De. 17:2, 3. The crime here ordained to be punished by death was the worship of the heavenly bodies. Its apparent sublimity made it only the more seductive and dangerous. It was a departure, though at first a very subtle and scarcely recognizable one, from pure monotheism—the beginning of a course of declension which speedily led in Egypt, Phœnicia, Babylonia, India, and most other nations to the grossest abominations. Orr.

4. These are tokens of severity, that a woman as well as a man is to be slain; that the whole people should unite in stoning them; that the evil should be removed from the midst of the land, lest the abomination should continue unpunished. He marks the heinous nature of the offence, by calling it the “transgressing of God’s covenant”; thus affirming that all who go aside unto idols are covenant-breakers. It is not simple impiety which is here punished, but the perfidy whereby true religion is forsaken after men have devoted themselves to God and professed themselves to be of the number of his people. Colo.—Although physical death is no longer to be inflicted and outward stoning is happily unknown, there remains the eternal truth that false worship is death, misconceived worship is loss of soul, and right worship is daily sustenance and the continual enhancement of highest strength. J. P.

De. 13:1-18. Temptations to depart from God to be resisted at all costs. Here Israel is told what to do in case of temptation arising to worship false gods. The chapter deals with this one topic. Temptations to depart from God may come (1) from a professed prophet or wonder-worker, or (2) they may arise from the nearest relative or bosom friend, or (3) they may come from a town or city. In either case, the infection is to be “stamped out” at once. Any enticement to idolatry, come whence it may, is not to be tolerated for a moment. The wonder-worker is to be put to death; the friend is to be slain; the city is to be destroyed. C. C.

Even when a prophet performs a miracle for the sake of seducing the people into idolatry, they shall not believe him but punish him. This precept is of great importance, because it shows that even in the Old Testament a miracle was only of an introductory and preparatory character, and never was meant in and for itself to work as a sufficient proof of the truth. Every miracle points to something; and if that to which it points is shown by other yet more undoubted signs to be false and mischievous, then the miracle itself is a lying miracle. Therefore the New Testament also warns us against false prophetic spirits. Gerl.

Terribly stern is the duty here laid on the person enticed to idolatry. The law is adapted to an age of stern deeds, and to a people living under a stern dispensation. Yet, reflecting on the nature of the crime, on the constitution of the Jewish state, and on the issues to mankind which hung on the slender thread of this one nation’s fidelity, it is difficult to see how it could well have been less stern than it is. Its severity was perhaps its mercy. Note, too, that the criminal could be executed only after formal impeachment, fair trial, and conclusively established guilt. Orr.

11. And all Israel shall hear, and fear.** God doth not punish merely for the sake of punishment. Even his severities are the effects of goodness, and always directed to the advantage either of those who feel them or of others. Secker.—The effect anticipated was this: All Israel shall hear, and fear, and do no more any such wickedness. On God’s side the result would be that he would “turn and show them mercy, and multiply” their numbers. Very clearly was it announced that this judicial action was the action of God, and that righteous and obedient Hebrews were the officers of Jehovah. D. D.

De. 13:3, 4. “The LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and cleave unto him.” These words present the supreme reason and sanction for the commands of this thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, as they furnish the one sublime and sufficient basis for all Divine commands and prohibitions. B.—“Ye shall walk after the Lord” embodies New Testament teaching as well as Old. Absolute loyalty to Christ should be the governing principle of life. The Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Christ of the New. He appeals to us by righteousness, love, hope, fear. Temptations to desert Christ’s standard may pour in upon us from various quarters. Seductions either to the false in faith or the corrupt in practice may come from those near and dear to us. These temptations are to be withstood at all costs. How earnestly should we pray that we may be kept faithful to our dear Lord in heaven! How lovingly should we warn others, lest they swerve from their fealty to him! C. C.

Magical Arts and Divination.

