Deuteronomy 18 commentary

DEUTERONOMY 18 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Offerings for Priests and Levites
1 The Levitical priests—indeed, the whole tribe
of Levi—are to have no allotment or inheritance
with Israel. They shall live on the food offerings
presented to the Lord, for that is their
inheritance.
BARNES, "Better, “there shall not be to the priests, the Levites, yea the whole tribe
of Levi, any inheritance, etc.”
And his inheritance - i. e., God’s inheritance, that which in making a grant to
His people of the promised land with its earthly blessings He had reserved for
Himself; more particularly the sacrifices and the holy gifts, such as tithes and first-
fruits. These were God’s portion of the substance of Israel; and as the Levites were
His portion of the persons of Israel, it was fitting that the Levites should be sustained
from these. On the principle here laid down, compare 1Co_9:13-14.
CLARKE, "The priests the Levites - shall have no part - That is, says Rab.
Maimon, they shall have no part in the spoils taken from an enemy.
GILL, "The priests, the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part
nor inheritance with Israel,.... That is, in the land of Canaan, in the division of it
among the tribes:
they shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and his inheritance;
the meat offerings, see Lev_2:2, and whatsoever of the sin offerings and peace
offerings which were the Lord's; so Ben Melech says, the flesh of the offerings which
belonged to the priests was called fire offerings, after part of it was consumed by fire.
All these, with other things, Num_18:8, were given, as the Targum of Jonathan
expresses it, for their inheritance, in lieu of their having none in the land of Canaan.
HENRY 1-2, "Magistracy and ministry are two divine institutions of admirable use
1

for the support and advancement of the kingdom of God among men. Laws
concerning the former we had in the close of the foregoing chapter, directions are in
this given concerning the latter. Land-marks are here set between the estates of the
priests and those of the people.
I. Care is taken that the priests entangle not themselves with the affairs of this life,
nor enrich themselves with the wealth of this world; they have better things to mind.
They shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel, that is, no share either in the
spoils taken in war or in the land that was to be divided by lot, Deu_18:1. Their
warfare and husbandry are both spiritual, and enough to fill their hands both with
work and profit and to content them. The Lord is their inheritance, Deu_18:2. Note,
Those that have God for their inheritance, according to the new covenant, should not
be greedy of great things in the world, neither gripe what they have nor grasp at
more, but look upon all present things with the indifference which becomes those
that believe God to be all-sufficient.
JAMISON, "Deu_18:1-8. The Lord is the Priests’ and Levites’ inheritance.
The priests the Levites ... shall eat the offerings — As the tribe of Levi had
no inheritance allotted them like the other tribes but were wholly consecrated to the
priestly office, their maintenance was to arise from tithes, first-fruits, and certain
portions of the oblations presented on the altar, which God having by express
appointment reserved to Himself made over, after being offered, to His ministers.
CALVIN, "1.The priests, the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi. This chapter contains
three principal heads; for first, God shews that there was no reason why the Israelites
should be aggrieved at paying tithes to the Levites, and at remitting the first-fruits and
other oblations to the priests, since this tribe was deprived of their inheritance.
Secondly, He obviates all quarrels, and prevents unlawful gains and pilferings, by
assigning their just share to the priests and Levites. Thirdly, He defines how the
oblations should be parted among them, and what part of the victims the priests were to
take. As to the first clause, since God was as it were the lot of their inheritance, they
justly claimed to themselves the right which he had transferred to them. If it were
disagreeable to the people that their revenue should be tithed, God came as it were
between, and declaring that it was His property in His right as King, appointed the
Levites to be His stewards and collectors for receiving it. There was then no ground for
any one to raise a dispute, unless he chose professedly to rob God. But this declaration
often occurs; since it was of great importance that the people should be assured that
God accounted as received by Himself what He had assigned to the Levites; not. only
lest any portion should be withheld from them, but also that every one should willingly
pay the lawful dues of God’s ministers; and again, lest any should wickedly murmur
because the first-fruits and some portion of the sacrifices were appropriated for the
subsistence of the priests. Another reason is also expressed, why the honor assigned to
the priests should be paid without grudging; viz., because God had appointed them to
be the ministers of His service; but “the laborer is worthy of his hire."
COFFFMAN, "This chapter stands at the very center of O.T. prophecy of Jesus Christ
the Messiah, but, true to the form of the shotgun type of address that Moses was here
giving, there are a number of other things in the chapter. Due to the change of the law
2

instituted here by Moses, which permitted animals to be killed at places other than the
central sanctuary, which, of course, resulted in a decrease of the revenue of the Levites
and priests, Moses here specified some additional contributions that were to be given to
them (Deuteronomy 18:1-5). Next, there is a short paragraph concerning Levites that
might wish to sell their patrimony and move to the area of the central sanctuary, in
which case thy should receive contributions just the same as the Levites and priests
already there (Deuteronomy 18:6-8).
Deuteronomy 18:9-14 lists nine kinds of occult and magic practices as "abominations to
God," designating them as absolutely forbidden to the Israelites.
The great passage in the chapter is found in Deuteronomy 18:15-19, where "that
Prophet like unto Moses" is promised. (See a special discussion of this subject under the
discussion of that paragraph.) The chapter concludes with a short paragraph regarding
the question of how one was to tell the difference between true prophets from false
prophets (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).
"The priests the Levites, even all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor inheritance
with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of Jehovah made by fire, and his inheritance.
And they shall have no inheritance among their brethren: Jehovah is their inheritance,
as he hath spoken unto them. And this shall be the priests' due from the people, from
them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give unto the priest
the shoulder, and the two cheeks and the maw. The first-fruits of thy grain, of thy new
wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him. For
Jehovah thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name
of Jehovah, him and his sons forever."
"All priests were Levites, but only the sons of Aaron were priests."[1] Despite this
simple truth extensively revealed throughout the O.T., "The RSV renders Deuteronomy
18:1, thus: `Priests, that is, all the tribe of Levi,' foisting off on Deuteronomy the false
view that all Levites were priests."[2] This, of course, creates a conflict between
Deuteronomy and the other Biblical legislation. And yet it is clear enough, as Kline
wrote:
"Deuteronomy itself conveys a distinctly different image distinguishing between priests
and Levites. The priests are the ministers at the altar of the central sanctuary, who
enjoy a position of supreme honor and authority. The Levites are everywhere
functional subordinates and social dependents. Priests and Levites did share the
commission of instructing Israel ... The Deuteronomic stipulations assume the validity
of the more minute regulations given earlier, unless, of course, the purpose was to alter
them (as in the increased revenue called for in this paragraph)."[3]
Another Biblical example of the differences between priests and Levites is seen in that,
"Different portions are assigned to priests in Deuteronomy 18:3-5, and to Levites in
Deuteronomy 18-6-8. Some priests taught the Law (Deuteronomy 31:9-13), but the
Levites had actual custody of the book which was kept near the ark of the covenant."[4]
"The first of the fleece ..." (Deuteronomy 18:4). is supplementary to earlier legislation
and amounts to an increase in the revenue of the Levites, an increase that was very
3

appropriate in that under the new rules applicable to the occupation of Canaan, many
animals once slain at the central sanctuary would then be slain at home, omitting the
chance for any offering at all to the priests. The fact that different parts of sacrificed
animals are specified here from those specified in Leviticus 7:19ff could mean: (1)
either that the parts here specified are in addition to those, or (2) that they are to be
substituted for those. There are many things about the implementation of that whole
complicated law that people today simply cannot find out. We may believe, however,
that all of the details of it were perfectly understood by those who were expected to
abide by its teachings.
"The first-fruits ... the first fleece ... etc." indicated that, "God's servants were to get
their share first!"[5] It should be recalled in this connection that when Elijah
encountered the woman who was to nourish him through the days of the drought, and
found that she was virtually without any food at all, he commanded her, "Make me a
little cake first!" (1 Kings 17:13). Those who place their obligations to God above and
ahead of everything else will always prosper in their lives, just as did the woman who
took care of Elijah.
Cousins pointed out that the critical allegation is that, "`All the Levites were originally
priests, and the limitation of the priesthood to the sons of Aaron was a later
development,' declaring also that this passage does not support that theory."[6]
We noted above that, whereas earlier legislation had given the "right shoulder" to the
priests as their portion, this passage in Deuteronomy does not at all specify "the right
shoulder." The discovery of the ruins of a pagan temple at Lachish where they
unearthed large numbers of right shoulder bones has led some scholars to suppose that
this practice of the pagans may have resulted in the variation of the priests' portion in
order to avoid resemblance to pagan sacrifices. Here again, there are many things about
all of this that must remain hidden.
CONSTABLE, "Priests and Levites 18:1-8
The Levites lived as sojourners among the other Israelites. While they had their own
cities, they did not possess land and territorial inheritances as the other Israelites did.
However the privilege of serving God as they alone could was compensation much
greater than their loss of physical benefits. They could eat the produce of the land. In
addition to the tithes, the Levites also received the parts of the sacrifices allotted to
them that included meat of various kinds, wine, oil, and wool (Deuteronomy 18:3-4).
Evidently not all the Levites served at the tabernacle. Some simply lived in their
assigned cities. Participation in sanctuary services was apparently voluntary to some
extent (Deuteronomy 18:6-8). God did not preserve in Scripture the plan whereby
individual Levites served in carrying out various duties at this period in Israel's history
(cf. Numbers 18). This passage refutes the Wellhausian view that all Levites could be
priests. [Note: See also Rodney K. Duke, "The Portion of the Levite: Another Reading
of Deuteronomy 18:6-8," Journal of Biblical Literature 106:2 (1987):193-201.]
One writer argued that Deuteronomy 18:8 permitted the Levites to sell the remains of a
sacrificed animal. [Note: Logan S. Wright, "MKR in 2 Kings XII 5-17 and
4

