The Year of Remission: (1) of Debts

Every seventh year Israel shall make Remission or Release (1). Creditors shall cancel their loans to fellow-Israelites—it is the Lord’s Remission—but not those to foreigners (2 f.). But there shall be no need for this law if Israel keep God’s commandments, for then (under His blessing) there shall be no poor; and Israel shall lend to and not borrow from other peoples (4–6). Israel must not allow the approach of the year of Remission to operate as a motive for refusing loans to the poor, who shall never cease out of the land (7–11).—In the Sg. address throughout. The law proper (Deuteronomy 15:3, see note) apparently cites an earlier law; Deuteronomy 15:4-6 are by some (e.g. Steuern., Berth.) regarded as being, or containing, editorial additions, partly because Deuteronomy 15:4, there shall be no poor, contradicts Deuteronomy 15:11, the poor shall never cease out of the land. But (apart altogether from the Oriental love of paradox) the two statements might naturally be made by the same writer, loyal on the one side to D’s governing ideal that Israel’s obedience will ensure their prosperity, and on the other to D’s intense philanthropy as applied to the actual needs of the present. Both in the analysis of the text of Deut. and (as we shall immediately see) in its interpretation we must keep in mind that the legislation is governed at once by religious ideals more or less impracticable and by an equally religious passion to provide in a practical way for the immediate interests of the people, especially the poor and friendless. There is therefore no cause to doubt the unity of the passage; except that the parenthesis in Deuteronomy 15:4 b may be a later expansion, as it is superfluous before Deuteronomy 15:6.

The other codes contain no exact counterpart to this law of D. But E, Exodus 23:10 f., commands that every seventh year the ground shall lie fallow—thou shalt remit or release it—and so too the vineyards and oliveyards—that the poor of thy people may eat; and H, Leviticus 25:1-7, enjoins that in the seventh year the land shall not be sown nor the fruit-trees pruned, it shall be a year of Sabbath or solemn rest. The law, of which these are successive editions, was apparently based on the original rights of the whole community to the land (cp. for other nations Sir Henry Maine’s Village Communities East and West, 77 ff., 107 ff.; Fenton, Early Heb. Life, 24 ff., 29 ff., 64 ff.). The connections between this law and D’s remission of debt are obscure. Is D’s law meant as an addition to E’s, or as a substitute for it in different economic conditions? The latter alternative is unlikely; though D (Deuteronomy 15:3) alone speaks of loans to foreigners, which implies commerce, his directions as to loans to Israelites are not practicable in a commercial community and imply as purely an agricultural one as E’s law does; but D has no law for the land lying fallow. Dillmann holding that a complete cancelling of debts every seventh year was impracticable, argues that D takes E’s law for granted and has framed his own to meet the consequences of E’s. If the land lay fallow for the seventh year the poor cultivators could not repay loans made to them by their richer neighbours, and therefore the repayment was suspended for that year only (cp. Driver, Deut. 177 f.). This is plausible; but there is much to contradict it. To begin with, it is very doubtful whether E’s seventh year in which the ground was to lie fallow was to be the same year for the whole land1[136]; whereas D’s seventh year of remission was (as we see from Deuteronomy 15:4-6) the same everywhere and for everybody. Again, the verb from which the Heb. noun for Remission comes means not suspension but total remission (Jeremiah 17:4). Again, if the law had intended merely a suspension of the loan there would hardly have been need for the warning in Deuteronomy 15:9, not to use the approach of the seventh year as a pretext for refusing a loan. This view is confirmed by the fact that the loans to which D’s law refers were not business, but charitable loans, made for the relief of the poor, Deuteronomy 15:6, and without any charge for interest, Deuteronomy 23:19 (20). It was no more impracticable to command their total remission in the seventh year, when after several harvests the debtor’s inability to pay had been fully proved, than to command the initial granting of the loan itself. D’s law was not for the regulation of commerce, but for the inculcation of liberality to poor neighbours. This line of argument also precludes the view held by some that D’s law does not refer to the repayment of the principal of the loan, but commands only the suspension for one year of the interest. As we have seen this class of loans bore no interest. And indeed Deuteronomy 15:2 f. are explicit that it is the whole loan which is to be remitted: whatsoever of thine is with thy brother. Nehemiah (ch. 5) found among the returned exiles the practice of exacting both principal and interest from poor debtors, and he abolished these exactions. The later Jewish law clearly understood the remission to be that of the capital sum, and because this was impracticable in the case of commercial loans, provided legal means of evading it in the seventh year. (Mishna, ‘Shebi‘îth, Deuteronomy 10:3-7; Schürer, Hist. of the Jewish People, E. T. ii. i. 362 f.)