Israel, being under a theocracy, did not need an earthly king; but neither was this thereby precluded, provided the king chosen by the people were one whom Jehovah would approve as his vicegerent. In case, then, of their coming to desire to have a king over them like the nations around them, Moses gives instructions here as to the choice of a king, and as to the duties and obligations resting upon those who might be elevated to that office. The form in which these are conveyed clearly indicates that, at the time this was uttered, the existence of a king in Israel was contemplated as only a distant possibility. Moses foresaw that the people would wish to be as the nations around them— governed by a king—and he legislates accord- ingly, without approving of that wish. W. L. A. —No sanction nor recommendation was indi- cated; on the contrary, when the popular clamor had effected that constitutional change on the Theocracy by the appointment of a king, the Divine disapproval was expressed in the most unequivocal terms (1 Sam. 8:7). Permission at length was granted, God reserving to himself the nomination of the family and the person who should be elevated to the regal dignity. Jamieson.

The law of the king, as we find it recorded in Deuteronomy, is, on its face, framed in an- ticipation of a juncture to arise. It looks for- ward to a period when the Canaanites shall have been dispossessed, their land apportioned, and Israel definitely settled in it. The demand for a king would then arise. It would come from the people. Permission is granted to comply with this demand conditionally, and directions given in detail concerning the manner of the sovereign’s choice, the title he shall bear, the government of his household, his income, his relative position among his brethren, the suc- cession, and other matters, in a way to set him wholly apart from any contemporaneous kings, so, indeed, as to show that he was to be a king under the peculiar conditions of a government that must still be recognized, as in the end, theocratic. The law, in short, is Mosaic in the finest shading of its phraseology. It is true that some temptations and evil practices of kings in general—in the event proving to be also those of later Israelitish kings, like Solomon—seem to have been directly in mind throughout and guarded against. With the knowledge of what the kings of Egypt and Canaan were, what less could have been expected of such a man as Moses, to say nothing of the fact that our book represents him as a prophet? E. C. B.

The inspired foresight of this legislator con- templated the future existence of a constitutional monarch. Moses perceived that even his perfect government would weary the inconstancy of man, and that mortal passions would corrupt even a Divine institution. Moses, with pres- cient wisdom, limited the power intrusted into the hands of royalty, and even prescribed a daily task to the future sovereign. The legisla- tor rendered the Jewish king the most guileless man in his dominions.

The sovereign was to be elected from among their own brethren; no stranger was to sit on the throne of Israel. A foreigner might change the constitution, or raise up a faction in direct opposition to the national interest. The king was not to multiply horses; a force of cavalry, in a land where horses are scarce, might become a standing army endangering their liberties, or might transfer the seat of dominion. It is par- ticularly specified that the Jewish monarch shall never return with his people into Egypt: “Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.” Egypt, for the Israelites at the Mosaic period, was their Father-land; unwilling exiles, their human hearts, at each remove in the lone des- ert, but dragged a lengthening chain, while they hankered after their home delights, “the fat onions and the flesh pots.” Judaism could only exist in a constant triumph over idolatry. The Jewish monarch was not to have many wives, nor was he to accumulate great treasure; so early were women and wealth dreaded as the corrupters of royalty. With his own hand he was to transcribe the laws into a volume from the roll which was kept before the priests, “that his heart be not lifted up among his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left.” There is no instance of a Jewish king making a new law; “the statutes and the judgments,” unlike those of other nations, were not laid up in the dusty archives of a court of judicature, or subjected to the caprice of the executive power; they were deposited in the memories of the priests and in the hearts of the people; the laws were supreme. Had the constitutional King of Israel struck into the road of arbitrary power, he would have been arrested by the written voice of heaven—the text placed before his eyes; for the Divine institution of the Mosaic Law is the fundamental principle of Judaism. A tyrant would have been an atheist. D’Israeli.

15. One from among thy brethren. The Hebrew sovereign was to be a native Hebrew, to be elected from his brethren. A foreigner might change the constitution, or raise up a faction in opposition to the national interest. Foreigners, too, would be inclined to the intro- duction of idolatry.