Deuteronomy XVIII 8," Vetus Testamentum 39:4 (October 1989):445, 448.] Most
translators believed this verse allowed them to sell their family possessions.
ELLICOTT, "(1) The priests the Levites, (and) all the tribe of Levi.—The fact that
there is no “and” here in the original, and the look of the sentence in English, might
dispose a superficial reader to find some ground here for the theory that priest and
Levite are not distinguished in Deuteronomy. No such idea occurred to Rashi. He says,
“all the tribe of Levi, not only those that are perfect (who can serve), but those who
have a blemish (and cannot).” The distinction between priest and Levite has already
been sufficiently noted on Deuteronomy 11:6; Deuteronomy 17:9. The passage is
evidently on the same lines with Numbers 18:18-21, which see.
HAWKER, "The separation of the priests and Levites, evidently shows in what light
GOD views his servants who minister in holy things. How much is it to be wished, that
all such were indeed set apart, both by the divine appointment and ordination of the
LORD, and from the necessity of worldly commerce with man, for these things bring a
snare. This precept and the LORD'S provision for his priests and Levites we have
before: Numbers 18:9-11.
PETT, "In this section of Deuteronomy we first have a description of specific
requirements that Yahweh laid down for His people. These make up the second part of
the covenant stipulations for the covenant expressed in Deuteronomy 4:45 to
Deuteronomy 29:1 and also for the covenant which makes up the whole book. They are
found in chapters 12-26. As we have seen Deuteronomy 1:1 to Deuteronomy 4:44
provide the preamble and historical prologue for the overall covenant, followed by the
general stipulations in chapters 5-11. There now, therefore, in 12-26 follow the detailed
stipulations which complete the main body of the covenant. These also continue the
second speech of Moses which began in Deuteronomy 5:1.
Overall in this speech Moses is concerned to connect with the people. It is to the people
that his words are spoken rather than the priests so that much of the priestly legislation
is simply assumed. Indeed it is remarkably absent in Deuteronomy except where it
directly touches on the people. Anyone who read Deuteronomy on its own would
wonder at the lack of cultic material it contained, and at how much the people were
involved. It concentrates on their interests, and not those of the priests and Levites,
while acknowledging the responsibility that they had towards both priests and Levites.
And even where the cultic legislation more specifically connects with the people,
necessary detail is not given, simply because he was aware that they already had it in
writing elsewhere. Their knowledge of it is assumed. Deuteronomy is building on a
foundation already laid. In it Moses was more concerned to get over special aspects of
the legislation as it was specifically affected by entry into the land, with the interests of
the people especially in mind. The suggestion that it was later written in order to bring
home a new law connected with the Temple does not fit in with the facts. Without the
remainder of the covenant legislation in Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers to back it up, its
5

presentation often does not make sense from a cultic point of view.
This is especially brought home by the fact that when he refers to their approach to
God he speaks of it in terms of where they themselves stood or will stand when they do
approach Him. They stand not on Sinai but in Horeb. They stand not in the Sanctuary
but in ‘the place’, the site of the Sanctuary. That is why he emphasises Horeb, which
included the area before the Mount, and not just Sinai itself (which he does not
mention). And why he speaks of ‘the place’ which Yahweh chose, which includes where
the Tabernacle is sited and where they gather together around the Tabernacle, and not
of the Sanctuary itself. He wants them to feel that they have their full part in the whole.
These detailed stipulations in chapters 12-26 will then be followed by the details of the
covenant ceremony to take place at the place which Yahweh has chosen at Shechem
(Deuteronomy 27), followed by blessings and cursings to do with the observance or
breach of the covenant (Deuteronomy 28).
II. INSTRUCTION CONCERNING THE GOVERNING OF THE COMMUNITY
(Deuteronomy 16:18 to Deuteronomy 19:21).
Having established the principles of worship and religious response for the community
based on the dwellingplace where Yahweh would choose to establish His name, Moses
now moved on to various aspects of governing the community. He had clearly been
giving a great deal of thought to what would happen when he had gone, and to that end
had been meditating on God’s promises in Genesis and the content of God’s Instruction
(Torah).
Moses was doing here what he described himself as having done for the previous
generation (Deuteronomy 1:15-18). There he had established them with a system of
justice ready for entry into the land but they had refused to enter it when Yahweh
commanded. Now he was preparing their sons for entry into the land in a similar way.
Justice was to be provided for in a number of ways:
1). By the appointment of satisfactory judges (Deuteronomy 16:18-20)
2). By rejecting Canaanite methods of justice (Deuteronomy 16:21-22). He reiterated
the necessity for the abolition of idolatry and religious impropriety, and called for the
6

judgment of it in the presence of witnesses (Deuteronomy 16:21 to Deuteronomy 17:7).
3). By setting up a final court of appeal. Here he dealt with what to do when major
judicial problems arose (Deuteronomy 17:8-13).
4). By legislating what kind of king to appoint when they wanted a king. At present they
had him. Shortly he would be replaced by Joshua. Then would come a time when they
needed another supreme leader and here he faced up to the issue of possible kingship,
an issue that, in view of certain prophecies revealed in the patriarchal records (Genesis
17:6; Genesis 17:16; Genesis 35:11; Genesis 36:31) would certainly arise in the future,
and which Balaam had recently drawn attention to (Numbers 24:17) as on the horizon.
Thus it needed to be legislated for so that when the time came they might not appoint
the wrong kind of king, and especially they were to be guides as to the kind of king that
they should consider (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).
5). By providing for the sustenance of the priesthood and Levites who watch over their
spiritual welfare (Deuteronomy 18:1-8).
6). By warning against looking to the occult for guidance and promising instead the
coming of other prophets like himself (Deuteronomy 18:9-22).
But while we may see this as a separate unit it is not so in the Hebrew. As we would
expect in a speech not prepared by a trained orator it just goes smoothly forward.
‘Thee, thou’ predominates as befits a section dealing with commandments with an
occasional subtle introduction of ‘ye, your’.
Chapter 18 The Maintenance of The Levitical Priests and the Levites. Avoidance of The
Occult. Yahweh Will Provide A Prophet Over Against False Prophets.
In some ways in contrast with any king were the priests. They were chosen by Yahweh
and were not to have personal wealth. They were to be maintained by the people, being
dependent on provisions that belonged to Yahweh. Those of the tribe of Levi chosen by
Yahweh to minister in His name must also be properly maintained and catered for.
These are the ones to whom Israel must primarily look for justice and for guidance in
God’s Instruction as we have already seen, as men who minister before Yahweh.
And if Israel, unsatisfied with that, seek a divine message they must not look to those
who profess to reveal the future or the secrets of the dead. Rather they must look to
prophets raised up by Yahweh, prophets who will be like Moses, the test of whom will
be that what they prophesy comes about. That will distinguish the false prophets from
the true.
Pronounwise the passage is an interesting one. In the first three verses it continues the
7

third person approach used of the description of the king, ‘he, they’, then in
Deuteronomy 18:4 turns back to ‘thee’ thou’. This demonstrates the unity of this
passage with the previous passage, demonstrating that the words about the king are an
essential part of the whole. ‘Thee, thou’ is then used for the remainder of the chapter,
stressing both individual responsibility and oneness as a nation, apart from ‘you (ye)
shall hearken’ in Deuteronomy 18:15 where it suits it as an ‘aside’.
Verse 1-2
Chapter 18 The Maintenance of The Levitical Priests and the Levites. Avoidance of The
Occult. Yahweh Will Provide A Prophet Over Against False Prophets.
In some ways in contrast with any king were the priests. They were chosen by Yahweh
and were not to have personal wealth. They were to be maintained by the people, being
dependent on provisions that belonged to Yahweh. Those of the tribe of Levi chosen by
Yahweh to minister in His name must also be properly maintained and catered for.
These are the ones to whom Israel must primarily look for justice and for guidance in
God’s Instruction as we have already seen, as men who minister before Yahweh.
And if Israel, unsatisfied with that, seek a divine message they must not look to those
who profess to reveal the future or the secrets of the dead. Rather they must look to
prophets raised up by Yahweh, prophets who will be like Moses, the test of whom will
be that what they prophesy comes about. That will distinguish the false prophets from
the true.
Pronounwise the passage is an interesting one. In the first three verses it continues the
third person approach used of the description of the king, ‘he, they’, then in
Deuteronomy 18:4 turns back to ‘thee’ thou’. This demonstrates the unity of this
passage with the previous passage, demonstrating that the words about the king are an
essential part of the whole. ‘Thee, thou’ is then used for the remainder of the chapter,
stressing both individual responsibility and oneness as a nation, apart from ‘you (ye)
shall hearken’ in Deuteronomy 18:15 where it suits it as an ‘aside’.
The Maintenance of the Levitical Priests and the Levites At The Sanctuary
(Deuteronomy 18:1-5).
The levitical priests and the Levites who served at the Tabernacle were to be supported
by portions of the offerings and sacrifices, and by the offerings of the firstfruits, for
8

they have been chosen by Yahweh to serve Him in His chosen place.
Analysis using the words of Moses.
a The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor
inheritance with Israel. They shall eat the offerings of Yahweh made by fire and his
inheritance (Deuteronomy 18:1).
b And they shall have no inheritance among their brethren. Yahweh is their
inheritance, as He has spoken to them (Deuteronomy 18:2).
c And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, from those who offer a
sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep (Deuteronomy 18:3 a).
c That they shall give to the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw
(stomach) (Deuteronomy 18:3 b).
b The firstfruits of your grain, of your new wine, and of your oil, and the first of
the fleece of your sheep, shall you give him (Deuteronomy 18:4).
a For Yahweh your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to minister
in the name of Yahweh, him and his sons for ever (Deuteronomy 18:5).
We note that in ‘a’ the priests are to have no inheritance in Israel but to be totally
dependent for their provision on Yahweh, and in the parallel this is so because Yahweh
has chosen them out of all their tribes to stand to minister in His name. In ‘b’ their
inheritance is declared to be Yahweh, and in the parallel they are to receive the
firstfruits of both vegetation and beasts, which are Yahweh’s. In ‘c’ the priests’ dues are
prepared for and then described.
Deuteronomy 18:1-2
‘The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor inheritance with
Israel. They shall eat the offerings of Yahweh made by fire and his inheritance. And
they shall have no inheritance among their brethren. Yahweh is their inheritance, as he
has spoken to them.’
The opening phrase ‘The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi’ raises questions as to
whether this covers both levitical priests (the priests the Levites) and Levites (all the
tribe of Levi) or just the levitical priests alone. However in Deuteronomy such phrases
in apposition regularly represent the item in apposition as signifying something greater
than the first phrase. See Deuteronomy 3:4-5; Deuteronomy 15:21; Deuteronomy 16:21;
Deuteronomy 17:1; Deuteronomy 23:19; Deuteronomy 25:16. Compare also
9

