M%; 
 
 tf 
 
 Robert G. Balfour 
 
 Deuteronomy 
 
 ty- 
 
 \k\ 
 
 Kit. 
 
 '".^ \ 1 
 
 1 ■>•* 
 
 %'M-»i 
 
 BSI276 
 .aB18 
 
 ^f-tf IJii 
 
BS!£75 
 
 P,!P 
 
DEUTEEONOMY 
 
 THE WORDS OF MOSES 
 
 PLAINS OF MOAB. 
 
 BY 
 
 ROBERT G. BALFOUR, 
 
 MINISTER OF FREE NEW NORTH CHURCH, EDINBURGH. 
 
 Section 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 BELL AND BRADFUTE, 12 BANK STREET. 
 
 188L 
 
2^- 15 \:Z 
 
DEUTEEONOMY 
 
 THE WORDS OF MOSES 
 
 PLAINS OF MOAB. 
 
 BY 
 
 ROBEKT G. BALFOUE, 
 
 MINISTER OF FREE NEW NORTH CHURCH, EDINBURGH. 
 
 EDINBUEGH: 
 
 BELL AND BRADFUTE, 12 BANK STREET. 
 
 188L 
 
M 
 
PKEFATOEY NOTE. 
 
 This lecture was delivered as one of a course upon 
 the Life and Character of Moses, and was pre- 
 pared with a view to no wider audience than the 
 Free New North congregation. The first few 
 paragraphs will explain the way in which the 
 Deuteronomy question, now so much agitated, 
 was forced upon me, so that I could not with 
 propriety evade it. The lecture was not intended 
 to be a learned or exhaustive discussion of the 
 subject, but only such a view of it as could be 
 presented in brief compass, to a people of Christian 
 intelligence without theological training. It is 
 now published at the request of the members of 
 Kirk Session who heard it, and who expressed a 
 wish that they and others might have the oppor- 
 tunity of reading it at home. I therefore send it 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 forth with scarcely any alteration, and with the 
 prayer that God may use this humble instrument- 
 ality for the vindication of the historic truth of a 
 portion of His word, and for the establishment of 
 some whose faith in it has been shaken. 
 
 R. G. B. 
 
 Edinburgh, Janaanj 28, 1881. 
 
pnilTCETOIT 
 fi£C. StP 1881 
 
 The life of Moses was now drawing to a close ; his 
 work was almost ended. For he had l^een dis- 
 tinctly warned that he was not to lead his people 
 into the land of promise, and they were now upon 
 its very borders. Nay, one might say that in their 
 victories over Og and Sihon the wars of Canaan 
 were already begun, for they had in them an 
 earnest of the success that would attend their arms 
 when they had crossed the Jordan. And in the 
 territory thus acquired for Reuben, Gad, and 
 Manasseh, they had a substantial instalment of 
 the inheritance to be ultimately given to all the 
 tribes of Israel. There was, indeed, one other 
 enemy whom they had to contend with, Balak the 
 king of Moab, an enemy all the more dangerous 
 on account of the peculiar way in which his hos- 
 tility was shown. But I defer the consideration 
 of that subject, with the view of taking up in a 
 separate lecture the character of Balaam, a man 
 who occupies in the word of God a niche peculiarly 
 his own. 
 
6 
 
 Passing over this episode in Israel's history for 
 the present, the only thing that remains to be 
 noticed before the death of Moses on Pisajah is the 
 solemn and affecting charge which he addressed to 
 the people on the plains of Moab, and which we 
 have somewhat fully reported in the book of Deu- 
 teronomy. Had I come to this point a few years 
 ago, I would have proceeded at once to take a rapid 
 survey of that long and beautiful discourse, as 
 throwing light upon the character of the aged law- 
 giver and his fatherly affection for his people. But, 
 as you know well, doubts have recently been thrown 
 upon the question, whether the words recorded in 
 Deuteronomy were ever spoken by Moses at all. 
 The historical character of the book, or at least of 
 large portions of it, has been denied. It has been 
 confidently asserted that it bears intrinsic evi- 
 dence of a later date, and that it contains legisla- 
 tion which conflicts with that of the three previous 
 books — legislation which did not come into force 
 till the time of King Josiah, so that we must con- 
 clude that it was written shortly before that time 
 by some unknown prophet, and thrown paraboli- 
 cally into the form of an address delivered by 
 Moses several centuries before, simply to indicate 
 that it was a legitimate develo^^ment of the Mosaic 
 law. This view having, from peculiar circum- 
 stances, been brought before the public in a way 
 calculated to produce an impression in its favour. 
 