[136] In H it may be the same year for the whole land (Driver), but even this is not certain.

The above view, that the law intends a total remission of the loan, is held by Philo (De Septenario, § 8), the Mishna (‘shebi‘îth, Deuteronomy 10:1), Jewish lawyers, Matt. Henry, Gesenius, Wellh., Nowack, Benzinger, Steuern., Berth., H. W. Robinson; that a mere suspension of payment is intended is held by Knobel, Keil, Dillm., Riehm, Oehler, and von Orelli. Driver thinks it ‘has all a priori considerations in its favour, but we are not perhaps sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances … to be able to feel perfectly confident that it is correct.’ Again: ‘while as a law regulating commercial loans generally it can have been a practicable one only upon the modern interpretation [i.e. mere suspension of repayment], it is possible that in its original intention its application was so limited by circumstances that the ancient interpretation [i.e. total remission] may be the correct one.’ W. R. Smith, E.B., art. ‘Sabbatical Year,’ gives the alternatives, either no interest is to be exacted, or no proceedings are to be taken against the debtor, in the 7th year.

1. At the end of seven years] So Heb. That is, in the seventh year, as is clearly put in Deuteronomy 15:12 (cp. Jeremiah 34:14): see also Deuteronomy 14:28.

a release] or remission, Heb. shemiṭṭah from shamaṭ, to let drop (2 Kings 9:33; let her drop) or lapse: Exodus 23:11, thou shalt let it (the land or its crop) lapse, i.e. lie fallow; Deuteronomy 15:3 of a debt.

2. And this is the manner of the release] Lit. the word or law (or as we might say text) of: cp. Deuteronomy 19:4 R.V. this is the case of. The following clause is a citation of an older law, as we see further from its phrasing.

every creditor] Lit. every owner (ba‘al cp. Exodus 22:14) of a loan of his hand, of anything he has lifted or made over at his own hand.

neighbour] Heb. rçă‘, very seldom used with the Sg. address for fellow-Israelite, and possibly always, as here, in quotations, Deuteronomy 19:4 f., Deuteronomy 23:24 f., Deuteronomy 24:10. The synonymous term, brother, is used by the writer of the Sg. about 25 times, and has probably been inserted by him in this citation (Steuern.).

the Lord’s release] by His order, or for His sake.

hath been proclaimed] which shows that this year is the same for the whole nation.

3. foreigner] nokrî distinct not only from neighbour- or brother-Israelite, but also from gçr the foreign client or settler in Israel (Deuteronomy 14:21).

4. Howbeit there shall be no poor with thee] Dillm. etc. transl.: should be no poor. But this is not a correct rendering of the Heb. which uses the positive form of the vb.; and it weakens the writer’s confident emphasis on his ideal. He is stating not so much what should be as what shall be, if only (raḳ: see on Deuteronomy 10:15) Israel obeys the law (Deuteronomy 15:5). See introd. note above. The rest of Deuteronomy 15:4 is a parenthesis, and probably a later expansion.

for the Lord will surely bless thee] Sam., LXX add thy God; cp. Deuteronomy 2:7, Deuteronomy 28:8.

giveth thee for an inheritance, etc.] See on Deuteronomy 4:21.

5. to observe to do] See on Deuteronomy 5:1.

all this commandment, etc.] See on Deuteronomy 5:31, Deuteronomy 8:1.

6. will bless thee] Heb. is stronger, shall have blessed thee.

thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow] Heb. shalt take, but shalt not give, pledges; cp. 8, Deuteronomy 24:10-13. This promise of a large foreign commerce, repeated Deuteronomy 28:12 f. (with the contrast in 43 f.) is peculiar to D among the codes of Israel. It covers, of course, not only the lending of money and bullion (banking proper), but the sale of goods on credit at interest, to other nations. Such a foreign trade appears to have flourished with great profit both to Judah and Israel under the long contemporary reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II (Isaiah 2:7; Hosea 12:7). There was large commerce with foreigners under Manasseh: cp. Ezekiel’s name for Jerusalem, the gate of the peoples (Deuteronomy 26:2, LXX), and the king of Persia’s refusal to allow the walls of Jerusalem to be rebuilt lest her former power of exacting tolls and customs should revive (Ezra 4:20). It is striking, however, that the fulfilment of D’s promise was most fully realised not while Israel remained on their own land but after their dispersion among the nations, from the Greek period onwards. Strabo’s words (quoted in Jos. XIV. Antt. vii. 2) are a remarkable acknowledgement of the political as well as financial superiority foreseen by D for Israel: ‘These Jews have penetrated to every city and it would not be easy to find a single place in the inhabited world which has not received this race, and where it has not become master.’ See further Jerusalem, i. 370 f., ii. 193 f., 392 ff.