Deuteronomy 3:18 where there is a reduction in the idea. They are never just a
description of the same idea. In Deuteronomy 2:37; Deuteronomy 3:13; Deuteronomy
4:19; Deuteronomy 5:8; Deuteronomy 20:14; Deuteronomy 29:10 the clauses in
apposition are always of one against a number and therefore not strictly comparable.
This would confirm that ‘all the tribe of Levi’ is an extension of, and addition to, the
idea of the levitical priests thus referring to both priests and Levites. Significantly there
are no examples the other way.
So it is both levitical priests and all the tribe of Levi who were to have no portion in
Israel. They would have no tribal area of their own. Nor were they to be given land as
individuals. The priestly cities and the levitical cities were to be jointly owned along
with the land around them, although individuals would own their own houses. Both did
later purchase property for themselves and thus came into ownership of houses and
property outside this sphere, but that was not part of the original plan (e.g. 1 Kings
2:26; Jeremiah 32:7-10 with Deuteronomy 1:1).
The ideal behind this was that they should be unworldy, independent, and able to keep
the civil power in check. Their whole existence was to involve being taken up with
Yahweh, Who was their inheritance, with keeping the nation right before Him, and
with making known His law and ensuring that His covenant requirements were
maintained.
“They shall eat the offerings of Yahweh made by fire (ishsheh) and his inheritance. And
they shall have no inheritance among their brethren. Yahweh is their inheritance, as he
has spoken to them.” The levitical priests and Levites will therefore ‘eat the offerings of
Yahweh made by fire and His inheritance’. Part of each offering made by fire, apart
from the whole burnt offerings, was given to the priests (Leviticus 2:3; Leviticus 2:10
and often; Joshua 13:14). Yahweh’s inheritance as mentioned here included all that was
sanctified to Him and included offerings and sacrifices, firstfruits, tithes, firstlings, and
so on, and His specific inheritance to the Levites was the tithe (Numbers 18:24-26),
which would include grain, wine and animals (Numbers 18:30 with Leviticus 27:30-33).
But the Levites would also share in the peace offerings made by the people, which were
offerings made by fire (Leviticus 3:9) as they did in the firstlings (Deuteronomy
12:11-12; Deuteronomy 12:17-18). Thus was provision made for both priest and Levite
out of the variety of offerings made by the people. For a wholesale coverage of this see
Numbers 18 where the distinctions are made clearer, although through the years
circumstances had expanded on them.
It may also be that ishsheh actually simply denotes gifts and offerings without
necessarily meaning ‘by fire’. Compare the use of usn at Ugarit. Note also the threefold
use of ‘inheritance’, each use with a slightly different meaning. Yahweh’s inheritance,
10

that which was set apart for Him and given to Him, included all that is mentioned
above, including the tithes which He gave to the Levites as an inheritance. His
inheritance to the people is the land. But Yahweh Himself, and His service, is the
inheritance of the priests and Levites (compare Deuteronomy 10:9; Joshua 13:33;
Numbers 18:20; Joshua 18:7).
“They shall have no inheritance among their brethren. Yahweh is their inheritance, as
he has spoken to them.” This contrasts with the words spoken about their king. ‘His
heart is not to be lifted up above his brethren’. The king was to be one with his brethren
in obedience to Yahweh and to His Instruction. His inheritance was to be among them.
But the priests and Levites had no inheritance among their brethren. They were lifted
up above it. Yahweh was their inheritance. Thus their ideal king was not to have
control over priestly activities or over matters to do with the sanctuary. That would be
between the priests and Yahweh. They would act as a balance to the king’s powers,
especially as they were the experts whom the king would consult when seeking to
understand Yahweh’s law.
In Egypt the Pharaohs had always had to recognise the might of the priests while being
a god over them. He had constantly manoeuvred with them. Much had depended on the
strength of the Pharaoh. But in Israel the king was always to be in submission to
Yahweh’s Instruction and was to be submissive to the Sanctuary, and to those who
expounded Yahweh’s Instruction. Thus Yahweh, not the king, would still be over all.
This will especially come out shortly when we learn of the independent prophet ‘like
Moses’. He will speak directly from Yahweh, and both king and priest will have to
listen to him. For all are in the end subject to Yahweh’s Instruction and His will.
K&D, "The Rights of the Priests and Levites. - With reference to these, Moses repeats
verbatim from Numbers 18:20, Numbers 18:23-24, the essential part of the rule laid
down in Num 18: “The priests the Levites, the whole tribe of Levi, shall have no part
nor inheritance with Israel.” “All the tribe of Levi” includes the priests and Levites.
They were to eat the “firings of Jehovah and His inheritance,” as described in detail in
Num 18. The inheritance of Jehovah consisted of the holy gifts as well as the sacrifices,
i.e., the tithes, firstlings, and first-fruits. Moses felt it to be superfluous to enumerate
these gifts one by one from the previous laws, and also to describe the mode of their
application, or define how much belonged to the priests and how much to the Levites.
However true it may be that the author assigns all these gifts to the Levites generally,
the conclusion drawn from this, viz., that he was not acquainted with any distinction
between priests and Levites, but placed the Levites entirely on a par with the priests, is
quite a false one. For, apart from the evident distinction between the priests and Levites
in Deuteronomy 18:1, where there would be no meaning in the clause, “all the tribe of
Levi,” if the Levites were identical with the priests, the distinction is recognised and
asserted as clearly as possible in what follows, when a portion of the slain-offerings is
allotted to the priests in Deuteronomy 18:3-5, whilst in Deuteronomy 18:6-8 the Levite
is allowed to join in eating the altar gifts, if he come to the place of the sanctuary and
11

perform service there. The repetition in Deuteronomy 18:2 is an emphatic
confirmation: “As He hath said unto them:” as in Deuteronomy 10:9.
K&D, "In addition to the judicial order and the future king, it was necessary that
the position of the priests and Levites, whose duties and rights had been regulated by
previous laws, should at least be mentioned briefly and finally established (Deu_
18:1-8), and also that the prophetic order should be fully accredited by the side of the
other state authorities, and its operations regulated by a definite law (Deu_18:9-22).
Deu_18:1-2
The Rights of the Priests and Levites. - With reference to these, Moses repeats
verbatim from Num_18:20, Num_18:23-24, the essential part of the rule laid down
in Num 18: “The priests the Levites, the whole tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor
inheritance with Israel.” “All the tribe of Levi” includes the priests and Levites. They
were to eat the “firings of Jehovah and His inheritance,” as described in detail in
Num 18. The inheritance of Jehovah consisted of the holy gifts as well as the
sacrifices, i.e., the tithes, firstlings, and first-fruits. Moses felt it to be superfluous to
enumerate these gifts one by one from the previous laws, and also to describe the
mode of their application, or define how much belonged to the priests and how much
to the Levites. However true it may be that the author assigns all these gifts to the
Levites generally, the conclusion drawn from this, viz., that he was not acquainted
with any distinction between priests and Levites, but placed the Levites entirely on a
par with the priests, is quite a false one. For, apart from the evident distinction
between the priests and Levites in Deu_18:1, where there would be no meaning in the
clause, “all the tribe of Levi,” if the Levites were identical with the priests, the
distinction is recognised and asserted as clearly as possible in what follows, when a
portion of the slain-offerings is allotted to the priests in Deu_18:3-5, whilst in Deu_
18:6-8 the Levite is allowed to join in eating the altar gifts, if he come to the place of
the sanctuary and perform service there. The repetition in Deu_18:2 is an emphatic
confirmation: “As He hath said unto them:” as in Deu_10:9.
2 They shall have no inheritance among their
fellow Israelites; the Lord is their inheritance,
as he promised them.
CLARKE, "The Lord is their inheritance - He is the portion of their souls;
and as to their bodies, they shall live by the offerings of the Lord made by fire, i. e.,
the meat-offering, the sin-offering, and the trespass-offering; and whatever was the
Lord’s right, in these or other offerings, he gave to the priests.
GILL, "Therefore shall they have none inheritance among their
12

brethren,.... Neither of the field, nor of the vineyard, as the above Targum, because
provision was made for them otherwise, and especially because
the Lord is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them; see Gill on Num_
18:20, which as it may be understood in a spiritual sense of their interest in God, as
their covenant God, and of their enjoyment of him, and communion with him; so
chiefly in a temporal sense of all those things in the sacrifices which the Lord claimed
to himself, and these he gave unto them; so the same Targum interprets this of the
twenty four gifts of the priesthood, enumerated Num_18:1'
K&D, "Deu_18:1-2
The Rights of the Priests and Levites. - With reference to these, Moses repeats
verbatim from Num_18:20, Num_18:23-24, the essential part of the rule laid down
in Num 18: “The priests the Levites, the whole tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor
inheritance with Israel.” “All the tribe of Levi” includes the priests and Levites. They
were to eat the “firings of Jehovah and His inheritance,” as described in detail in
Num 18. The inheritance of Jehovah consisted of the holy gifts as well as the
sacrifices, i.e., the tithes, firstlings, and first-fruits. Moses felt it to be superfluous to
enumerate these gifts one by one from the previous laws, and also to describe the
mode of their application, or define how much belonged to the priests and how much
to the Levites. However true it may be that the author assigns all these gifts to the
Levites generally, the conclusion drawn from this, viz., that he was not acquainted
with any distinction between priests and Levites, but placed the Levites entirely on a
par with the priests, is quite a false one. For, apart from the evident distinction
between the priests and Levites in Deu_18:1, where there would be no meaning in the
clause, “all the tribe of Levi,” if the Levites were identical with the priests, the
distinction is recognised and asserted as clearly as possible in what follows, when a
portion of the slain-offerings is allotted to the priests in Deu_18:3-5, whilst in Deu_
18:6-8 the Levite is allowed to join in eating the altar gifts, if he come to the place of
the sanctuary and perform service there. The repetition in Deu_18:2 is an emphatic
confirmation: “As He hath said unto them:” as in Deu_10:9.
3 This is the share due the priests from the
people who sacrifice a bull or a sheep: the
shoulder, the internal organs and the meat from
the head.
BARNES, "For “maw” read stomach, which was regarded as one of the richest and
choicest parts. As the animal slain may be considered to consist of three principal
parts, head, feet, and body, a portion of each is by the regulation in question to be
13