I feel that it lies directly in my way, so that I 
 cannot proceed on the assumption that Deuter- 
 onomy does contain the speeches and laws of Moses 
 without giving, as briefly as I can, my reasons for 
 this belief. 
 
 Before proceeding to consider the alleged evi- 
 dence for the later origin of Deuteronomy, and the 
 way in which it is to be met, let me mention two 
 things which furnish at least a strong presumption 
 in favour of the earlier date. First, it undoubtedly 
 purports to Ije a report of the words of Moses. The 
 first five verses of the book make that plain beyond 
 all question, for not only is Moses declared to be 
 the speaker, but the time when, and the place 
 where the words were spoken are particularly 
 described. Of course this does not imply that the 
 last chapter, which contains an account of his 
 death, was not added by another hand. Nor is it 
 inconsistent with the supposition that some later 
 inspired writer, such as Ezra, may have added 
 certain marginal notes, or parenthetical explana- 
 tions, which are now incorporated with the text. 
 But it certainly amounts to a strong presumption 
 that the book, for substance, consists of what was 
 spoken by Moses on the plains of Moalj. If any 
 one says that a part of it, even though put appa- 
 rently into the mouth of Moses, ivas not, and could 
 not have been spoken by him, and had no existence 
 till centuries after he was dead, he is saying a thing 
 
which is prima facie very unlikely, and which he 
 would need to prove by very strong arguments 
 indeed. 
 
 And, secondly, this presumption, founded upon 
 the statements of the book itself, is greatly strength- 
 ened by the fact, that, so far as we know, it has 
 always been regarded, except by a few critics in 
 modern times, as an authentic record of what Moses 
 said and did. In particular it seems to have been 
 so regarded by Christ and His apostles. Thus, 
 when the Pharisees questioned our Lord on the 
 subject of divorce, referring to a passage which we 
 find in Deut. xxiv, 1, He answered: "Moses, be- 
 cause of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you 
 to put away your wives, but from the beginning it 
 was not so." The Apostle Peter, too, addressing 
 the multitude after the healing of the lame man at 
 the gate of the temple, referring to Deut. xviii. 15, 
 used these words : " Moses truly said unto the 
 fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise 
 up unto you of your brethren, like unto me." Both 
 our Lord, therefore, and His apostle, lend their 
 sanction to the received opinion, that Deuteronomy, 
 and even the central and disputed portion of it, is 
 a record of the words of Moses. It may be said 
 that we are not to press such incidental utter- 
 ances as these — that the disciple and the Master 
 simply quoted from a book which was commonly 
 ascribed to Moses, and that they were not called in 
 
the circumstances to raise the question whether the 
 received opinion was right or wrong. Well, I admit 
 that this view of the matter is just conceivable, and 
 I would take refuge in it if I were driven by over- 
 whelming evidence to the conclusion that these 
 statements could not possibly have fallen from the 
 lips of Moses. But certainly the presumption is 
 very strong, that the book is what it professes to 
 be, and what our Lord and His apostles quoted it 
 as being, a record of the words of Moses. 
 
 In considering the arguments brought forward 
 to prove that Deuteronomy belongs to a much later 
 period than that of Moses, I must confine my 
 attention to those which are confessedly the most 
 important. There are some, such as the alleged 
 difference of style in this and the previous books, 
 and certain minute discrepancies between the laws 
 as given there and repeated here, which I must pass 
 over, because it would lead us into perplexing and 
 tedious details. On these points I would only make 
 two general remarks. (1.) Deuteronomy consists 
 of a lengthened hortatory address, delivered by the 
 aged Moses to the people whom he loved so well, at 
 a time when he knew that his end was near. Hence 
 the difference of style. Hence the fervour and ful- 
 ness of his utterances here, as compared with the 
 technical precision of the legal books. And even 
 when the same legislation is repeated, as in the case 
 of the cities of refuge, it was natural that he should 
 
10 
 
 make use of different terms when setting forth the 
 matter in a more free and popular way. (2.) A 
 period of nearly forty years had elapsed since the 
 giving of the law at Sinai, and they were now about 
 to exchange their migratory life in the wilderness 
 for a settled life in Caanan. It was natural there- 
 fore that, in re-issuing the law by divine authority, 
 a few minor modifications should be introduced. 
 We know that within the first forty years of the 
 history of the Christian Church, certain very im- 
 portant modifications were made, such as the 
 appointment of the order of deacons, and the 
 release of the Gentile converts from the obliga- 
 tion to be circumcised. 
 
