necessary, after the removal from here of Deu 16:21 to Deuteronomy 17:7 (see above), as an introduction to Deuteronomy 13:1 ff. (Deuteronomy 13:2 ff. in Heb.). command you] Sam., LXX add to-day. observe to do] See on Deuteronomy 5:1. thou shall not add, etc.] See on Deuteronomy 4:2.