given to the priest, thus representing the consecration of the whole; or, as some
ancient commentators think, the dedication of the words, acts, and appetites of the
worshipper to God.
The text probably refers to peace-offerings, and animals killed for the sacrificial
meals held in connection with the peace-offerings.
CLARKE, "Offer a sacrifice - ‫הזבח‬ ‫זבחי‬ zobechey hazzebach. The word ‫זבח‬ zebach
is used to signify, not only an animal sacrificed to the Lord, but also one killed for
common use. See Gen_46:1; Pro_17:1; Eze_39:17. And in this latter sense it probably
should be understood here; and, consequently, the command in this verse relates to
what the people were to allow the priests and Levites from the animals slain for
common use. The parts to be given to the priests were,
1. The shoulder, probably cut off from the beast with the skin on; so Maimonides.
2. The two cheeks, which may include the whole head.
3. The maw - the whole of those intestines which are commonly used for food.
GILL, "And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from them that
offer sacrifice,.... Not from the priests, as Jarchi observes, but from those that
bring the sacrifices to the priests, particularly the peace offerings:
whether it be ox or sheep; the one of the herd, the other of the flock, creatures
used in sacrifice, and takes in goats and the kids of them, rams and lambs:
and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and
the maw; the first of these designs the upper part of the arm that joins to the neck
and back, and the next the two cheeks with the tongue, as both Jarchi and Aben Ezra
observe, and indeed the whole head is meant; the maw, which the Septuagint
interpreters call ενυστρον, and other writers ηνυστρον, is, according to the
philosopher (p), the fourth and last ventricle or stomach, and which he thus
describes;"after the echinus or rough tripe is that which is called ηνυστρον, the maw,
which is in size larger than the echinus, and in form longer, and has many large and
smooth folds;''and ηνυστρον βοος, the maw of an ox, and the belly of a swine, are
reckoned by the poet (q) as delicious food.
HENRY, "II. Care is likewise taken that they want not any of the comforts and
conveniences of this life. Though God, who is a Spirit, is their inheritance, it does not
therefore follow that they must live upon the air; no,
1. The people must provide for them. They must have their due from the people,
Deu_18:3. Their maintenance must not depend upon the generosity of the people,
but they must be by law entitled to it. He that is taught in the word ought in justice to
communicate to him that teaches him; and he that has the benefit of solemn religious
assemblies ought to contribute to the comfortable support of those that preside in
14

such assemblies.
JAMISON, "this shall be the priest’s due from the people — All who offered
sacrifices of thanksgiving or peace offerings (Lev_7:31-33) were ordered to give the
breast and shoulder as perquisites to the priests. Here “the two cheeks” or head and
“the maw” or stomach, deemed anciently a great dainty, are specified. But whether
this is a new injunction, or a repetition of the old with the supplement of more
details, it is not easy to determine.
CALVIN, "3.And this shall be the priests’ due. It is not only for the sake of the priests
that God enumerates what He would have them receive, that they may obtain what is
their own without murmuring or dispute; but He also has regard to the people,lest the
priests should basely and greedily take more than their due; which sacred history
relates to have been done by the sons of Eli, (1 Samuel 2:23,) for they had advanced to
such a degree of licentiousness, that, like robbers, they seized violently on whatever
their lust desired. Lest therefore they should give way to this gross covetousness, God
prescribes to them certain limits, to which they were to confine themselves, so that if
they transgressed them, it was easy for any of the people to convict them of avarice.
COKE, "Ver. 3. From them that offer a sacrifice— These words may be rendered, This
shall be the priest's due from those who slay an animal: for the original word signifies
no more than to kill an animal. Genesis 43:16. See Calmet and Ainsworth. Philo,
Josephus, and many others, understand this of beasts slain for food in their several
towns, not for sacrifice; for as to animals offered in sacrifice, only the breast and the
right shoulder are to be given to the priests, but not a word is said of the two cheeks and
the maw, by which is thought to be meant the stomach, particularly the lower stomach.
According to naturalists, animals which chew the cud have four ducts through which
the aliments are conveyed into the intestines, whereof the fourth and lowest, which is
called in Greek, η νευστρον eneustron, and in Latin, omasum, is the fattest, and
accounted by the ancients a great dainty.
ELLICOTT, "(3) The shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.—This would be from
the peace offering. The shoulder is assigned to them in Leviticus 7:32-33 (comp.
Numbers 18:18). The “two cheeks and the maw” are not mentioned elsewhere, and the
latter word is found in this place only. They are not a valuable part of the sacrifice. An
absurd reason for the gift is assigned by Rashi. We know that in the time of Eli, the
priests varied their requirements at pleasure, and in the face of the law (see 1 Samuel
2:13). The “priests’ due “here, and “the priests’ custom” there, are the same word in
Hebrew, which we have elsewhere translated “requirement."
PETT, "The Maintenance of the Priests (Deuteronomy 18:3-5).
Deuteronomy 18:3
15

‘And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, from those who offer a sacrifice,
whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the shoulder, and the two
cheeks, and the maw (stomach).’
Here there is an extension to what is give to the priests from the offerings and sacrifices
(other than the whole burnt offering), possibly to compensate for the loss of their
portion in animals slaughtered in the cities and not sacrificed. They were to be given the
‘shoulder’, the two ‘cheeks’ and the ‘stomach’. Discoveries in the Canaanite sanctuary
at Lachish reveal many right shoulder bones of animals suggesting that their priests too
received the shoulder from sacrifices. In Leviticus 7:28-36; Numbers 18:8-19 the
priest’s portions were the shoulder and the right ‘thigh’ (or breast). This may simply
therefore indicate different terminology for similar parts, or an improvement in the
priests’ portion, or both. The shoulder was a special waveoffering. The ‘thigh/breast’
was a special heave offering or contribution, but as it was not for the priests generally,
but given to the individual priest who offered the sacrifice, it may have been omitted
here. It would be assumed without mention due to its special nature and long custom
(Leviticus 7:32-34).
Compare here 1 Samuel 2:12-17 where the priests insisted on parts being set aside
before the boiling so that they were not soaked, and then claimed further parts as the
meat was boiling by ‘pot luck’ (although this method was frowned on). They had,
possibly unilaterally, extended their rights.
Note On Differences in Technical Sacrificial Terms.
To say that the technicalities of an ancient cult are not always apparent to us is to
understate the case. Technical language would be used in regulations for the cult which
had its own specialist meaning, and might be very different from those used in popular
speech. Compare how in Roman Catholic usage the 'chasuble', for example, is a
technical term, but might in popular usage be simply called a 'priestly garment' or
'robe'. Leviticus/Numbers used technical language, Deuteronomy uses 'popular'
language (it is in a speech to the common people). Comparisons are therefore not
always easy. So before we try to reconcile the two we have to solve the problem of the
meaning of the language.
We must recognise that while our versions translate as best they can, the actual
meanings of many ancient Hebrew terms, especially technical ancient Hebrew terms to
do with the cult such as are mentioned in Leviticus/Numbers, are not always fully clear
to us. It partly depends on how often they were used and in what context. Thus RV/ASV
margin has 'shoulder' as a possible alternative rendering for 'thigh' in Leviticus 7:28-36
16

because they recognised the uncertainty as to the meaning of the word, while the word
translated 'shoulder' in Deuteronomy 18:3 usually means 'arm' when referred to men
(but of course cannot with domestic beasts). LXX actually translates both as the same
word, brachion.
So the Hebrew terminology in use is not as certain in meaning as the English suggests,
and comparisons are therefore fraught with difficulty. Deuteronomy is a speech and
uses terms in a popular sense giving the general idea. The word translated ‘stomach’,
and sometimes 'inner part', is used only in Deuteronomy 18:3 and nowhere else
although a cognate is used in Numbers 25:8, where it could simply generally mean a
vague 'body'. In both cases the exact meaning has to be guessed at in the context. It
could equally be a popular term for the rough equivalent of breast (in beasts breast and
belly can be pretty close together). This being so the passages could quite well be saying
a similar thing, but merely in different terminology, technical and popular. On the
other hand it is equally possible that for different reasons there had been alterations to
the detail.
Secondly we should note that it is not at all certain that Deuteronomy 18:3 is referring
to the same sacrifices as the more technical verses in Leviticus and Numbers. The latter
are referring to certain specific offerings and sacrifices, while Deuteronomy is simply
referring to a general 'offering sacrifices'. Furthermore Leviticus is referring to heave
offerings, what is 'waved' before Yahweh (difficult with the guts), before being given to
the priests, Deuteronomy is referring to what is given to the priests in general, not what
is specifically waved before Yahweh, and that from what are not necessarily technical
offerings. The cult and related activities were in fact far more complicated than we tend
to realise, much of it regulated by custom, something which comes out when we try in
our simple way to reconcile everything as though it was not very involved. We must not
try to make it simplistic. It was not. If we had a full knowledge of the complicated
requirements of and differences in the cult under varying circumstances and a
dictionary of its technical terms we might perhaps not have so many problems as we do.
And in all our considerations we have to remember that like any language Hebrew
developed. It was relatively primitive at the time of Moses, a tribal language, whereas
by the time of the Exile (over 700 years later) it had become much more sophisticated,
and even more so by the time of Jesus (another five hundred years). Even if we ignore
the technicalities, languages, and the meaning of words, change over long periods (try
reading Chaucer in the original). Modern Hebrew may give us a little help as to the
meaning of ancient Hebrew, but on the whole it is positively misleading. The only way
we can know the meaning of ancient Hebrew is by comparison of the use of terms in
different parts of Scripture written at the same period (a problem in itself) combined
with a comparison with uses in Ugaritic literature which used a fairly similar script.
Where words are rarely used we regularly have to guess, especially in the case of
technical terms. We usually do have a general idea as to their meaning, but not so as to
17