 But, passing by those points of confessedly 
 secondary importance, the three great arguments 
 brought forward to prove the comparatively late 
 origin of Deuteronomy are these : — (1.) That, whereas 
 in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers there is a broad 
 distinction between the priests and Levites ; in this 
 book that distinction disappears, and every Levite 
 is represented as a possible priest. Therefore the 
 book describes a different state of matters, and 
 belongs to a different age. (2.) In Deuteronomy 
 we have precise regulations laid down in connection 
 with the choice of a king who should go before 
 them and fight their battles, which, it is held, could 
 not have been written before the days of Samuel, 
 otherwise the Lord would not have been displeased . 
 
11 
 
 with Israel for asking that they should have a king. 
 And (3.) In Deuteronomy the people are restricted 
 to one altar, where all the sacrifices are to be offered 
 up, which is quite contrary to the permission given 
 them in Exodus xx. 24, to erect an altar wherever 
 God might record His name, and which is a restric- 
 tion that was never actually enforced until .the days 
 of the later kings. 
 
 Now, as to the first of these arguments, when 
 carefully examined, it amounts to nothing more 
 than this, — that in Deuteronomy the line of distinc- 
 tion between priests and Levites was not so sharply 
 drawn as in the earlier books. The priests are 
 designated from the tribe to which they belonged, 
 " the priests, the Levites," not from the family of 
 which they were members, " the priests, the sons 
 of Aaron." Nor is it difficult to see a reason for 
 this change of designation. In the first place, 
 Aaron was now dead, so that it was natural to 
 drop his name from the description of the priestly 
 order. And, in the second place, the priesthood 
 was by this time firmly established and universally 
 recognised as belonging to the lineal descendants of 
 Aaron. The formidable rebellion of Korah, Dathan, 
 and Abiram against the exclusive priesthood of his 
 family had been so effectually and so awfully quelled 
 by the overthrow of the rebels and the blossoming of 
 Aaron's rod, that every whisper of opposition had 
 been silenced, and there was no call to be always 
 
12 
 
 emphasising a distinction which no one douLted or 
 denied. This, I think, is sufficient to account for 
 the higher position apparently conceded to the 
 Levites in Deuteronomy than in the preceding books. 
 
 Then, as to the second argument about the laws 
 and regulations relating to the king, it is not to be 
 denied that there is some difficulty here. I sup- 
 pose w^e have all felt it. We have wondered why 
 the Lord was so displeased with Israel for demand- 
 ing a king, when in the book of Deuteronomy the 
 prospect of their doing this some day is so clearly 
 contemplated, and laws laid down as to the sort of 
 king they were to choose, and certain things which 
 he was to do and to refrain from doing. All that 
 can be said is that there is enough in the narrative 
 in Samuel to give probability to the supposition, 
 that the offence on the part of Israel was not the 
 mere demand for a king, but the motives that 
 prompted it, the spirit and manner in which it was 
 made. They did it in a way that showed that 
 their real object was to get rid of that direct and 
 immediate dependence on Jehovah as their king, 
 which was their distinguishing glory as a nation. 
 It was this that displeased the Lord, as he indi- 
 cated when he said to Samuel, " They have not 
 rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I 
 should not reign over them." 
 
 At any rate, if there l)e a difficulty in supposing 
 that the law of the kingdom was framed in the 
 
13 
 
 days of Moses, the diiticulty is far greater if we 
 assign it to the time of Hezekiah. For what does it 
 enact ? " Thou shalt in any wise set him king over 
 thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose; one 
 from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over 
 thee : thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, 
 which is not thy brother" (Deut. xvii. 15). Would 
 such a law have been given at a time when no one 
 had a chance of being set upon the throne, unless 
 he could prove, not only that he was an Israelite, 
 but that he was a lineal descendant of King David ? 
 An attempt has been made to evade the force of 
 this argument by saying, that we learn from Isa. 
 vii. 6, and viii. 9-12, that in the days of King 
 Ahaz there was a conspiracy on the part of Ephraim 
 and Assyria to displace him and set the son of 
 Tabeal on the throne, and that some in Judali 
 were privy to this plot, so that these words in the 
 Deuteronomic law may have been framed with the 
 express view of condemning that proposal. To this 
 I answer, that the law in question has not in the 
 least the aspect of having been framed in connec- 
 tion with such an insignificant and temporary plot, 
 which, as Isaiah declared, was certain to come to 
 nought. And most assuredly these conspirators — 
 impious men, as the whole strain of the prophet's 
 reference to them proves them to have been — 
 would not have been hindered from their ])urp(),sc 
 i)y the mere issuing of a law like this. 
 