7. with thee a poor man, one of thy brethren] Heb. in thee as in Deuteronomy 15:4; poor, better needy.

in any of thy gates] or townships; see on Deuteronomy 12:12.

harden thine heart] See on Deuteronomy 2:30; cp. 1 John 3:17.

7–11. One of the most beautiful as it is one of the most characteristic passages in the laws of D: illustrating not only the humane spirit, and the practical thoughtfulness of this code, but its extension of the Law to the thoughts and interests of the heart: cp. Deuteronomy 5:21.

8. lend him] See on Deuteronomy 15:6.

9. Beware] be on guard with respect to thyself; see on Deuteronomy 4:9.

a base thought in thine heart] Lit. a word or thing in thine heart, baseness, or worthlessness: beliya‘al; see on Deuteronomy 13:13 (14).

thine eye be evil] cruel or grudging, Deuteronomy 28:54; Deuteronomy 28:56; the opposite of tender or compassionate.

and it be sin unto thee] ‘that which we think our Prudence oft proves sin to us’ (M. Henry).

10. thine heart shall not be grieved, etc.] God loveth a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:7).

puttest thine hand unto] See on Deuteronomy 12:7.

11. For the poor shall never cease, etc.] See introd. note.

to thy needy, and to thy poor] Two of the three Hebrew synonyms for poor. The first is a passive form, forced, afflicted, then wretched, whether under persecution, poverty or exile, arid so also subdued, mild, meek. The second is the Lat. egenus, needy.

12. thy brother] See on Deuteronomy 15:2.

an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman] E, Exodus 21:2, an Hebrew slave. In O.T. Hebrew is used either when foreigners are speaking of Israelites, or in order to distinguish Israelites from foreigners. Here the Heb. gives only the adj. masc. and fem., Hebrew and Hebrewess, without adding man (so Jeremiah 34:9; Jeremiah 34:14; cp. Genesis 14:13, Abram the Hebrew and Genesis 39:17 (J) the Hebrew slave). The fuller phrase Hebrew man occurs in J and E (Genesis 39:14; Exodus 2:11), also the plur. Hebrews (Genesis 40:15; Exodus 2:6; Exodus 2:13, etc.). Fem. sing. only here and Jeremiah 34:9, plur. in E (Exodus 1:15, etc.). Not found in P. On the addition Hebrew woman, see Introd. § 3.

be sold unto thee] Leviticus 25:39 A.V.: but the vb. equally means sell himself. E, Exodus 21:2, has if thou buy.

and serve] more probably he shall serve (cp. Exodus 21:2).

in the seventh year thou shalt let him go] send or dismiss him. Neither in E nor D is there any hint of this number being suggested by the weekly sabbath; this association first appears in H’s law of the seventh fallow year, Leviticus 25:2 ff.

free] the same adj. in Exodus 21:2; Exodus 21:5, and elsewhere of freedom from slavery.

12–18. The Year of Remission: (2) of Slaves

If a Hebrew, man or woman, serves as a slave for six years, in the seventh he shall not only go free but be liberally equipped from his owner’s property; as Israel was a slave and redeemed by God (Deuteronomy 15:12-15). If, however, the slave elects to remain with his owner because he loves him, then he shall be bound to his service for ever (Deuteronomy 15:16 f.). Nor must his emancipation seem hard to the owner: six years’ profit from a slave is double the hire of a hireling (Deuteronomy 15:18).—Sg. throughout. Whether there are any editorial additions is uncertain: the prevailing use of the masc. for slave seems to some to point to the phrase or an Hebrew woman (Deuteronomy 15:12; Deuteronomy 15:17 b) as such [Holzinger, Einleitung, 313, n. 1; cp. Steuern.).

The corresponding law in E, Exodus 21:1-6 (see Driver’s notes), also directs the emancipation of a Hebrew bondman after six years’ service, does not mention bondwoman (for the slave-concubine he has a further law, Deuteronomy 15:7-11) but provides (as D does not) for the bondman’s wife: if he has entered service married he takes his wife out; if his master has given him a wife she and their children remain his master’s property; and to his love for his master E adds that for his wife and children as a motive for his electing to remain. The ceremony of binding him to the service is the same as in D with an addition (see on Deuteronomy 15:17). E does not provide equipment for the freed slave.