be too specific. This being so what are called 'discrepancies' are not necessarily as clear
in the Hebrew as it may seem in English versions. Sometimes the attempt at a
translation creates an apparent discrepancy that is not actually there in the original.
This must ever be kept in mind.
K&D, "Deuteronomy 18:3-5
“This shall be the right of the priests on the part of the people, on the part of those who
slaughter slain-offerings, whether ox or sheep; he (the offerer) shall give the priest the
shoulder, the cheek, and the stomach.” ‫ה‬‫זּ‬‫רע‬ , the shoulder, i.e., the front leg; see
Numbers 6:19. ‫ה‬‫קּ‬‫בה‬ , the rough stomach, τὸ ἤνιστρον (lxx), i.e., the fourth stomach of
ruminant animals, in which the digestion of the food is completed; Lat. omasus or
abomasus, though the Vulgate has ventriculus here. On the choice of these three pieces
in particular, Münster and Fagius observe that“the sheep possesses three principal
parts, the head, the feet, and the trunk; and of each of these some portion was to be
given to the priest who officiated”“Of each of these three principal parts of the animal,”
says Schultz, “some valuable piece was to be presented: the shoulder at least, and the
stomach, which was regarded as particularly fat, are seen at once to have been
especially good.” That this arrangement is not at variance with the command in
Leviticus 7:32., to give the wave-breast and heave-leg of the peace-offerings to the Lord
for the priests, but simply enjoins a further gift to the priests on the part of the people,
in addition to those portions which were to be given to the Lord for His servants, is
sufficiently evident from the context, since the heave-leg and wave-breast belonged to
the firings of Jehovah mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:1, which the priests had received
as an inheritance from the Lord, that is to say, to the (tenuphoth) of the children of
Israel, which the priests might eat with their sons and daughters, though only with such
members of their house as were levitically clean (Numbers 18:11); and also from the
words of the present command, viz., that the portions mentioned were to be a right of
the priests on the part of the people, on the part of those who slaughtered slain-
offerings, i.e., to be paid to the priest as a right that was due to him on the part of the
people. ‫משׁ‬‫פּ‬‫ט‬ was what the priest could justly claim. This right was probably accorded
to the priests as a compensation for the falling off which would take place in their
incomes in consequence of the repeal of the law that every animal was to be slaughtered
at the sanctuary as a sacrifice (Lev 17; vid., Deuteronomy 12:15.).
The only thing that admits of dispute is, whether this gift was to be presented from
every animal that was slaughtered at home for private use, or only from those which
were slaughtered for sacrificial meals, and therefore at the place of the sanctuary.
Against the former view, for which appeal is made to Philo, Josephus (Ant. iv. 4, 4), and
the Talmud, we may adduce not only “the difficulty of carrying out such a planthe difficulty of carrying out such a planthe difficulty of carrying out such a planthe difficulty of carrying out such a plan” (was(was(was(was
every Israelite who slaughtered an ox, a sheep, or a goat to carry the pieces mentioned toevery Israelite who slaughtered an ox, a sheep, or a goat to carry the pieces mentioned toevery Israelite who slaughtered an ox, a sheep, or a goat to carry the pieces mentioned toevery Israelite who slaughtered an ox, a sheep, or a goat to carry the pieces mentioned to
the priests' town, which might be many miles away, or were the priests to appoint personsthe priests' town, which might be many miles away, or were the priests to appoint personsthe priests' town, which might be many miles away, or were the priests to appoint personsthe priests' town, which might be many miles away, or were the priests to appoint persons
to collect them?), but the general use of the wordsto collect them?), but the general use of the wordsto collect them?), but the general use of the wordsto collect them?), but the general use of the words ‫זבח‬ ‫.זבח‬ The noun ‫זבח‬ always signifies
either slaughtering for a sacrificial meal or a slain sacrifice, and the verb ‫זבח‬ is never
18

applied to ordinary slaughtering (for which‫שׁחט‬ is the verb used), except in
Deuteronomy 12:15 and Deuteronomy 12:21 in connection with the repeal of the law
that every slaughtering was to be a‫זבח‬ ‫שׁלמים‬ (Leviticus 17:5); and there the use of the
word‫,זבח‬ instead of ‫,שׁחט‬ may be accounted for from the allusion to this particular law.
At the same time, the Jewish tradition is probably right, when it understands by the
‫ה‬‫זּ‬‫זבחי‬ ‫בח‬ in this verse, κατ ' ‫(ןיטץוץו‬Josephus), or ἔξω τοῦ βωμοῦ θυομένοις ἕνεκα
κρεωφαγίας (Philo), or, as in the Mishnah Chol. (x. 1), refers the gift prescribed in this
passage to the ‫,חולין‬ profana, and not to the ‫,מוקדשׁרן‬ consecrata, that is to say, places it
in the same category with the first-fruits, the tithe of tithes, and other less holy gifts,
which might be consumed outside the court of the temple and the holy city (compare
Reland, Antiqq. ss. P. ii. c. 4, §11, with P. ii. c. 8, §10). In all probability, the reference is
to the slaughtering of oxen, sheep, or goats which were not intended for (shelamim) in
the more limited sense, i.e., for one of the three species of peace-offerings (Leviticus
7:15-16), but for festal meals in the broader sense, which were held in connection with
the sacrificial meals prepared from the (shelamim). For it is evident that the meals held
by the people at the annual feasts when they had to appear before the Lord were not all
(shelamim) meals, but that other festal meals were held in connection with these, in
which the priests and Levites were to share, from the laws laid down with reference to
the so-called second tithe, which could not only be turned into money by those who lived
at a great distance from the sanctuary, such money to be applied to the purchase of the
things required for the sacrificial meals at the place of the sanctuary, but which might
also be appropriated every third year to the preparation of love-feasts for the poor in
the different towns of the land (Deuteronomy 14:22-29). For in this case the animals
were not slaughtered or sacrificed as (shelamim), at all events not in the latter instance,
because the slaughtering did not take place at the sanctuary. If therefore we restrict the
gift prescribed here to the slaughtering of oxen and sheep or goats for such sacrificial
meals in the wider sense, not only are the difficulties connected with the execution of
this command removed, but also the objection, which arises out of the general use of the
expression ‫זבח‬ ‫,זבח‬ to the application of this expression to every slaughtering that took
place for domestic use. And beside this, the passage in 1 Samuel 16-2:13 , to whichCalvin
calls attention, furnishes a historical proof that the priests could claim a portion of the
flesh of the slain-offerings in addition to the heave-leg and wave-breast, since it is there
charged as a sin on the part of the sons of Eli, not only that they took out of the
cauldrons as much of the flesh which was boiling as they could take up with three-
pronged forks, but that before the fat was burned upon the altar they asked for the
pieces which belonged to the priest, to be given to them not cooked, but raw. From this
Michaelis has drawn the correct conclusion, that even at that time the priests had a
right to claim that, in addition to the portions of the sacrifices appointed by Moses in
Leviticus 7:34, a further portion of the thank-offerings should be given to them; though
he does not regard the passage as referring to the law before us, since he supposes this
to relate to every slaughtered animal which was not placed upon the altar.
19

4 You are to give them the firstfruits of your
grain, new wine and olive oil, and the first wool
from the shearing of your sheep,
CLARKE, "The first-fruit also of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil,
etc. - All these firstfruits and firstlings were the Lord’s portion, and these he gave to
the priests.
GILL, "The firstfruit also of thy corn, and of thy wine, and of thy oil,....
This is the "terumah", or heave offering, the offering of the firstfruits; what the
measure or quantity was is not declared, but is fixed by the Jews; See Gill on Exo_
22:29,
and the first of the fleece of thy sheep shall thou give him: concerning which
in the Misnah (r) it is said, the first of the fleece is used in the land and without the
land, of which they give the weight of five shekels in Judea, which are ten shekels in
Galilee; and they give white wool, and not defiled, enough to make of it a little
garment. He that buys a fleece of the sheep of a Gentile, he is free from the first of the
fleece; but if he buys it of his neighbour, if he leaves any of it, the seller is bound, if
none the buyer is bound; if there are two sorts, russet and white, and he sells the
russet but not the white, the males but not the females, everyone gives for himself. It
may be observed in this account, that as much wool was to be given as would make a
small garment; enough, says one of the commentators (s), to make a little garment to
minister in; and the least garment fit for a priest to minister in is a girdle. Jarchi's
paraphrase of it is,"when thou shearest thy flock every year, give the first of it to the
priest; it does not determine the quantity, but our Rabbins fix it to the sixtieth
part;''with which agrees the observation of another writer (t), that there is no
quantity fixed for the first of the fleece from the law, but from the words of the
Scribes it must not be less than the sixtieth part. There is no obligation to the first of
the fleece until five sheep are shorn, and the fleece of everyone of the five must not be
less than twelve shekels' weight; but if there is one fleece of them less than twelve
shekels, though the five fleeces are more than sixty shekels, lo, this is free; so that, as
Maimonides (u) says, the first of the fleece is not less than the weight of a shekel.
HENRY 4-5, "The priests who in their courses served at the altar had their share of
the sacrifices, namely, the peace-offerings, that were brought while they were in
waiting: besides the breast and shoulder, which were appointed them before (Lev_
7:32-34), the cheeks and maw are here ordered to be given them; so far was the law
from diminishing what was already granted that it gave them an augmentation (2.)
The first-fruits which arose within such a precinct were brought in, as it should seem,
to the priests that resided among them, for their maintenance in the country; the first
20

of their corn and wine for food, and the first of their fleece for clothing (Deu_18:4);
for the priests who were employed to teach others ought themselves to learn, having
food and raiment, to be therewith content. The first-fruits were devoted to God, and
he constituted the priests his receivers; and if God reckons what is, in general, given
to the poor, lent to him, to be repaid with interest, much more what is, in particular,
given to the poor, lent to him, to be repaid with interest, much more what is, in
particular, given to poor ministers. There is a good reason given for this constant
charge upon their estates (Deu_18:5), because the Levites were chosen of God, and
his choice must be owned and countenanced, and those honoured by us whom he
honours; and because they stood to minister, and ought to be recompensed for their
attendance and labour, especially since it was in the name of the Lord, by his
warrant, in his service, and for his praise, and this charge entailed upon their seed for
ever; those who were thus engaged and thus employed ought to have all due
encouragement given them, as some of the most needful useful members of their
commonwealth.
K&D, "Deu_18:4
In Deu_18:4, Moses repeats the law concerning the first-fruits in Num_18:12-13
(cf. Exo_22:28), for the purpose of extending it to the first produce of the sheep-
shearing.
HAWKER, "Verse 4-5
The apostle Paul gives the best comment upon this passage, and indeed the
subject in general: He that waiteth at the altar should be partaker of the altar. 1
Corinthians 9:1-14. I would only observe upon it, that as the LORD himself hath
undertaken by this precept to provide for his servants, bad must be the mind
that refuseth to comply: and, on the other hand, most unworthy must be that
servant, who takes advantage of this, to exact from his brethren more than what
is just and right.
PETT, "Deuteronomy 18:4
‘The firstfruits of your grain, of your new wine, and of your oil, and the first of
the fleece of your sheep, shall you give him.’
The priests also received the firstfruits, that which ripened first, of the grain,
wine and oil, and first fleeces of the sheep, giving them all round provision
(compare Numbers 18:12). The fleeces are an addition which had probably
become the custom. Deciding what was and was not firstfruits would presumably
have been sorted out with Moses by Aaron.
21