14 
 
 We are now brought to the third and most 
 important argument advanced to prove the late 
 origin of the book. In Deut. xii. we have a very 
 precise injunction laid upon the Israelites, — to take 
 effect as soon as they were peaceably settled in 
 the land of their inheritance, — that they were not 
 to offer burnt- offerings anywhere but in the place 
 which the Lord should choose in one of their 
 tribes. Now it is maintained that this is incon- 
 sistent with the legislation in Exod. xx. 24-26, 
 where they w^ere permitted to erect an altar in all 
 places where God recorded His name, provided it 
 were made of earth, or of unhewn stone. And 
 further, it is maintained that this freedom to offer 
 sacrifice in a great variety of places was evidently 
 exercised long after their settlement in the land, as 
 is proved by the practice of Samuel and David, and 
 even of Elijah at a much later period. It is alleged 
 that the restriction of their liberty, and the com- 
 mand to worship at a central sanctuary arose out of 
 the abuse of the high places to purposes of idolatry 
 in the days of the kings. Hence it is argued that 
 this law at least must have been enacted centuries 
 after the death of Moses, and put into his mouth in 
 a figurative or parabolic sense, to indicate that it 
 was a legitimate development of Mosaic legislation, 
 though how it could be that, when it w^as flatly 
 contrary to the law which Moses himself had given, 
 it IS hard to see. Plainly this argument, drawn 
 
15 
 
 from the law of the central sanctuary, is the key of 
 the position, for the date of its enactment is very 
 precisely fixed by reference (1) to the past, during 
 which a different practice had prevailed, ver. 8 ; (2) 
 to the present, for they had not yet reached the 
 land of promise, ver. 9 ; and (3) to the future, for 
 the new law was to come into force when they were 
 settled in peaceable possession of that land, ver. 10.* 
 If this legislation turns out after all to have ori- 
 ginated in the days of Ahaz, there is no part of the 
 book that can be proved to have been written at an 
 earlier date. 
 
 Let us look, then, at this point a little more 
 closely. It must, I think, be admitted that the 
 instructions given in Exod. xx., immediately after 
 the proclamation of the ten commandments from 
 Sinai, do imply that the children of Israel were to 
 offer burnt- offerings in various places, provided 
 suitable altars were erected for the purpose. And 
 this is evidently admitted, when the new law 
 restricting them to one central sanctuary is given 
 in Deuteronomy. For in connection with that 
 enactment it is said, " Ye shall not do after all the 
 things that we do here this day, every man what- 
 soever is right in his own eyes." ..." But when 
 ye go over Jordan . . . then there shall be a place 
 which the Lord your God shall choose to cause His 
 name to dwell there : thither shall ye bring all that 
 I command you ; your burnt-offerings," &c. So that 
 
16 
 
 the difficulty is not as to the opposition between 
 the law of Exodus and of Deuteronomy, for it is 
 admitted in the latter that this is new legislation, 
 by which their former liberty is curtailed. The 
 only difficulty is this, that long after the days of 
 Moses, the people seem to have gone on worship- 
 ping at local shrines, as well as at the central 
 sanctuary, apparently without the slightest idea 
 that they were disobeying the divine command. 
 
 Now it is not to be denied that we do find 
 instances of altars being built and sacrifices 
 off'ered up on them in other places than the one 
 appointed centre, even after Israel were settled in 
 the land of Caanan. Thus Gideon built an altar to 
 the Lord at Ophrah of the Abi-ezrites ; Samuel 
 ofiiered a burnt-ofiering at Mizpeh ; Saul sacrificed 
 at Gilgal ; David on the threshing-floor of 
 Araunah ; and Elijah at Mount Carmel. And the 
 question is. Are these incidents conclusive proof 
 that the restrictive law of Deuteronomy had not 
 yet been enacted ? I do not think they are, even if 
 we had no positive evidence to produce to show 
 that that law was then perfectly well known. For 
 a law may be in existence, even though it may in 
 many cases be disobeyed, A law may be on the 
 statute book, and yet for a time, owing to a variety 
 of circumstances, it may be practically in abeyance. 
 And a law, l^earino; on the mere externals of wor- 
 ship, may, with the full saction of the Divine 
 
17 
 
 L;iwgiver, be set aside when a literal adherence to 
 it would be prejudicial to higher interests. This 
 principle was enforced by our Lord Himself, when 
 he said, " The Sabbath was made for man, and not 
 man for the Sabbath ;" and reminded the Pharisees 
 that it was written, " I will have mercy and not 
 sacrifice." 
 
