There are difficulties connected with this law from which conclusions have been drawn adverse to the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. These arise:

1. From the lack of evidence that the law was in force in the days of the judges and earlier kings.

2. From the practice of judges, kings, prophets, and other good men in offering sacrifices elsewhere than at the prescribed center.

3. From the mention of other sanctuaries in the history (e.g. Joshua 24:26; 1 Samuel 7:26, LXX.). But:

1. Ver. 10 shows that it was not contemplated that the law should come into perfect operation till the land was settled, and till a place for a fixed center had been definitely chosen. In point of fact, the unsettled state of matters lasted till the reign of David (2 Samuel 7:1). Accordingly, in 1 Kings 3:2, it is not urged that, the law did not exist, or that it was not known, but the excuse is advanced for irregularities that "there was no house built unto the Name of the Lord until those days" (cf. 1 Kings 8:29; 1 Kings 9:9; 2 Chronicles 6:5, 6).

2. While the law lays down the general rule, it is not denied that circumstances might arise, in which under proper Divine authority, exceptional sacrifices might be offered. This fully explains the cases of Gideon (Judges 6:18, 26), of Manoah (Judges 13:16), of David (2 Samuel 24:18), of Solomon (1 Kings 3:4, 5), of Elijah (1 Kings 18:31).

3. Even while the tabernacle was at Shiloh, the ark, for reasons unknown to us, was moved from place to place - a circumstance which accounts for sacrifices being offered at the spots where, for the time being, it was located (Judges 21:2). We may infer the presence of the ark in Judges 20:26 and on various other occasions.

4. It is not fair to plead, as contradictory of the law, the falling back on local sanctuaries in periods of great national and religious disorganization, as when the land was possessed by enemies (Judges 6:1-7), or when the ark was in captivity (1 Samuel 6:1) or separated from the tabernacle (2 Samuel 6:11); much less the prevailing neglect of this law in times of acknowledged backsliding and declension. In particular, the period following the rejection of Eli and his sons (1 Samuel 2:30-35) was one of unusual complications, during which, indeed, Samuel's own person would seem to have been the chief religious center of the nation.

5. It may further be remarked that the worship at local sanctuaries, having once taken root, justified perhaps by the exigencies of the time, it would be no easy matter to uproot it again, and a modified toleration would have to be accorded. Whatever difficulties inhere in the view of the early existence of this law, it will be found, we believe, that equal or greater difficulties emerge on any other reading of the history. This law was -

I. AN ASSERTION OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT GOD'S WORSHIP MUST BE ASSOCIATED WITH HIS PRESENCE. (Vers. 5-11.) The sanctuary was constituted by God having "put his Name" there. Under the New Testament the worship of the Father "in spirit and in truth" is liberated from special sacred places (John 4:24), but the principle holds good that his being "in the midst" of his people is essential to worship being acceptable (Matthew 18:20).

II. AN IMPORTANT MEANS OF KEEPING ALIVE THE SENSE OF NATIONAL UNITY. The union of the tribes was far from being close. Tribe feeling was often stronger than national feeling. A powerful counteractive to the local interests, and to the jealousies, rivalries, and feuds which tended to divide the nation, was found in the central sanctuary, and in the festivals therewith connected. Like the Olympic games in Greece, the sanctuary festivals formed a bond of unity for the entire people, helped them to realize their national distinctness, and awakened in them lofty and patriotic aspirations. In the Christian Church, everything is valuable which helps to develop the sense of catholicity.

III. A MEANS, FURTHER, OF INFUSING WARMTH AND VITALITY INTO RELIGIOUS SERVICES. In religion, as in other matters, we need to avail ourselves of social influences. We need public as well as private worship. The self-wrapt man grows cold. There is a time for outward demonstration, not less than for internal meditation. Sharing our gladness with others, it is multiplied to ourselves a hundred-fold. The importance, in this view of them, of the sanctuary festivals, was very great. They were, from the nature of the case, "events," matters to be looked forward to with interest, and long to be remembered after they had taken place. They involved preparations, and often long journeys. Everything about them - the journey in company with neighbors, the season of the year, the friendly greetings, the exhilaration of the scene as they neared the sanctuary, the varied and solemn services at the sanctuary itself - was fitted in a singular degree to exalt, awe, quicken, and impress their minds. Such influences, even in gospel times, are not to be despised.