5 for the Lord your God has chosen them and
their descendants out of all your tribes to stand
and minister in the Lord’s name always.
GILL, "For the Lord thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes,.... That
is, has chosen the tribe of Levi out of all the other tribes of Israel:
to stand to minister in the name of the Lord; the priests to minister to the
Lord by offering sacrifices, and the Levites to minister to the priests in assisting them
in their service; and both their ministry were in the name of the Lord, and for his
glory, and done standing; for there was no sitting in the sanctuary (w); the priestly
ministry was only performed standing (x), whatever was done sitting was rejected
(y); see Heb_10:11,
him and his sons for ever; Levi and his posterity, or the posterity of the tribe of
Levi, were chosen by the Lord to this service, to be employed in it as long as the
ceremonial law continued, on which stood the Levitical priesthood; but both are now
abolished by Christ, having their accomplishment in him, Heb_7:11.
K&D, "Deu_18:5
The reason for the right accorded to the priests was the choice of them for the
office of standing “to minister in the name of Jehovah,” sc., for all the tribes “In the
name of Jehovah,” not merely by the appointment, but also in the power of the Lord,
as mediators of His grace. The words “he and his sons” point back quite to the
Mosaic times, in which Aaron and his sons held the priest's office.
‘For Yahweh your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to minister
in the name of Yahweh, him and his sons for ever.’
The reason for these gifts was that they were the chosen of Yahweh out of all the
tribes for the purpose of standing to give priestly service in the name of Yahweh
(compare Deuteronomy 17:12; 1 Kings 8:11; 2 Chronicles 5:14; for ‘stand to
minister’; Exodus 28:43 for ‘to minister’. Contrast Deuteronomy 10:8; 2
Chronicles 29:4-11 where it includes the service of the Levites). They, and they
alone, had this privilege. The priesthood was their inheritance (Joshua 18:7).
As king, priest and sanctuary dominated ancient society, so here in Deuteronomy
all were (as here), or were to be (Deuteronomy 12:5; Deuteronomy 17:15), the
chosen of Yahweh, as well as were the people (Deuteronomy 7:6). All was under
His sovereignty.
22

6 If a Levite moves from one of your towns
anywhere in Israel where he is living, and comes
in all earnestness to the place the Lord will
choose,
BARNES, "These verses presuppose that part of the Levites only will be in
residence and officiating at the place of the sanctuary, the others of course dwelling
at their own homes in the Levitical cities, or “sojourning” elsewhere; compare the
marginal references. But if any Levite out of love for the service of the sanctuary
chose to resort to it when he might reside in his own home, he was to have his share
in the maintenance which was provided for those ministering in the order of their
course.
GILL, "And if a Levite come from any of thy gates out of Israel, where he
sojourned,.... In any of the cities through the land, for they were dispersed all over
the country, and employed in instructing and teaching the people; and, excepting the
cities which were given them to dwell in out of the various tribes, they were but
sojourners:
and come with all the desire of his mind unto the place which the Lord
shall choose; the city of Jerusalem, where the temple would be built, and sacrifices
offered, at which the Levites were assisting to the priests, and in various parts of the
service of the sanctuary; and to which they are supposed to come with an hearty good
will, with great eagerness of soul, and a vehement desire of being employed in the
work of the Lord. Though Jarchi interprets it of a priest, that comes and offers his
freewill offerings, or what he is obliged to, and even in a ward not his own; or, as
otherwise expressed, of the priests that come to the feast, who offer in the ward, and
serve in the offerings that come by virtue of the feast, as the additions of the feast,
though it is not in their own ward; and indeed every priest was a Levite, though every
Levite was not a priest; and the description of him after given, as standing
ministering in the name of the Lord, best agrees with a priest.
HENRY 6-8, " The priests must not themselves stand in one another's light. If a
priest that by the law was obliged to serve at the altar only in his turn, and was paid
for that, should, out of his great affection to the sanctuary, devote himself to a
constant attendance there, and quit the ease and pleasure of the city in which he had
his lot for the satisfaction of serving the altar, the priests whose turn it was to attend
must admit him both to join in the work and to share in the wages, and not grudge
him either the honour of the one or the profit of the other, though it might seem to
23

break in upon them, Deu_18:6-8. Note, A hearty pious zeal to serve God and his
church, though it may a little encroach upon a settled order, and there may be
somewhat in it that looks irregular, yet ought to be gratified and not discouraged. He
that appears to have a hearty affection to the sanctuary, and loves dearly to be
employed in the service of it, in God's name let him minister; he shall be as welcome
to God as the Levites whose course it was to minister, and should be so to them. The
settling of the courses was intended rather to secure those to the work that were not
willing to do so much than to exclude any that were willing to do more. And he that
thus serves as a volunteer shall have as good pay as the pressed men, besides that
which comes of the sale of his patrimony. The church of Rome obliges those who
leave their estates to go into a monastery to bring the produce of their estates with
them into the common stock of the monastery, for gain is their godliness; but here it
is ordered that the pious devotee should reserve to himself the produce of his
patrimony, for religion and the ministry were never appointed of God, however they
have been abused by men, to serve a secular interest.
JAMISON 6-8, "if a Levite ... come with all the desire of his mind — It
appears that the Levites served in rotation from the earliest times; but, from their
great numbers, it was only at infrequent intervals they could be called into actual
service. Should any Levite, however, under the influence of eminent piety, resolve to
devote himself wholly and continually to the sacred duties of the sanctuary, he was
allowed to realize his ardent wishes; and as he was admitted to a share of the work,
so also to a share of the remuneration. Though he might have private property, that
was to form no ground for withholding or even diminishing his claim to maintenance
like the other ministering priests. The reason or principle of the enactment is obvious
(1Co_9:13). At the same time, while every facility was afforded for the admission of
such a zealous and self-denying officer, this admission was to be in an orderly
manner: he was to minister “as all his brethren” - that is, a Gershonite with
Gershonites; a Merarite with Merarites; so that there might be no derangement of
the established courses.
CALVIN, "3.And this shall be the priests’ due. It is not only for the sake of the priests
that God enumerates what He would have them receive, that they may obtain what is
their own without murmuring or dispute; but He also has regard to the people,lest the
priests should basely and greedily take more than their due; which sacred history
relates to have been done by the sons of Eli, (1 Samuel 2:23,) for they had advanced to
such a degree of licentiousness, that, like robbers, they seized violently on whatever
their lust desired. Lest therefore they should give way to this gross covetousness, God
prescribes to them certain limits, to which they were to confine themselves, so that if
they transgressed them, it was easy for any of the people to convict them of avarice.
COFFMAN, "Verse 6
"And if a Levite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel where he
sojourneth, and come with all the desire of his soul unto the place which Jehovah
shall choose; then he shall minister in the name of Jehovah his God, as all his
brethren the Levites do, who stand there before Jehovah. They shall have like
portions to eat, besides that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony."
24

"These verses guaranteed the rights of all Levites against any restrictive
tendencies of vested priestly interests at the central sanctuary."[7] In Leviticus
25:33,34, the law required that sufficient pasture lands be allotted to the Levites
in the vicinity of the Levitical cities; and in this passage we catch a glimpse (but
only a glimpse) of how the law worked out. It is anticipated here that the Levites
would erect houses, or residences of some kind, in these areas and use the
pasture lands for animal husbandry, and perhaps other forms of agriculture.
Thus, although the Levites would have no landed inheritance in Canaan, as did
the other tribes, there is no indication that they would live perpetually in
poverty. These verses deal with the situation in which a Levite living at some
considerable distance from the central sanctuary would desire to dispose of his
patrimony, which he had acquired either by inheritance, or by his personal
endeavor, in order to move to the place where the central sanctuary would be set
up. As Keil noted:
"Such a Levite might either rent out his property in the Levitical town and use
the annual rent as his income, or sell his house there to someone else ... These
words are convincing proof that the allegation that the Levites were absolutely
without possessions is not supported in any manner by the Book of
Deuteronomy."[8
COKE, "Ver. 6-8. And if a Levite— i.e. One of the tribe of Levi, whether priest
or Levite: Shall come with all the desire of his mind; i.e. with a sincere desire to
consecrate himself entirely to the service of the sanctuary, and to fix his abode in
the same place with the sanctuary; then he shall minister in the name of the
Lord, ver. 7 or, he shall minister to the name of the Lord, as in the LXX i.e. he
shall continually attend at the altar, to perform the service of the sanctuary, as
the other priests do in their courses. This was the case with Samuel. And they
shall have like portions to eat, ver. 8 that is, the rest of the priests who wait at the
altar shall allow such person the same portion which they themselves have in the
sacrifices. Willing to engage the ministers of religion to consecrate themselves
entirely to the functions of the ministry, Moses here determines, upon the whole,
that all those who hereafter should come to fix themselves entirely at the house of
the Lord, should be treated absolutely upon the same footing with their
colleagues, associated with them in their functions and emoluments. Beside that
which cometh of the sale of his patrimony means, beside what personal estate he
had gotten himself, or was left him by his relations, and which was to be sold for
his use; for, though the priests had no share in the land of Canaan given them at
the division of that country, yet they might purchase houses, goods, and cattle,
and sometimes land too; as we read that Abiathar had fields of his own at
Anathoth; 1 Kings 2:26 and the prophet Jeremiah, who was also a priest,
purchased a field of his uncle's son. Jeremiah 32:7-8.
25