 Applying these very obvious considerations to 
 the case before us, it is not difficult to see that the 
 existence of a law restricting sacrifice to a central 
 altar is compatible with the fact that in not a few 
 instances that law was practically ignored. For in 
 the first place the Israelites were not such models 
 of obedience to the will of God that we can safely 
 determine what His law was by simply looking at 
 their practice. We know that they were a stiff"- 
 necked, rebellious people, prone to follow their 
 own wayward impulses rather than the commands 
 of God. And so the fact that they worshipped at 
 various high places, instead of coming to the great 
 altar of burnt- ofi"ering, first at Sliiloh, and after- 
 wards at Jerusalem, is no proof that the law re- 
 quiring them to do this was not yet enacted. The 
 case of Samuel and David is somewhat difi'erent. 
 It must be remembered, however, that in their time 
 there was no central sanctuary — no place which 
 the Lord had chosen in which to put His name. 
 The ark was in captivity among the Philistines, 
 or moving from place to place. Shiloh, where God 
 
set His name at the first, was destroyed for the 
 
 wickedness of His people Israel (Jer. vii. 12). In 
 
 » 
 this state of ecclesiastical disorganisation it was 
 
 impossible to carry out the Deuteronomic law. 
 From the force of circumstances it was in abeyance 
 for a time, and if any worship was to be offered to 
 God at all, it must be in accordance with the older 
 law and promise of Exodus, which would then 
 come again into practical operation: "In all places 
 when I record my name, I will come unto thee and 
 I wiU bless thee." 
 
 The case of Elijah was somewhat peculiar. I do 
 not refer to his building an altar to the Lord in 
 Carmel, for that he doubtless did as a prophet by 
 the express command of God. But when the Lord 
 appeared to him in Horeb we find him saying : " I 
 have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts ; 
 because the children of Israel have forsaken thy 
 covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy 
 prophets with the sword." How could these be 
 called God's altars if they were erected in dis- 
 obedience to the law of the central sanctuary, and 
 in rivalry to the altar of Jehovah at Jerusalem ? 
 How could it be wrong to throw them down, when 
 it was the very thing which King Josiah was 
 praised for doing ? Does not this imply that the 
 law forbidding these altars must have been given 
 sometime between the days of Elijah and Josiah ? 
 No, it does not. It only shows that in the peculiar and 
 
19 
 
 trying circumstances of the godly remnant of the 
 ten tribes, who could not well go up to worship at 
 Jerusalem after the complete rupture between them 
 and the tribe of Judah, God was pleased to accept 
 the sincere and devout, though not quite regular, 
 worship of the local altars. This was eminently a 
 case for the application of the principle, " I will 
 have mercy and not sacrifice." If the religion of 
 the true God was to be kept up in Israel at all, in 
 the face of the prevalent worship of Baal and of the 
 calves, this departure from the letter of the law 
 must be tolerated. Hence these altars were recog- 
 nised as places where, in the circumstances, devout 
 Israelites might acceptably worship God. It was 
 one thing for Ahab to throw them down that he 
 might compel the entire people to bow the knee to 
 Baal, and a very different thing for Josiah to throw 
 them down at a later period, when they had become 
 instruments of idolatry, that all might go up to 
 worship God at His temple in Jerusalem. 
 
 But while I do not think that any of these 
 instances of worship offered at local shrines, or all 
 of them put together, are any proof that the law of 
 the central sanctuary was unknown till towards the 
 close of the Hebrew monarchy, there is one passage 
 that seems to me to prove conclusively that this 
 law was known and reverenced by all Israel in the 
 days of Joshua, immediately after they were settled 
 in quiet possession of the land of Canaan, We are 
 
20 
 
 told, in Joshua xxii. , that, immediately after dividing 
 the land among the tribes of Israel for their inherit- 
 ance, Joshua called together the Reubenites, and 
 Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and after 
 acknowledging the loyal spirit in which they had 
 stood by their brethren in the wars of Canaan, sent 
 them away with his blessing to their own homes on 
 the other side of Jordan. Soon after they left, 
 tidings were brought to the other tribes that on 
 their way to Gilead they had built a large altar in 
 the valley of the Jordan. Now mark the effect 
 which this information produced upon their minds. 
 If there had been no such law as that which we 
 find in Deut. xii., this must have seemed to them 
 the most natural thing in the world, that their 
 brethren, when going to reside at a distance from 
 them, should build an altar on their own territory, 
 at which they might conveniently worship. In- 
 stead of that they were filled with sorrow and 
 indignation, and, preparing to make war with their 
 brethren about it in case expostulation should 
 prove unavailing, they sent ten of their chief men, 
 along with Phinehas, the high priest's son, to 
 remonstrate with them on the sin of which they 
 were guilty. Hear the terms of their remonstrance : 
 " Thus saith the whole congregation of the Lord, 
 What trespass is this that ye have committed 
 against the God of Israel, to turn away this day 
 from following the Lord, in that ye have builded 
 