The law in Leviticus 25:39-55 (H expanded by P) deals with both the Hebrew and the foreign bondman. The former is not to serve as slave but as a hired servant, up to the year of jubile (when all land returns to its original owners), and then go free with his children to his own family and his father’s possession; nothing, therefore, is said of a provision for him from his master’s goods, nor of manumission in the seventh year. Thus practically no Israelite is to be a slave: one Israelite shall not rule over another with rigour. But slaves of foreign birth or from among the gçrîm are their purchaser’s possession for ever and heritable property. If a poor Hebrew sell himself to a foreigner, he may be redeemed by himself or his family, and a scale is fixed for his price, but if he be not redeemed by the year of jubile, he and his children shall then go free. Throughout nothing is said as to the bondman’s wife.

The gradation of these laws, though not so marked as in the case of some others, is sufficiently clear. E’s is the most primitive; D’s dependence on E is probable but not so evident as in other cases; it might be a different codification of the same consuetudinary law. Besides stating the law in his own phraseology (more particularly that of the Sg. address) and pleading motives for it which are characteristic of him (e.g. Deuteronomy 15:15; Deuteronomy 15:18), D has the equally characteristic addition about the equipment of the freed slave. Leviticus 25:39-55, with its addition upon Hebrew slaves sold to foreigners, reflects conditions which may sometimes have happened before the Exile, but were more prevalent only after it.

Besides, the postponement of the emancipation from the 7th year to that of the jubile seems to imply that E’s and D’s laws which fixed it for the former had been found impracticable; P (or H?) therefore prolongs the period of service, but compensates for this by commanding that the Hebrew slave shall be treated as a free man (Driver, Deut. 185). Calvin’s explanation—that the term jubile is extended to mean every seventh year; or that the slaves to be freed at the jubile were those who refused enfranchisement in the seventh year and being so fully in their owner’s power needed the Levitical directions for their humane treatment—is impossible.

On the neglect of the law see Jeremiah 34:8 ff.; Nehemiah 5:5.

Two other things need to be noted:—(1) The causes by which Israelites fell into slavery were mainly poverty and crime. A man unable to pay the mohar or purchase money for a bride might serve for her a term of years, like Jacob (Genesis 29:18); a father might sell his children, especially his daughters (Exodus 21:7), either for poverty or from the wish to connect his house with that of an influential neighbour; the insolvent debtor might be sold (2 Kings 4:1; Amos 2:6; Amos 8:6; Nehemiah 5:5; Nehemiah 5:8), or, though not a debtor, might be driven by sheer want to sell himself (Leviticus 25:39); or a man might be sold for theft, which he could not make good (Exodus 22:2 f.; Josephus, iv. Antt. viii. 2); and there were born slaves (Genesis 14:14). Stealing and selling a slave was punishable by death (Exodus 21:16). (2) The condition of slaves was good. The slave of an Israelite was a member of the family, who enjoyed its religious fellowship and took part in the rites and benefits of this, e.g. the Sabbath (Deuteronomy 5:12, Deuteronomy 12:18, Deuteronomy 16:11; Exodus 23:12) and must therefore have been circumcised (P expressly commands this, Genesis 17:12). He had sometimes great influence and authority in the household and might marry his master’s daughter, or even become his heir (Genesis 15:2 ff; Genesis 24:1 ff.; 1 Samuel 25:14 ff.; 1 Chronicles 2:34 f.). Even the oldest law, though it considers slaves to be their master’s property (Exodus 21:21; Exodus 21:32), does not allow him to kill them (id. 20), and if he destroy the eye or tooth of a slave he must set him free (Exodus 21:26 f.).