16. The Hebrew king was not to multiply horses. As the Israelites made no use of horses in agriculture, and but little as beasts of bur- den, employing for these purposes oxen and asses, and as they made most of their journeys on foot, and of course did not need them for travelling, this must be understood as a prohibi- tion against maintaining a strong force of cav- alry. For defence cavalry was unnecessary. On the west Palestine had the sea. On the north, its barrier was a range of lofty and almost impassable mountains, where a mounted soldiery would be of little use. To the east and south it was bounded by vast deserts. The only object, therefore, for which an Israelitish sovereign could desire to keep any considerable force of this description, would be to make foreign conquests. But it was against the whole scope of the Mosaic Law, nay, subversive of its fundamental purpose, that the Hebrews should be conquerors of foreign countries and their king a universal monarch. And as the keeping of a strong body of horse could hardly fail to engender a spirit of foreign conquest, it was expressly interdicted to the head of the State. The fact that Moses forbade the use of this species of force is a proof that he designed his people for peaceful pursuits, and not for military glory. But Moses had another motive for his prohibition of cavalry. The political equality of all the citizens, as we have seen under a former head, was a darling object with him. But in all ancient nations, where cavalry was employed, the horsemen, being necessarily the wealthier members of the community, became also the more powerful. The system threw the chief political power into the hands of a few rich citizens, who could afford to mount and bring into the field themselves and their dependents. This naturally tended to the establishment of monarchical and aristocratical governments. And on this account, as well as on account of his repugnance to an aggressive military policy, Moses excluded a mounted soldiery from the forces of the republic. It is remarkable how speedily the substitution of the monarchical for the republican form of polity led to the introduction and use of cavalry in the Israelitish armies. E. C. W.—Further, the multiplying of horses is prohibited, because this would bring Israel into intercourse and friendly relations with Egypt, and might tend to their going back to that country from which they had been so marvellously delivered; a prohibition which could only have been given at an early stage in the history of the people, for at a later period, after they had been well established in Canasan, such a prohibition for such a reason would have been simply ridiculous. W. L. A.

16. Their dark experience of Egyptian bondage was never to be repeated. They should return that way no more. The only course open to them was to go onward to the realization of their destiny as a free people, for the gate behind them was closed, never to be opened again. The text may naturally be regarded as God’s voice to his emancipated host, saying, “No retreat!” C. C.

17. The Israelitish sovereign was still further forbidden to marry many wives; so early were women dreaded as the corrupters of royalty. I look upon this law as a prohibition against keeping a numerous harem or a state seraglio—that inseparable accompaniment of eastern despotism. Besides the inherent tendency of the thing to render kings effeminate, and dissolve their hearts in indolence and pleasure, there was a special reason against it in the Israelitish polity. It is incident to the keeping of a harem as a matter of royal state, that the monarch seek out and collect together the most beautiful women of all nations. But all other nations at that time were idolaters. Moses dreaded the influence of heathen beauties upon the religious principles and character of the Hebrew kings. He feared that it would lead to the introduction and practice of idolatry. How reasonable his fears were, the history of Solomon affords a memorable and melancholy proof. His harem contained a thousand women, many of whom were Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites, besides the daughter of Pharaoh; “strange women.” His wives turned away his heart after other gods. He appears to have built temples for them all, and himself joined in paying Divine honors to Ashtoreth, and Milcom, and Chemosh, and Molech. The conduct of Solomon places in a very striking light the wisdom of this statute, at the same time that it shows that none of the laws of Moses was less observed than this.

Neither multiply silver and gold. The hoarding up of large treasures by the sovereign tends to obstruct the circulation of money, discourage industry, and impoverish his subjects. The Israelitish king, observes Lewis, “was allowed to lay up money in the treasury at the temple for the occasions of the State, but was forbidden to fill his own coffers for his private interest, lest he should exact more of his subjects than they were able to bear.” There is undoubtedly a wide and obvious difference between these two sorts of treasure. That laid up in the public treasury the king could not use without the consent of the other branches of the government. Of course he could not pervert it to purposes of tyranny, on pretence of applying it to the public service. E. C. W.

18-20. He shall write him a copy of this Law in a book. The original scroll of the ancient Scriptures was deposited in the sanctuary under the strict custody of the priests (see on ch. 31:26; 2 Kings 22:8). Each monarch on his accession was to be furnished with a true and faithful copy, which he was to keep constantly beside him and daily peruse it, that his character and sentiments being cast into its sanctifying mould he might discharge his royal functions in the spirit of faith and piety, of humility and a love of righteousness. Jamieson. — Having a Bible by him, he must read therein all the days of his life (verse 19). It is not enough to have Bibles, but we must use them, use them daily, as the duty and necessity of every day require: our souls must have their constant meals of that manna; and if well digested, it will be true nourishment and strength to them. As the body is receiving benefit by its food continually, so is the soul by the Word of God, if it meditate therein day and night (Ps. 1 : 2). And we must persevere in the use of the written Word of God as long as we live. Christ’s scholars never learn above their Bibles, but will have a constant occasion for them, till they come to that world where knowledge and love will both be made perfect. H.