21 
 
 you an altai"; that yc might rebel this day against 
 the Lord?" Then they go on to compare their sin 
 with that of those who had worshipped Baal-Peor 
 and brought the anger of the Lord upon Israel, or 
 the sin of Achan, who had trespassed in the 
 accursed thing and brought wrath upon the whole 
 congregation. In the estimation of the ten tribes, 
 therefore, the building of another altar was a sin, 
 and a very heinous sin, as is evident from the com- 
 parisons which they bring forward, and the earnest- 
 ness with which they seek to dissuade their 
 brethren from it. Then, supposing that their 
 motive may have been an apprehension that the 
 land on the other side Jordan was unclean, and 
 needed to be sanctified by an altar and by sacrifice, 
 they implore them rather to abandon it and come 
 and dwell with them, generously ofiering them a 
 share of their own possessions in the land of 
 Canaan, Only, they say, " Eebel not against the 
 Lord, nor rebel against us, in building you an altar, 
 beside the altar of the Lord our God." 
 
 And what was the answer which the men of 
 Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh made to their 
 brethren ? They at once admitted that, if they 
 had built an altar for the purpose of ofi'ering upon 
 it burnt-otfering, meat-offering, or peace- ofiering, 
 their conduct would have been quite indefensible. 
 But they declare — and they solemnly api)eal to 
 God to attest the truth of their words — that they 
 
22 
 
 had never dreamt of committing such a flaOTant 
 sin. Their only object was to erect a monument, 
 that might be a witness between them and their 
 brethren on the other side Jordan in future ages, 
 lest the descendants of the ten tribes should say to 
 their children, " What have ye to do with the Lord 
 God of Israel?" This is the way in which they 
 vindicate their conduct, to the unspeakable relief 
 and satisfaction of their brethren, repudiating in 
 the strongest and most explicit terms the idea of 
 their building another altar to be used for sacri- 
 fice. " God forbid," they say, " that we should 
 rebel against the Lord, and turn this day from 
 following the Lord, to build an altar for burnt- 
 ofierings, for meat-offerings, or for sacrifices, besides 
 the altar of the Lord our God that is before His 
 tabernacle." 
 
 This narrative proves in the clearest and most 
 conclusive way, that in the days of Joshua all 
 Israel were acquainted with this law of a central 
 sanctuary, and all Israel admitted that it was a 
 heinous sin to build any other altar for sacrifice 
 besides the altar of Jehovah which was before His 
 tabernacle. And yet this is the law that is singled 
 out above all others as proving that Deuteronomy, 
 the book in which it is found, must have originated 
 in the days of the later kings of Judah ! Attempts 
 have, of course, been made to break down the 
 testimony furnished by the circumstances connecter] 
 
23 
 
 with the erection of this altar — significantly called 
 " the altar of Ed," or " witness," — but I do not 
 hesitate to say that these attempts have signally 
 failed. Thus it has been said that this altar was 
 built on the west bank of the Jordan. I am per- 
 suaded that it was not, and I give in a footnote 
 my reasons for this persuasion.* But really it does 
 
 * In verse 11 tlie altar is said to have been built "over 
 against the land of Canaan, in the borders of Jordan, at the 
 passage of the children of Israel." If this be a correct rendering, 
 it settles the question. The altar was on the east bank, facing 
 the land of Canaan, at the place where the children of Israel 
 originally crossed the Jordan. And this is the uniform 
 rendering of the Hebrew word in our English Bible, where 
 localities are concerned — " over against Mount Gerizim," " over 
 against Mount Ebal," " the coasts of the great sea over against 
 Lebanon," &c. (Joshua viii. 33, ix. 1). Gesenius, in his 
 Lexicon, says that the words in question, Vid-'jx, whether after 
 verbs of rest or motion, signify " toivards any one." But even 
 if we take the rendering proposed by those who take a different 
 view of the situation of the altar, — " in front of the land of 
 Canaan," — at the very most this leaves it an open question, 
 whether the altar stood on the edge or forehead of the land to 
 the west of Jordan, or on the eastern bank fronting Canaan. 
 And if so, then we may surely argue that those who built the 
 altar, whether for sacrifice or for witness, would have had the 
 sense to build it on their own territory. If for sacrifice — and 
 this must have been pnma facie a very likely thing, or the ten 
 tribes would not at once have proceeded on the assumjjtion — 
 then we may be sure they would not have built it on the wrong 
 side of the river Jordan, where it would have been, especially 
 in time of flood, practically inaccessible. If for witness, while 
 they would undoubtedly place it in the view of their brethren 
 in Canaan, a very small amount of prudence would suffice to 
 make them build it on their oAvn ground, where they would be 
 able to preserve it from injury or demolition. The argument 
 