REFLECTIONS.—Provision is made for the support of a godly ministry. 1. They
were to have no inheritance among their brethren, nor any worldly care to draw
them off from attending to the duties of their function. God was to be their
portion; and they who have his love in time, and the hope of his glory in eternity,
need not wish a greater. Note; A worldly-minded priest is a scandal to his
profession, and a living lie. Not that they should want a competency, though they
were debarred from getting gain by agriculture or commerce. As servants at
God's altar, they had a part of every sacrifice for their maintenance; and the
first-fruits of the corn and wine and the fleece of the sheep were given them, that
they might have both food and raiment sufficient for them. Note; He that loves
God's altar, will never grudge a liberal contribution to support those who are
chosen of God to minister before him. Whom God honours, we must honour. 2.
If a Levite, from a holy zeal for God's service, desired out of his course to go up
and serve at the altar, he might, and share the work and wages with his brethren
there: for, in settling a certain number alway, to minister, no exclusion was put
on those who voluntarily offered themselves. Note; Besides the generally
established service, a zealous minister will delight to be employed for God, out of
common seasons, as well as in season; and, though his colder brethren may count
this step irregular, God will regard it as highly commendable.
BENSON. "Deuteronomy 18:6. With all the desire of his mind — With full
purpose to fix his abode, and to spend his whole time and strength in the service
of God. It seems, the several priests were to come from their cities to the temple
by turns, before David’s time; and it is certain they did so after it. But if any of
them were not contented with this attendance upon God in his tabernacle, and
desired more entirely and constantly to devote himself to God’s service there, he
was permitted so to do, because this was an eminent act of piety, joined with self-
denial, to part with those great conveniences which he enjoyed in the city of his
possession.
ELLICOTT, "(6-8) And if a Levite come.—The Levites with the priests were to
receive forty-eight cities in Israel, with the suburbs (Numbers 35:7). There was
as yet no provision made by which all could serve in turn at the tabernacle.
When David divided them all into courses, priests, Levites, singers (and porters?)
alike, there was no longer any need for this provision. The institutions of David
prove its antiquity. The only case in history that illustrates it is that of the child
Samuel. His father, Elkanah, was a descendant of Korah. He dwelt in Mount
Ephraim, and came up to Shiloh year by year. But Samuel was dedicated by his
mother to perpetual service there, and as long as the tabernacle continued in
Shiloh, the child Samuel “ministered to the Lord before Eli the priest”—not as a
priest, but as a Levite in attendance upon the priests.
26

PETT, "The Maintenance of Levites Who Elect To Come To Serve At The
Sanctuary (Deuteronomy 18:6-8).
The Levites were to be spread all over Israel. But when they came to serve at the
Tabernacle permanently they would need to be provided for.
Analysis using the words of Moses.
a And if a Levite come from any of your gates out of all Israel, where he
sojourns, and come with all the desire of his soul to the place which Yahweh shall
choose (Deuteronomy 18:6).
b Then he shall minister in the name of Yahweh his God (Deuteronomy
18:7 a).
b As all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before Yahweh
(Deuteronomy 18:7 b).
a They shall have like portions to eat, besides that which comes of the sale
of his patrimony (Deuteronomy 18:8).
Note that in ‘a’ it is speaking of the Levite who comes to the place which Yahweh
has chosen, burning with seal to serve at the Tabernacle. In the parallel their
portion is to be similar to that of the priests and Levites already there. On the
top of that they may retain any silver obtained from selling the family home in
the city from which he comes. In ‘b’ then he will minister in the name of Yahweh
his God, in the same way as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there
before Yahweh.
Deuteronomy 18:6-7
‘And if a Levite come from any of your gates out of all Israel, where he sojourns,
and come with all the desire of his soul to the place which Yahweh shall choose,
then he shall minister in the name of Yahweh his God, as all his brethren the
Levites do, who stand there before Yahweh.’
It was the Levites and not the priests who tended to be spread around the land.
But at times they would seek to take their part in the worship of the sanctuary
27

(not necessarily permanently). Here one comes ‘with all the desire of his soul’. He
is fulfilling a great desire. Once there he must be allowed to serve in the name of
Yahweh his God, along with all his brother Levites who ‘stand before Yahweh’.
To stand before Yahweh is not necessarily a priestly ministry. Compare
Deuteronomy 10:8; Deuteronomy 19:17; Deuteronomy 29:10; Deuteronomy
29:15; 1 Kings 17:1; 1 Kings 18:15; 1 Kings 19:11; 2 Kings 3:14; 2 Kings 5:16 see
also Numbers 11:16. Nor is ‘to minister in His name’. Compare Deuteronomy
10:8. In 2 Chronicles 29 ‘you Levites’ (which includes both priests and Levites
specifically distinguished - Deuteronomy 18:4-5) are chosen to ‘stand before
Him, to minister to Him, and to be his ministers, and to burn incense’, again a
mixing of levitical and priestly duties. In 1 Samuel 2:11 the child Samuel ‘did
minister to Yahweh before Eli the Priest’. At his young age this could not include
direct priestly ministry. In Numbers 8:25-26 the Levites ‘minister with their
brothers in the tent of meeting’. The idea is of general service in His Tabernacle.
To be in the Tabernacle courtyard (Leviticus 1:3; Leviticus 1:5; Leviticus 1:11
and often, see Leviticus 4:15), or even gathered round it (Exodus 34:23-24), was
always to be ‘before Yahweh’. (See also Numbers 7:3; Numbers 8:10; Numbers
14:37; Numbers 15:15; Numbers 32:21-22 etc; Deuteronomy 1:45; Deuteronomy
4:10; Deuteronomy 6:25; Deuteronomy 12:7; Deuteronomy 12:12; Deuteronomy
12:18; Deuteronomy 16:16 etc).
Examples of Tabernacle service would include repair and maintenance within
the limits of where they were allowed to go and making replacements for worn
out sections of the tabernacle (compare Exodus 38:21), organisation of visitors
who came to the tabernacle and general guardianship (Numbers 1:53), assisting
those who found difficulty in slaying their sacrifices (compare Ezekiel 44:11),
assisting with sanctifying the house of Yahweh (2 Chronicles 29:16) and certainly
later singing and music. Thus they ‘ministered before Yahweh’.
K&D, "As the priests were to be remembered for their service on the part of the
people (Deuteronomy 18:3-5), so the Levite also, who came from one of the towns
of the land with all the desire of his soul to the place of the sanctuary, to minister
there in the name of the Lord, was to eat a similar portion to all his Levitical
brethren who stood there in service before the Lord. The verb ‫גּוּ‬‫ר‬ (sojourned)
does not presuppose that the Levites were houseless, but simply that they had no
hereditary possession in the land as the other tribes had, and merely lived like
sojourners among the Israelites in the towns which were given up to them by the
other tribes (see at Deuteronomy 12:12). “All his brethren the LevitesAll his brethren the LevitesAll his brethren the LevitesAll his brethren the Levites” are theare theare theare the
priests and those Levites who officiated at the sanctuary as assistants to the priests.priests and those Levites who officiated at the sanctuary as assistants to the priests.priests and those Levites who officiated at the sanctuary as assistants to the priests.priests and those Levites who officiated at the sanctuary as assistants to the priests.
28

It is assumed, therefore, that only a part of the Levites were engaged at theIt is assumed, therefore, that only a part of the Levites were engaged at theIt is assumed, therefore, that only a part of the Levites were engaged at theIt is assumed, therefore, that only a part of the Levites were engaged at the
sanctuary, and the others lived in their towns. The apodosis follows insanctuary, and the others lived in their towns. The apodosis follows insanctuary, and the others lived in their towns. The apodosis follows insanctuary, and the others lived in their towns. The apodosis follows in
DeuteronomyDeuteronomyDeuteronomyDeuteronomy 18:818:818:818:8,,,, “part like part shall they eat,part like part shall they eat,part like part shall they eat,part like part shall they eat,” sc., the newsc., the newsc., the newsc., the new----comer and thosecomer and thosecomer and thosecomer and those
already there. The former was to have the same share to eat as the latter, and to bealready there. The former was to have the same share to eat as the latter, and to bealready there. The former was to have the same share to eat as the latter, and to bealready there. The former was to have the same share to eat as the latter, and to be
maintained from the revenues of the sanctuary. These revenues are supposed to bemaintained from the revenues of the sanctuary. These revenues are supposed to bemaintained from the revenues of the sanctuary. These revenues are supposed to bemaintained from the revenues of the sanctuary. These revenues are supposed to be
already apportioned by the previous laws, so that they by no means abolish thealready apportioned by the previous laws, so that they by no means abolish thealready apportioned by the previous laws, so that they by no means abolish thealready apportioned by the previous laws, so that they by no means abolish the
distinction between priests and Levites. We are not to think of those portions of thedistinction between priests and Levites. We are not to think of those portions of thedistinction between priests and Levites. We are not to think of those portions of thedistinction between priests and Levites. We are not to think of those portions of the
sacrifices and firstsacrifices and firstsacrifices and firstsacrifices and first----fruits only which fell to the lot of the priests, nor of the tithefruits only which fell to the lot of the priests, nor of the tithefruits only which fell to the lot of the priests, nor of the tithefruits only which fell to the lot of the priests, nor of the tithe
alone, or of the property which flowed into the sanctuary through vows or freealone, or of the property which flowed into the sanctuary through vows or freealone, or of the property which flowed into the sanctuary through vows or freealone, or of the property which flowed into the sanctuary through vows or free----willwillwillwill
offerings, or in any other way, and was kept in the treasury and storehouse, but ofofferings, or in any other way, and was kept in the treasury and storehouse, but ofofferings, or in any other way, and was kept in the treasury and storehouse, but ofofferings, or in any other way, and was kept in the treasury and storehouse, but of
tithes, sacrificial portions, and freetithes, sacrificial portions, and freetithes, sacrificial portions, and freetithes, sacrificial portions, and free----will offerings generally, which were not set apartwill offerings generally, which were not set apartwill offerings generally, which were not set apartwill offerings generally, which were not set apart
exclusively for the priests.exclusively for the priests.exclusively for the priests.exclusively for the priests. ‫ממ‬ ‫וגו‬‫כּ‬‫לבד‬ ‫ריו‬ , “beside his sold with the fathers,beside his sold with the fathers,beside his sold with the fathers,beside his sold with the fathers,” i.e.,i.e.,i.e.,i.e.,
independently of what he receives from the sale of his patrimony.independently of what he receives from the sale of his patrimony.independently of what he receives from the sale of his patrimony.independently of what he receives from the sale of his patrimony. ‫ממ‬‫כּ‬‫ר‬ , the sale,
then the thing sold, and the price or produce of what is sold, like ‫מכר‬ in Numbers
20:19. ‫לבד‬ is unusual without ‫,מן‬ and Knobel would read ‫מ‬‫מּ‬‫כריו‬ , from‫מכריו‬ and
‫,מן‬ in consequence. ‫על‬ ‫האבות‬‫בּ‬‫על‬ ‫ית־אבות‬ (see at Exodus 6:25; κατὰ τὴν πατρίαν ,
lxx), according to or with the fathers' houses, i.e., the produce of the property
which he possesses according to his family descent, or which is with his kindred.
Whether ‫על‬ in this passage signifies “according to the measure of,according to the measure of,according to the measure of,according to the measure of,” orororor “with,with,with,with,” inininin
the sense of keeping or administering, cannot be decided. As the law in Leviticusthe sense of keeping or administering, cannot be decided. As the law in Leviticusthe sense of keeping or administering, cannot be decided. As the law in Leviticusthe sense of keeping or administering, cannot be decided. As the law in Leviticus
25:3325:3325:3325:33----34343434, simply forbids the sale of the pasture grounds belonging to the Levites,, simply forbids the sale of the pasture grounds belonging to the Levites,, simply forbids the sale of the pasture grounds belonging to the Levites,, simply forbids the sale of the pasture grounds belonging to the Levites,
but permits the sale of their houses, a Levite who went to the sanctuary might eitherbut permits the sale of their houses, a Levite who went to the sanctuary might eitherbut permits the sale of their houses, a Levite who went to the sanctuary might eitherbut permits the sale of their houses, a Levite who went to the sanctuary might either
let his property in the Levitical town, and draw the yearly rent, or sell the houselet his property in the Levitical town, and draw the yearly rent, or sell the houselet his property in the Levitical town, and draw the yearly rent, or sell the houselet his property in the Levitical town, and draw the yearly rent, or sell the house
which belonged to him there. In any case, these words furnish a convincing proofwhich belonged to him there. In any case, these words furnish a convincing proofwhich belonged to him there. In any case, these words furnish a convincing proofwhich belonged to him there. In any case, these words furnish a convincing proof
that there is no foundation for the assertion that the book of Deuteronomy assumesthat there is no foundation for the assertion that the book of Deuteronomy assumesthat there is no foundation for the assertion that the book of Deuteronomy assumesthat there is no foundation for the assertion that the book of Deuteronomy assumes
or affirms that the Levites were absolutely without possessions.or affirms that the Levites were absolutely without possessions.or affirms that the Levites were absolutely without possessions.or affirms that the Levites were absolutely without possessions.
K&D, "K&D, "K&D, "K&D, "Deu_Deu_Deu_Deu_18:618:618:618:6
As the priests were to be remembered for their service on the part of the people (Deu_
18:3-5), so the Levite also, who came from one of the towns of the land with all the desire of
his soul to the place of the sanctuary, to minister there in the name of the Lord, was to eat a
29