Similarly in Arabia to-day, where the condition of slaves well illustrates their condition in Israel and especially their religious standing. The treatment of course varies according to the character of the master, and in particular slaves seem less well-treated in the large towns. But on the whole the conditions of service in Arabia are good. Snouck-Hurgronje, Mekka, ii. 12 ff., 18 f.: ‘even the “slave of all work” has no hard time and all are members of the family they serve’: ‘take it all in all the condition of the Moslem slaves is one only technically different from that of the European servant and workman.’ Doughty (Ar. Des. i. 554): ‘the condition of a slave is always tolerable and often happy in Arabia; bred up as poor brothers of the sons of the household, they are a manner of God’s wards of the pious Mohammedan householder, who is ammy, the “eme” of their servitude and abûy “my father.” … The patrons who paid their price have adopted them into their households, the males are circumcised and—that which enfranchises their souls, even in the long passion of home-sickness—God has visited them in their mishap; they can say, “it was His grace” since they be thereby entered into the saving religion. This therefore they think is the better country where they are the Lord’s free men, etc.’ Musil (Ethn. Ber. 224): ‘Among the Ṣḥûr and Ḥwêṭât the slave is almost always married to a slave-girl and serves his lord, sleeps in his tent and accompanies him to war and on forays. Also he guards his flocks and enjoys almost perfect freedom; therefore only the very few run away. My escort, the slave ‘Abdallah, told me that he had several times visited his relatives in Egypt, but had always returned to his master, since it was better for him with the latter than at home.’ See further the notes below.

The Code of Ḫammurabi has this law (§ 117):—If a man owes a debt and he has given his wife, his son or his daughter [as hostage] for the money, or has handed some one over to work it off, the hostage shall do the work of the creditor’s house; but in the fourth year he shall set them free (C. H. W. Johns, Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, etc. 52).

13. empty] In Pent. only in E (Genesis 31:42; Exodus 3:21; Exodus 23:15), J (Exodus 34:20) and D (here, and Deuteronomy 16:16).

13, 14. Peculiar to D and characteristic of its philanthropy.

14. thou shalt furnish him liberally] Lit. make-him-a-necklace (with emphatic repetition of the vb.). In this metaphor is the idea of loading or that of ornamenting (embellishing, equipping) the governing one? Probably both are combined; the metaphor rising from the primitive custom of hoarding the family wealth in heavy necklaces or headdresses. Less likely is the derivation from the use of the collar or necklace as a badge of rank or office (as it was in Egypt, Genesis 41:42, and Persia, 1Es 3:6).

A similar liberality is exercised in Arabia (Doughty, Ar. Des. i. 554).

‘It is not many years, “if their house-lord fears Ullah,” before he will give them their liberty; and then he sends them not away empty; but in Upland Arabia (where only substantial persons are slave-holders) the good man will marry out his freed servants, male and female, endowing them with somewhat of his own substance, whether camels or palm-stems.’ Cp. Snouck-Hurgronje, Mekka, ii. 14: ‘the well-to-do owner feels himself bound where possible to provide for his loyal servant an establishment, and emancipation ranks in itself as a meritorious act: the family bond remains after as before it unbroken.’ Musil (Ethn. Ber. 225) quotes as part of the emancipation formula: ‘I dismiss my slave and endow him.’

flock, threshing-floor and wine-press] Cp. Deuteronomy 14:23, Deuteronomy 16:13.

as the Lord thy God hath blessed thee] Deuteronomy 7:13, Deuteronomy 12:15, Deuteronomy 16:17.

15. The motive characteristic of D, Deuteronomy 5:15, Deuteronomy 16:12, Deuteronomy 24:18; Deuteronomy 24:22 : cp. Deuteronomy 10:19.

16. And it shall be, if he say unto thee] E, Exodus 21:5, more simply And if the slave say.

I will not go out from thee] E, I will not go out free. On go out, cp. Deuteronomy 13:13.

because he loveth thee and thine house] On the treatment of slaves see introd. note.

17. thou shalt take an awl] Lit. a borer, only here and in Exodus 21:6.

and thrust it through his ear] Lit. set, or give, it; E, bore or pierce his ear. His ear because it is the organ of obedience. Cp. Psalm 40:6, mine ears thou hast opened; Isaiah 50:4 f., morning by morning he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the taught … The Lord Jehovah hath opened mine ear. In the Code of Ḫammurabi (§ 282) the slave who denies his master has his ear cut off.

unto the door] E, to the door or doorpost, i.e. of his master’s house. See Driver on Exodus 21:6, and the meaning of the other phrase there, to the Elohim, which D omits, whether because it means the local sanctuary, abolished by D’s law, or some domestic image of deity, still more repugnant to D. See Clay Trumbull, The Threshold Covenant, 210.

thy bondman for ever] i.e. for life; ‘again a good example of the relative force of the Heb. phrase for ever’ (Berth.).

And also unto thy bondwoman, etc.] See introd. note.