24 
 
 not matter. The whole narrative implies that 
 exception was taken, not to the site of the altar, 
 but to the building of any other altar whatsoever. 
 The same answer must be made to the other argu- 
 ments, that the altar was too large, and that it was 
 not built in a place where God had recorded His 
 name. Neither were these the grounds of offence 
 given to Israel by the building of this altar. All 
 that is beside the question. Let any man candidly 
 read the chapter, and he will see that it was 
 
 drawn from the supposition of their land being unclean, so that 
 an altar could not be erected on it, is entirely fanciful. No 
 doubt, when the people of God were, as a punishment for their 
 sins, dispersed among the nations, they lived in lands which 
 were unclean, and where they were not at liberty to worship 
 God by altar and sacrifice (Hosea ix. 3, Amos vii. 1 7). But it 
 is not true, as has been confidently alleged, that " the mark of 
 an unclean land is that an altar for the worship of Jehovah 
 cannot be erected in it." If so, there never could have been 
 an altar set up in Canaan, for in Leviticus xviii. 24, 25, we 
 read : " Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things : for in 
 all these things the nations are defiled which I cast out before 
 you. And the land is defiled : therefore I do visit the iniquity 
 thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabi- 
 tants." See also Ezra ix. 11. It was the abominations of the 
 heathen that had made the land on both sides of the Jordan 
 unclean, and the ten tribes naturally supposed that their 
 brethren wished to sanctify their section, as the territory to the 
 west had already been sanctified by the erection of an altar and 
 the daily off'ering of sacrifice to Jehovah. The vehemence of 
 the protest against a step so natural, prompted by a motive so 
 good, shows how strong a hold the Deuteronomic law had taken 
 upon that generation, the most faithful to Jehovah that Israel 
 ever saw (Joshua xxiv. 31). 
 
25 
 
 accepted by both parties as a commonplace — a 
 thing which there was no denying — that to build 
 another altar besides that which was before the 
 tabernacle was an offence against Jehovah. The 
 charge brought against them is not that they are 
 going off to the worship of other gods, nor that 
 their altar is too big, nor that they have put it in 
 the wrong place. It is distinctly and specifically 
 this — " Ye rebel against the Lord, in building you 
 an altar, beside the alta7' of the Lord your God." 
 And in their anxiety to clear themselves from such 
 a charge, the accused party state the nature of the 
 supposed offence with still greater precision, when 
 they admit that they would have been rebelling 
 against the Lord, and turning from following Him, 
 if they had built an altar for burnt-offerings, for 
 meat-offerings, or for sacrifices, " beside the altar of 
 the Lord our God that is before His tabernacle." 
 Therefore both parties must have had Deuteronomy 
 xii. in view, for nowhere else is such an act con- 
 demned. 
 
 The law of the central sanctuary, then, so far 
 from being an evidence for the late origin of 
 Deuteronomy, is a proof of its antiquity. And 
 yet, if it had not been for the account preserved 
 to us in the Book of Joshua of the altar of Ed, 
 it would have been one of the most formidable 
 difficulties in the way of a belief that Deuteronomy 
 is a record of the words of Moses. May we not 
 
26 
 
 reasonably argue, that if the principal witness 
 brought forward by our opponents has thus been 
 constrained to give evidence in our favour, the 
 testimony of the others would be to the same 
 effect, if only some missing link in Israel's history 
 could be restored ? 
 
 The notion, then, that Deuteronomy, and espe- 
 cially the legislation in chapter xii., is of late origin 
 is disproved by the history of the period imme- 
 diately succeeding that of Moses, as we find it 
 recorded in the Book of Joshua. But now, consider 
 how seriously that view reflects on the credibility, 
 not to say the inspiration, of the book itself. For 
 we read in verse 9, "Ye are not as yet come to the 
 rest and to the inheritance which the Lord your 
 God giveth you." It is difficult to conceive how 
 these words could have been written seven hundred 
 years after their settlement in Canaan. But let us 
 accept the supposition that this is a mere literary 
 form, that these words were put parabolically into 
 the mouth of Moses. Mark what immediately 
 follows : — " But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell 
 in the land which the Lord your God giveth you 
 to inherit, and when He giveth you rest from all 
 your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in 
 safety ; then there shall be a place which the Lord 
 your God shall choose to cause His name to dwell 
 there : thither ye shall bring all that I command 
 you." That is to say, the new law, restricting 
 
