Deuteronomy 9:25-29
Deu 9:25-29 After vindicating in this way the thought expressed in Deu 9:7, by enumerating the principal rebellions of the people against their God, Moses returns in Deu 9:25. to the apostasy at Sinai, for the purpose of showing still further how Israel had no righteousness or ground for boasting before God, and owed its preservation, with all the saving blessings of the covenant, solely to the mercy of God and His covenant faithfulness. To this end he repeats in Deu 9:26-29 the essential points in his intercession for the people after their sin at Sinai, and then proceeds to explain still further, in Deu 10:1-11, how the Lord had not only renewed the tables of the covenant in consequence of this intercession (Deu 10:1-5), but had also established the gracious institution of the priesthood for the time to come by appointing Eleazar in Aaron’s stead as soon as his father died, and setting apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant and attend to the holy service, and had commanded them to continue their march to Canaan, and take possession of the land promised to the fathers (Deu 10:6-11). With the words “thus I fell down,” in Deu 9:25, Moses returns to the intercession already briefly mentioned in Deu 9:18, and recalls to the recollection of the people the essential features of his plea at the time. For the words “the forty days and nights that I fell down,” see at Deu 1:46. The substance of the intercession in Deu 9:26-29 is essentially the same as that in Exo 32:11-13; but given with such freedom as any other than Moses would hardly have allowed himself (Schultz), and in such a manner as to bring it into the most obvious relation to the words of God in Deu 9:12, Deu 9:13. אל־תּשׁחת, “Destroy not Thy people and Thine inheritance,” says Moses, with reference to the words of the Lord to him: “thy people have corrupted themselves” (Deu 9:12). Israel was not Moses’ nation, but the nation and inheritance of Jehovah; it was not Moses, but Jehovah, who had brought it out of Egypt. True, the people were stiffnecked (cf. Deu 9:13); but let the Lord remember the fathers, the oath given to Abraham, which is expressly mentioned in Exo 32:13 (see at Deu 7:8), and not turn to the stiffneckedness of the people (קשׁי equivalent to ערף קשׁה, Deu 9:13 and Deu 9:6), and to their wickedness and sin (i.e., not regard them and punish them). The honour of the Lord before the nations was concerned in this (Deu 9:28). The land whence Israel came out (“the land” = the people of the land, as in Gen 10:25, etc., viz., the Egyptians: the word is construed as a collective with a plural verb) must not have occasion to say, that Jehovah had not led His people into the promised land from incapacity or hatred. יכלת מבּלי recalls Num 14:16. Just as “inability” would be opposed to the nature of the absolute God, so “hatred” would be opposed to the choice of Israel as the inheritance of Jehovah, which He had brought out of Egypt by His divine and almighty power (cf. Exo 6:6). Deuteronomy 10:1-11
In Deu 10:1-5 Moses briefly relates the success of his earnest intercession. “At that time,” of his intercession, God commanded him to hew out new tables, and prepare an ark in which to keep them (cf. Exo 34:1.). Here again Moses links together such things as were substantially connected, without strictly confining himself to the chronological order, which was already well known from the historical account, inasmuch as this was not required by the general object of his address. God had already given directions for the preparation of the ark of the covenant, before the apostasy of the nation (Exo 25:10.); but it was not made till after the tabernacle had been built, and the tables were only deposited in the ark when the tabernacle was consecrated (Exo 40:20). Deu 10:6-7 And the Israelites owed to the grace of their God, which was turned towards them once more, through the intercession of Moses, not only the restoration of the tables of the covenant as a pledge that the covenant itself was restored, but also the institution and maintenance of the high-priesthood and priesthood generally for the purpose of mediation between them and the Lord. ▼▼Even Clericus pointed out this connection, and paraphrased Deu 10:6 and Deu 10:7 as follows: “But when, as I have said, God forgave the Hebrew people, He pardoned my brother Aaron also, who did not die till the fortieth year after we had come out of Egypt, and when we were coming round the borders of the Edomites to come hither. God also showed that He was reconciled towards him by conferring the priesthood upon him, which is now borne by his son Eleazar according to the will of God.” Clericus has also correctly brought out the fact that Moses referred to what he had stated in Deu 9:20 as to the wrath of God against Aaron and his intercession on his behalf, or rather that he mentioned his intercession on behalf of Aaron in that passage, because he intended to call more particular attention to the successful result of it in this. Hengstenberg (Dissertations, vol. ii. pp. 351-2) has since pointed out briefly, but very conclusively, the connection of thought between Deu 10:6, Deu 10:7, and what goes before and follows. “Moses,” he says, “points out to the people how the Lord had continued unchangeable in His mercy notwithstanding all their sins. Although they had rendered themselves unworthy of such goodness by their worship of the calf, He gave them the ark of the covenant with the new tables of the law in it (Deu 10:1-5). He followed up this gift of His grace by instituting the high-priesthood, and when Aaron died He caused it to be transferred to his son Eleazar (Deu 10:6, Deu 10:7). He set apart the tribe of Levi to serve Him and bless the people in His name, and thus to be the mediators of His mercy (Deu 10:8, Deu 10:9). In short, He omitted nothing that was requisite to place Israel in full possession of the dignity of a people of God.” There is no ground for regarding Deu 10:6, Deu 10:7, as a gloss, as Capellus, Dathe, and Rosenmüller do, or Deu 10:6-9 as “an interpolation of a historical statement concerning the bearers of the ark of the covenant and the holy persons generally, which has no connection with Moses’ address,” as Knobel maintains. The want of any formal connection is quite in keeping with the spirit of simplicity which characterizes the early Hebrew diction and historical writings. “The style of the Hebrews is not to be tried by the rules of rhetoricians” (Clericus).