18. It shall not be hard in thine eye] See on Deuteronomy 15:9. How well this legislator knew the hearts of his people may be seen from Jeremiah 34:8 ff.

for to the double of the hire of an hireling hath he served thee] Jewish commentators inferred from this that the hired servant served only for three years! (Cornelius a Lapide in loco). Calvin thinks that it means that a slave under compulsion worked twice as hard—which is contrary to experience. Rather, the cost of keeping a slave was only half of the current wage for a free servant.

and the Lord thy God shall bless thee] See Deuteronomy 15:10.

19. firstling] Heb. bekôr, firstborn both of men (e.g. Deuteronomy 21:15 f., Exodus 11:5) and of animals; either collectively or of the individual firstling. The root meaning is to break; and bekôr is defined (Exodus 13:2; Exodus 34:19) as that which openeth, or cleaveth, the womb. It covers, therefore, not the earliest births of every year in the herd or flock, but the firstborn of every dam. W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem. 443, compares the ambiguous Ar. fara‘. Another form, bikku̅ri̅m, is applied to firstfruits in general; bikkurah is the early fig (Micah 7:1, etc.).

males] ‘At least a preference for male victims is found among the Semites generally, even where the deity is a goddess,’ W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem. 280 n.; with instances from the Semitic and African races. He connects the distinction on the one hand with the prevalence of kinship through women and on the other with the fact that the cow fosters man with its milk.

thou shalt sanctify unto the Lord] So P, Exodus 13:2 (but with a different form of the same vb.); J. Exodus 13:12, thou shalt cause to pass over to Jehovah; Exodus 34:19, all that openeth the womb is mine.

19–23. Of Firstlings

All male firstlings of herd and flock are to be sanctified to Jehovah; those of the ox shall not work nor those of the sheep be shorn; their flesh shall be eaten before the Lord by the offerer and his household at the One Altar year by year (Deuteronomy 15:9 f.). A blemished firstling shall not be sacrificed, but eaten at home under the conditions laid down (Deuteronomy 12:20 ff.) for the profane slaughter and eating of animals (Deuteronomy 15:21-23).—Sg. throughout. Steuern. takes Deuteronomy 15:21 and Deuteronomy 15:22 f. as probably later additions on the ground that the former is covered by Deuteronomy 17:1, the latter by Deuteronomy 12:22 ff. But their repetition in this law is pertinent to its central purpose. For reasons why the law is placed just here see below on Deuteronomy 15:20.

The earliest law on firstlings is found in variant forms in J, Exodus 13:11-16; Exodus 34:19 f. and E, Exodus 22:2 f. (see the notes in Driver’s Exod. 108, 235, 370 ff. with comparative table). These enjoin the passing over or giving to the Lord of all firstborn males, both human and animal; those of men and ‘unclean’ animals (i.e. unfit for sacrifice) may be redeemed. D does not give so full a law on the subject, for his only intention is to adapt the practice enjoined in these earlier laws to the new conditions in which sacrifice is lawful only at the one shrine. Hence he says nothing of the firstborn of men or of unclean beasts. And hence he omits the provision in Exodus 22:29 f, that the firstlings of ox and sheep were to be taken from the dam after seven days and on the eighth given to the Lord; because, while this was practicable when there were many local shrines, it is no longer so when there is to be one altar. Hence also he substitutes the general direction that the offerings are to be made year by year. No more clear illustration could be afforded of the fact that D’s code was not intended as a complete legislation, but that its motive was simply to modify earlier codes or the consuetudinary laws of Israel to the new situation brought about by its central law of one sanctuary.—P’s law on the subject, Numbers 18:15-18, is similar to the others; but adds that the flesh of the firstlings of oxen, sheep and goats shall be the perquisite of the priests: an injunction irreconcileable with D’s, that it is to be enjoyed by the offerer and his family, and indicative, like so much else in P, of the growing power of the priesthood to absorb what had previously been the rights of the laity.

20. thou shalt eat it before the Lord thy God] See on Deuteronomy 12:7; Deuteronomy 12:12; Deuteronomy 12:18.

year by year] At one of the feasts, probably the Passover, hence the place of this law of firstlings; in D immediately before that on the Passover, in Exodus 34:19 immediately after that on unleavened bread.

in the place, etc.] See on Deuteronomy 12:5; Deuteronomy 12:18.

thy household] including the local Levite, as explicitly stated in Deuteronomy 12:12; Deuteronomy 12:18.

21. any blemish] See on Deuteronomy 17:1. Thou shalt not sacrifice it, i.e. at the one altar where alone sacrifice was now lawful; but—

22. Thou shalt eat it within thy gates] as an ordinary meal without rites; see on Deuteronomy 12:21.

23. See on Deuteronomy 12:23.