similar portion to all his Levitical brethren who stood there in service before the Lord. The
verb ‫וּר‬ (sojourned) does not presuppose that the Levites were houseless, but simply
that they had no hereditary possession in the land as the other tribes had, and merely
lived like sojourners among the Israelites in the towns which were given up to them
by the other tribes (see at Deu_12:12). “All his brethren the Levites” are the priests
and those Levites who officiated at the sanctuary as assistants to the priests. It is
assumed, therefore, that only a part of the Levites were engaged at the sanctuary, and
the others lived in their towns. The apodosis follows in Deu_18:8, “part like part
shall they eat,” sc., the new-comer and those already there. The former was to have
the same share to eat as the latter, and to be maintained from the revenues of the
sanctuary. These revenues are supposed to be already apportioned by the previous
laws, so that they by no means abolish the distinction between priests and Levites.
We are not to think of those portions of the sacrifices and first-fruits only which fell
to the lot of the priests, nor of the tithe alone, or of the property which flowed into
the sanctuary through vows or free-will offerings, or in any other way, and was kept
in the treasury and storehouse, but of tithes, sacrificial portions, and free-will
offerings generally, which were not set apart exclusively for the priests. ‫וגו‬ ‫יו‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָⅴ ְ‫מ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫ד‬ ַ‫ב‬ ְ‫,ל‬
“beside his sold with the fathers,” i.e., independently of what he receives from the
sale of his patrimony. ‫ר‬ ָⅴ ְ‫מ‬ ִ‫,מ‬ the sale, then the thing sold, and the price or produce of
what is sold, like ‫ר‬ ֶ‫כ‬ ֶ‫מ‬ in Num_20:19. ‫ד‬ ַ‫ב‬ ְ‫ל‬ is unusual without ‫ן‬ ִ‫,מ‬ and Knobel would
read ‫יו‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָ‫כ‬ ְ ִ‫,מ‬ from ‫יו‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָ‫כ‬ ְ‫מ‬ and ‫ן‬ ִ‫,מ‬ in consequence. ‫ּות‬‫ב‬ፎ ָ‫ה‬ ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ stands for ‫ּות‬‫ב‬ፎ‫ית־‬ ֵ ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ (see at
Exo_6:25; κατᆭ τᆱν πατρίαν, lxx), according to or with the fathers' houses, i.e., the
produce of the property which he possesses according to his family descent, or which
is with his kindred. Whether ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ in this passage signifies “according to the measure
of,” or “with,” in the sense of keeping or administering, cannot be decided. As the law
in Lev_25:33-34, simply forbids the sale of the pasture grounds belonging to the
Levites, but permits the sale of their houses, a Levite who went to the sanctuary
might either let his property in the Levitical town, and draw the yearly rent, or sell
the house which belonged to him there. In any case, these words furnish a convincing
proof that there is no foundation for the assertion that the book of Deuteronomy
assumes or affirms that the Levites were absolutely without possessions.
7 he may minister in the name of the Lord his
God like all his fellow Levites who serve there in
the presence of the Lord.
GILL, "And he shall minister in the name of the Lord his God,.... The
Targum of Jonathan is,"he shall minister in the name of the Word of the Lord his
God;''in the name of Christ, as a type of him, as every priest and every sacrifice were:
30

he was to be allowed to officiate, though it was not his course or turn:
as all his brethren the Levites do, which stand there before the Lord; daily
offering the same sacrifices, and whatsoever are brought unto them; who might be
said to stand before the Lord, because they stood at the altar of the Lord, and offered
the sacrifices of the people to him; and a country Levite or priest was to be admitted
to do the same thing at Jerusalem, and in the temple there, as they did; and this
shows that a priest is meant by the Levite.
8 He is to share equally in their benefits, even
though he has received money from the sale of
family possessions.
BARNES, "Deu_18:8
Beside that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony - The Levites had
indeed “no part nor inheritance with Israel,” but they might individually possess
property, and in fact often did so (compare 1Ki_2:26; Jer_32:7; Act_4:36). The
Levite who desired to settle at the place of the sanctuary would probably sell his
patrimony when quitting his former home. The text directs that he should,
notwithstanding any such private resources, duly enjoy his share of the perquisites
provided for the ministers at the sanctuary, and as he was “waiting at the altar”
should be “partaker with the altar” 1Co_9:13.
CLARKE, "The sale of his patrimony - So we find that, though the Levites
might have no part of the land by lot, yet they were permitted to make purchases of
houses, goods, and cattle, yea, of fields also. See the case of Abiathar, 1Ki_2:26
(note), and of Jeremiah, Jer_32:7-8 (note).
GILL, "They shall have like portions to eat,.... Equal parts of the sacrifices with
the priests that usually ministered there; hence we learn, says Jarchi, that they
divided the skins and flesh of the sin offerings; perhaps even such as did not come by
virtue of the feast, as the daily sacrifices, and the additions of the sabbath, and the
vows, and the freewill offerings:
beside that which cometh by the sale of his patrimony: for though the
priests and Levites had no inheritance divided to them in the land, yet they might
buy houses and fields, and leave them to their children, and this may be called their
patrimony; now it was not reasonable that they should wholly live upon this, or
spend what their fathers left them; but, besides the income of that, were to have their
part and portion with their brethren in the sacrifices of the sanctuary. But some
interpret these words in a different way, as if they had respect to the gifts and
oblations in the several wards in which the priests ministered, as they were ordered
31

by their fathers, Eleazar, Ithamar, Samuel, David, and Solomon; so the Targums of
Onkelos, Jonathan, and Jarchi. In the times of Eleazar and Ithamar, there were only
eight wards or courses, which ministered in their turns, but in the days of David they
were divided into twenty four; See Gill on Luk_1:8; now the ordering and fixing these
in their turns is called a vendition or sale; and these country priests might partake of
all sacrifices at the feast, excepting those which belonged to him whose course it was
that week.
‘They shall have like portions to eat, besides that which comes of the sale of his
patrimony.’
They were to be given equal shares in all the portions that fell to the Levites. And this
was not be affected by any rents they received from letting their own house, or capital
received from selling it.
It is not absolutely certain what 'patrimony' includes - the Hebrew rendered baldly
translated would be 'the sale concerning the fathers'. The general meaning is, however,
clear. When the Levite left his levitical city, or wherever he was resident, and took up
residence at the Sanctuary, he had a right to keep any wealth obtained from family
possessions, which might include property owned in the levitical city.
Occult Practices
9 When you enter the land the Lord your God is
giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable
ways of the nations there.
GILL, "When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth
thee,.... The land of Canaan, often thus described, to express the goodness of God in
bestowing it on them, as a mere favour of his, without any desert of theirs; and so
typical of the heavenly Canaan, or eternal life, which is the free gift of God through
Christ:
thou shall not learn to do after the abominations of these nations; the
seven nations which before inhabited it; they might learn, as Jarchi observes, to
know how corrupt their works were, and to show to their children, that they might
not do so; but they were not to learn them so as to practise them, but to have them in
the utmost abhorrence, as being abominable to God, and which should be so to them;
some of which are as follow.
32

Deuteronomy 18 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Deuteronomy 18 commentary

Similar to Deuteronomy 18 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (17)

Deuteronomy 18 commentary