The Law, and not the king’s own will and pleasure, was to be the rule of his administration. This point was made very prominent in the statute, as the reader will perceive by recurring to it. The king was required to make, or cause to be made, an accurate transcript of the Law out of the book, which was before the priests the Levites—that is, probably, the autograph, kept in the tabernacle. This he must have with him continually, and read therein all the days of his life, to the end that he might learn to keep all the words of this Law and these statutes, to do them. He might not “turn aside from the commandment (the constitution and the laws) to the right hand or to the left.” From this we see that the laws were supreme. The kings were as much bound to observe them as the private citizens. They had no power to make or repeal a single statute. We have here a perfect exemplification of a government of laws. The constitutional King of Israel could not assume and exercise arbitrary power without first trampling under foot the fundamental law of the State. Moses made him simply the first citizen. He aimed also at making him the wisest, the purest, and the best. The king must be gracious and condescending toward his subjects. His heart must not be lifted up. He must look upon his people not only as equals but as brethren. We find the best kings cherishing this sentiment and acting upon it. When David addressed the States-general, he rose before them and used this affectionate compellation: “Hear me, my brethren, and my people” (1 Ch. 28 : 2).

All the above conditions being observed by him whom the Israelites should choose for their king, the throne was to be hereditary in his family. This is plain from the concluding words of the statute: “To the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel.” Moses enjoins it upon the king to keep the laws, that he and his posterity may long fill the throne. But it is quite as important to observe that although the sceptre was hereditary it was not inalienable. It might be taken from one family and given to another by the concurrent will of Jehovah and the Hebrew people. Nay, it certainly would be thus transferred if the king failed to govern according to the laws. Thus we perceive that the Israelitish kings were not absolute and unlimited sovereigns; they were constitutional monarchs. Besides this original and fundamental law, a special capitulation was sworn to by the kings of Israel. The compact between Saul and the Hebrew people, made when he was chosen to the royal dignity, was drawn up by Samuel. That writing, in which doubtless were specified the rights of the king, was carefully deposited in the sanctuary. Of its contents the Bible does not inform us; but there can be no doubt that the limitations of the royal power fixed by it were numerous and important. E. C. W.

The people of Samuel’s time, it is evident, knew of the Law; they do not overlook the advantage they have in it in the appeal they make. They use its language almost word for word in Hebrew, “make us a king to judge us like all the nations” (1 Sam. 8 : 5). And it has been noticed that the whole context is saturated with Deuteronomic expressions and ideas. E. C. B. — The relationship between Samuel’s account of the choice of a king and the statements in Deuteronomy is so close that out of one hundred verses in the story told by Samuel, nearly one half borrow the words and thoughts of Deuteronomy. Among scholars no doubt whatever is entertained of the indebtedness of the writer in Samuel to the writer of Deuteronomy. Sime.

This Law given to the kings of Israel, considered together with the history of the nation, forms a very strong presumption for the Divine original of the Law of Moses. For supposing Moses to be a mere human legislator, like Solon or Lycurgus, what could tempt him to forbid the princes of his country the use of horses and chariots for their defence? Can it be supposed that the history of many ages, which relates to the affairs not only of the princes of Israel but of other contemporary kings, is all forged, and that merely to show an agreement between the history and this particular law? Or how shall we account for the conduct of the prophets who saw the people ruined, and instead of reproaching them with cowardice and a neglect of their necessary defence, reproach them with having been too strong, too powerful in horses and horsemen? These appearances can never be accounted for by any human contrivance, and they plainly show that the hand of God was in this thing from the beginning to the end. Bp. Sherlock.

THE PROPHET LIKE UNTO MOSES. INTIMATION OF A SUCCESSION OF PROPHETS. DIRECTIONS CONCERNING WARFARE.