27 
 
 them to one central sanctuary, was to come into 
 force as soon as they were quietly settled in the 
 land. Now, if this was written by a prophet who 
 lived some fifty years before the reign of King 
 Josiah, can we acquit him of fraud and falsehood ? 
 Must not his words have loeen intended to lead his 
 readers to believe that the law of a central sanc- 
 tuary was not one which was then for the first 
 time enacted, but one that had prevailed from the 
 days of Joshua downwards ? Accordingly, when 
 this book, alleged to have l3een written at this late 
 period, and lost during the reign of Manasseh, was 
 found by Hilkiah in the temj)le, and read in the 
 ears of King Josiah, we are told that he rent his 
 clothes, and sent to inquire of the Lord, " for 
 great," said he, " is the wrath of the Lord that is 
 poured out upon us, because our fathers have not 
 kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is 
 written in this book." On the supposition of the 
 late origin of the book, therefore, it contains lan- 
 guage which is deceptive in its nature, and there- 
 fore unworthy of a divine book — language which 
 did, in point of fact, deceive Josiah into the belief 
 that his fathers had been breaking a law which (on 
 the hypothesis we are now considering) had in their 
 days no existence. It is too much to expect us to 
 believe this, and therefore, although there may be 
 some difficulties outstanding which we cannot solve, 
 as in writings so ancient and a narrative so brief 
 
28 
 
 we may naturally expect, we must fall back on the 
 old belief of the Church in all ages, that Deuter- 
 onomy is, what it professes to be, a narrative of the 
 addresses delivered and the laws promulgated to 
 Israel by Moses on the plains of Moab. I believe 
 that this is so obviously the only true conclusion 
 that it will command the assent of all believing 
 men, when the novelty of the views that have 
 recently startled the Church and the country has 
 worn off. And thus the word of God will come 
 forth, as it has ever done, from the crucible of the 
 closest investigation, " as silver tried in a furnace of 
 earth purified seven times." 
 
 I feel that my subject this day has not been 
 very practical in its nature — not so practical as I 
 would desire every lecture and sermon to be. But 
 it will not be without its practical use, if it be the 
 means of confirming any in the belief of the 
 historic verity of the Book of Deuteronomy as a 
 narrative of the closing words of the great law- 
 giver of Israel. 
 
 To the young let me, according to my usual 
 practice, say a concluding word. You know, I 
 daresay, that considerable anxiety has been caused 
 by the views that have lately been put forth about 
 this Book of Deuteronomy. Many good people 
 have been much pained by what seemed to them a 
 want of reverence for the word of God, fitted to 
 do harm, especially to the young. Others, there is 
 
29 
 
 reason to fear, have had their faith in one book of 
 Scripture shaken ; and when men begin to doubt 
 the truth of a part of the Bible, they may begin 
 by and by to doubt the rest. But we know that 
 God can bring good even out of evil. And good 
 will come out of the doubts that have been thrown 
 upon the question, whether the words of Deuter- 
 onomy are to be taken in their natural sense or 
 not, if it only leads us all to search our Bibles 
 better than we have ever done before. If we do, 
 I am sure that many of the difficulties that perplex 
 us will be cleared away, and as for the rest, they 
 will retire into the background, and look very 
 small indeed in comparison with the majesty and 
 the beauty, the authority and the gentleness, the 
 purity and the love, that shine forth on every page 
 of Holy Scripture, and prove it to be divine. But 
 then, if we are to see all this, we must not content 
 ourselves with a mere hasty reading of our daily 
 portion. We must study our Bibles carefully, with 
 reverence and humility, and with prayer for the 
 teaching of the Holy Ghost. It is recorded, to the 
 credit of the Bereans, that they were " more noble 
 than those in Thessalonica, in that they received 
 the word with all readiness of mind, and searched 
 the scriptures daily whether those things were so." 
 And what was the result ? " Therefore many of 
 them believed." Let us imitate their example, 
 and we, too, shall be enabled to believe, or estab- ' 
 
30 
 
 lished in the faith. " Search the scriptures," said 
 our Lord Himself ; " for in them ye think ye have 
 eternal life, and they are they which testify of 
 Me." 
 
 NEILL AND COMPANY, EDINBURGH. 
 ttOVEIlNMENT BOOK AND LAW PKINTEKS FOll SCOTLAND. 
 
f^ I J = 
 
 ijaulora ■ 
 PAMPHLET BINDER 
 
 ^^Z^ Syrocuse, N. Y. 
 ^^^ Stockton, Calif. 
 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 ^^^Jg^5£^ 
 
 m^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DEMCO 38-297 
 
BS1275.8.B18 
 
 Deuteronomy, the words of Moses on the 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00037 0876 
 
 ^, r-?' 
 
 ^/^ 
 
 ^Jl^L '''V 
 
 •i fk