IV. A COUNTERACTIVE TO IDOLATRY. It; put something in place of that which was taken away. It provided counter-attractions. Negation is not an effective instrument of reform. If we remove with one hand, we must give with the other. Our methods must be positive. - J.O.

Moses recalls the revolt against his authority in the wilderness. It took place in conjunction with the revolt of Korah (Numbers 17). The point which Moses emphasises is the revolt against Divinely constituted authority, and the result thereof. At the head of the civil rebellion were the sons of Reuben, Dathan and Abiram. As descendants of the first-born of Israel they grudged Moses his lofty position. They allied themselves with the Levitical revolt, and under the cloak of asserting the universal priesthood of the people (Numbers 16:3) led many to follow them into the vortex of revolution. This insurrection against the Divinely ordered religious and political order threatened the very existence of Israel. God therefore visited the rebels with special Divine judgment, and the nation was saved. This episode in Israel's history gives us a glimpse of the motives which underlie most revolutionary movements. In these —

I. VICE DECKS HERSELF IN THE APPEARANCE OF VIRTUE.

1. The revolutionaries profess ardent desires for the commonweal, for freedom — to save the "enslaved community," etc. Liberty, equality, etc., is their cry, war against tyranny and oppression. They seek to play the role of unselfish friends of the people.

2. But in their depths such movements are mostly dominated by selfishness. In the revolt here referred to Korah was simply an ambitious Levite, hypocritical and selfish. The Reubenites were moved by tribal ambition. Selfishness, ambition, special interests were the moving springs of this as of other revolutions.

3. The revolution of Dathan and Abiram took its rise first on an ecclesiastical ground; but the political movement was not far behind the ecclesiastical. Men with widely differing opinions joined in opposing constituted authority. The cry for "illumination" is speedily followed by that for so-called "freedom."

4. Revolution is not accompanied by penitence. It never seeks the ground of its complaints in the faults of the people themselves.

5. Most revolutions are dominated by some "phrase" or party cry. Here it was: "All the people are holy." The power of the partial truth in it lay in God's Word: "Ye shall be to Me...an holy nation." But God had appointed leaders in Church and State, therefore it was against His authority Dathan and Abiram rebelled.

II. THE PROPHETIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS TYPICAL EVENT.

1. The deepest fulfilment lies in the future — in the days of antichrist. Then the political and ecclesiastical order will be overturned — when antichrist comes offering promise of deliverance from all ecclesiastical and political ills.

2. But the punishment meted out to Dathan and Abiram with their fellow rebels shall fall more fiercely on antichrist (Revelation 19:20).

3. A veil, however, overhangs this future. Still there are experiences in history which prepare us to understand what shall be. The French Revolution is a striking example. It was not merely a revolt of ruled against rulers. It was first a spiritual revolution. Scepticism had loosened religious authority, and the political crisis speedily followed, as in the rebellion of Korah. So in France ambitious leaders shrieked of liberty, etc. The whole foundations of order were overturned. Then from the Revolution rose one who had no law but his own will. He trod men under his feet; for twenty-five years the storm raged. Here was a faint experience of what will be in the times of antichrist. A respite has been given; but he who has eyes may conceive somewhat of the trend of that great future revolt.

III. WHAT SHALL WE DO IN VIEW OF WHAT IS COMING?

1. Let us ask, guided by God's Word, what revolts in Church and State will lead to. What is the meaning of much of so-called "progress" and "freedom"? "If the Son shall make you free," etc. (John 8:36). What is "culture" if not found in Christ's Gospel? — this is the only "culture" of eternal worth. Modern "progress" does not always mean progress in righteousness.

2. Do not let the hollow "phrases" of the modern age influence us. In God's Word the madness of rebellion, its falseness and hypocrisy are seen, and its terrible end. The way of righteousness is conformity to the Divine order. The sin of participation in rebellion must be shunned. Those who stand on the side of revolution, of the antichristian age, or (in the future) of antichrist, lay themselves open to the punishment of the rebellious Reubenites.

(W. Grashoff.)