Moses reminds the people of this gracious gift on the part of their God, by recalling to their memory the time when Aaron died and his son Eleazar was invested with the high-priesthood in his stead. That he may transport his hearers the more distinctly to the period in question, he lets the history itself speak, and quotes from the account of their journeys the passage which supplied the practical proof of what he desires to say. Instead of saying: And the high-priesthood also, with which Aaron was invested by the grace of God notwithstanding his sin at Sinai, the Lord has still preserved to you; for when Aaron died, He invested his son with the same honour, ▼▼“In the death of Aaron they might discern the punishment of their rebellion. But the fact that Eleazar was appointed in his place, was a sign of the paternal grace of God, who did not suffer them to be forsaken on that account” (Calvin).
and also directed you to continue your journey-he proceeds in the following historical style: “And the children of Israel took their journey from the wells of the sons of Jaakan to Mosera: there Aaron died, and there he was buried; and Eleazar his son became priest in his stead. And from thence they journeyed unto Gudgodah, and from Gudgodah to Jotbath, a land of water-brooks.” The allusion to these marches, together with the events which had taken place at Mosera, taught in very few words “not only that Aaron was forgiven at the intercession of Moses, and even honoured with the high-priesthood, the medium of grace and blessing to the people of God (e.g., at the wells of Bene-jaakan) until the time of his death; but also that through this same intercession the high-priesthood was maintained in perpetuity, so that when Aaron had to die in the wilderness in consequence of a fresh sin (Num 20:12), it continued notwithstanding, and by no means diminished in strength, as might have been feared, since it led the way from the wells to water-brooks, helped on the journey to Canaan, which was now the object of their immediate aim, and still sustained their courage and their faith” (Schultz). The earlier commentators observed the inward connection between the continuation of the high-priesthood and the water-brooks. J. Gerhard, for example, observes: “God generally associates material blessings with spiritual; as long as the ministry of the word and the observance of divine worship flourish among us, God will also provide for our temporal necessities.” In Deu 10:8, Moses returns to the form of an address again, and refers to the separation of the tribe of Levi for the holy service, as a manifestation of mercy on the part of the Lord towards Israel. The expression “at that time” is not to be understood as relating to the time of Aaron’s death in the fortieth year of the march, in which Knobel finds a contradiction to the other books. It refers quite generally, as in Deu 9:20 and Deu 10:1, to the time of which Moses is speaking here, viz., the time when the covenant was restored at Sinai. The appointment of the tribe of Levi for service at the sanctuary took place in connection with the election of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood (Ex 28 and 29), although their call to this service, instead of the first-born of Israel, was not carried out till the numbering and mustering of the people (Num 1:49., Deu 4:17., Deu 8:6.). Moses is speaking here of the election of the whole of the tribe of Levi, including the priests (Aaron and his sons), as is very evident from the account of their service. It is true that the carrying of the ark upon the march through the desert was the business of the (non-priestly) Levites, viz., the Kohathites (Num 4:4.); but on solemn occasions the priests had to carry it (cf. Jos 3:3, Jos 3:6, Jos 3:8; Jos 6:6; 1Ki 8:3.). “Standing before the Lord, to serve Him, and to bless in His name,” was exclusively the business of the priests (cf. Deu 18:5; Deu 21:5, and Num 6:23.), whereas the Levites were only assistants of the priests in their service (see at Deu 18:7). This tribe therefore received no share and possession with the other tribes, as was already laid down in Num 18:20 with reference to the priests, and in Num 18:24 with regard to all the Levites; to which passages the words “as the Lord thy God promised him” refer. - Lastly, in Deu 10:10, Deu 10:11, Moses sums up the result of his intercession in the words, “And I stood upon the mount as the first days, forty days (a resumption of Deu 9:18 and Deu 9:25); and the Lord hearkened to me this time also (word for word, as in Deu 9:19). “Jehovah would not destroy thee (Israel).” Therefore He commanded Moses to arise to depart before the people, i.e., as leader of the people to command and superintend their removal and march. In form, this command is connected with Exo 34:1; but Moses refers here not only to that word of the Lord with the limitation added there in Exo 34:2, but to the ultimate, full, and unconditional assurance of God, in which the Lord Himself promised to go with His people and bring them to Canaan (Exo 34:14.).
Copyright information for
KD