Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Deuteronomy 33:1 - 33:29
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Deu_33:1-29
The Lord came from Sinai,
And rose up [brake forth] from Seir unto them;
He shined forth from Mount Paran,
And he came with [out of] ten thousands of saints [myriads of holiness]:
From his right hand went a fiery law for them [fire, law for them];
3Yea, he loved [is cherishing] the people;
All his saints are in thy hand:
And they sat down [turn] at [after] thy feet:
Every one shall receive of [he rises up at] thy words.
4Moses commanded us a law,
Even the inheritance [possession] of the congregation of Jacob.
5And he was king in Jeshurun,
When [As] the heads of the people
And the tribes of Israel were gathered together.
6Let Reuben live, and not die;
And let not his [That his] men be few [numerable].
7And this is the blessing of [in reference to] Judah: and he said,
Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah,
And bring him [again] unto his people:
Let his hands be sufficient for him [With his hands he fights for it];
And be thou an help to him from [before] his enemies.
8And of [in respect to] Levi he said,
Let thy [Jehovah] Thummim and thy Urim be [belong, or be and remain] with
thy holy [favored] one,
Whom thou [Israel] didst prove at Massah,
And with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah [at Me-Meribah].
9Who said [of] unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him:
Neither did he [And did not] acknowledge his brethren,
Nor knew [And did not know] his own children [his sons];
For they have observed [Jehovah!] thy word,
And kept thy covenant.
10They shall teach Jacob thy judgments [rights],
And Israel thy law;
They shall put incense before thee [at thy nose],
And whole burnt-sacrifice [whole offering] upon thine altar.
11Bless, Lord, his substance [strength],
And accept the work [And let the work] of his hands [be well pleasing to thee];
Smite through the loins of them that rise against him,
And of them that hate him, that they rise not again.
12And of Benjamin he said,
The beloved of the Lord shall dwell in safety by him;
And the Lord shall cover him all the day long,
And he shall dwell between his shoulders.
13And of Joseph he said,
Blessed of the Lord be his land,
For [Of] the precious things of heaven, for [of] the dew,
And for [of] the deep which coucheth beneath,
14And for [of] the precious fruits brought forth by the sun [precious produce of the sun],
And for [of] the precious things put forth [precious growths of the] by the moon [moons],
15And for [of] the chief things [head] of the ancient mountains,
And for [of] the precious things of the lasting [everlasting] hills,
16And for [of] the precious things of the earth and fullness thereof,
And for [And] the good-will of him that dwelt in the bush;
Let the blessing [it] come upon the head of Joseph,
And upon the top of the head [crown] of him that was separated from his brethren.
17His glory is like the firstling of his bullock;
And his horns are like [om. like] the horns of unicorns [the buffalo]:
With them he shall push [thrust] the people
Together to the ends of the earth;
And they are the ten thousands of Ephraim,
And they are the thousands of Manasseh.
19And of Zebulon he said,
Rejoice, Zebulon, in [over] thy going out;
And, Issachar, in [over] thy tents.
19They shall call the people [nations] unto the mountain;
There they shall offer sacrifices of righteousness;
For they shall suck of the abundance of the seas,
And of treasures hid [the hidden, of the hid treasures] in the sand.
20And of Gad he said,
Blessed [praised] be he that enlargeth Gad;
He dwelleth as a lion,
And teareth the arm with [yea] the crown of the head.
21And he provided [chose] the first part [first fruits] for himself,
Because there, in a portion of the law-giver was he seated,
And he came with [om. with] the heads of the people,
He executed [did, performed] the justice of the Lord,
And his judgments with Israel.
22And of Dan he said,
Dan is a lion’s whelp;
He shall leap from Bashan.
23And of Naphtali he said,
O Naphtali, satisfied with favor,
And full with the blessing of the Lord;
Possess thou the west [sea] and the south.
24And of Asher he said,
Let Asher be blessed with children [Blessed before sons is Asher];
Let him be acceptable to [among, of] his brethren,
And let him dip his foot in oil.
25Thy shoes shall be iron and brass;
And as thy days, so shall thy strength [firmness] be.
26There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun [like God, O Jeshurun],
Who rideth [riding] upon the heaven in [with] thy help,
And in his excellency on the sky [clouds].
27The eternal God is thy refuge [Dwelling is the God of olden time],
And underneath are the everlasting arms:
And he shall thrust [thrusts] out the enemy from before thee;
And shall say [says], Destroy them.
28[And] Israel then shall dwell [dwells] in safety.
Alone the fountain of Jacob shall be,
Upon a land of corn and wine;
Also his heavens shall drop down dew.
29Happy art thou, O Israel; who is like unto thee,
O people [a people] saved by [in] the Lord,
The shield of thy help,
And who is the sword of thy excellency [eminence]!
And thine enemies shall be found liars [shall deny themselves] with thee;
And thou shalt tread upon their high places.
The Criticism.—See Introd. § 3. Gesenius and Maurer refer it to the exile; Graf, V. Lengerke to the times of the two kingdoms; Knobel: “When David, in flight from Saul, lived in exile;” Bleek, who earlier held this chapter as older even than Genesis 49, as perhaps genuinely Mosaic, in his Introduction to the Old Testament, concedes to the blessings of Moses only such a reference, by the author of Deuteronomy; that it must have risen in the period between the death of Solomon and the Assyrian exile, about 800 B. C. As to the reasons for these opinions, essentially the same remarks may be made as upon the criticism upon the song. Comp. Schultz, p. 682 sq.
The Mosaic origin is not placed in doubt, because the written publication is not, as with chap, 32, attributed to Moses. Not only Deu_33:4, but the general character and setting permits us to conjecture that another hand than that of Moses has composed this chapter [Introd. § 2). Moses was the speaker only, but we need not appeal to the usually retentive memory, e.g., of the Arabians, for the well-known attachment and faithfulness of Joshua, raises us above any and all anxiety as to the “accuracy of all that is essential.” Schultz: “It is here precisely as with all the discourses of our Lord in the New Testament.” Keil emphasizes correctly “the peculiar nature of the blessings of Moses as the strongest proof of their genuineness.” [In favor of the Mosaic authorship of this chapter it may be urged, not only that all the reasons which go to establish the Mosaic origin of the Book of Deuteronomy are of force here; but that the character of this song and its fitness to the circumstances in which it is said that Moses spake it, and its inappropriateness to any other circumstances, are independent proofs that it is the work of Moses. If the whole book expresses the tender care and solicitude of the leader for his people, of the father for his children; this blessing is just the final leave-taking of the departing Moses. Its hopefulness, its cheerful tone and aspect, especially in contrast with the song which it thus supplements, even its entire freedom from any caution or warning, are just what we ought to have expected from one who had spoken the song with its solemn warnings, and was now to leave the people for whose welfare he had spent his life. He could not leave them until he had thus blessed them.
On the other hand, there is not in this chapter one distinct reference to any circumstance in the after history of Israel; neither to the Assyrian period, nor to the time of the disruption of the kingdom, nor even to that of the Judges; and the absence of any such allusion is inconsistent with the supposition of its later origin. The assumed reference in Deu_33:7 to the desire for reunion, under the sceptre of Judah, of the divided kingdom, is obviously a mistaken and forced interpretation of that passage. And indeed all the objections to the Mosaic origin of this chapter proceed either upon erroneous interpretations of particular passages, or upon the denial of its prophetic character, or upon the assumption that its geographical or local allusions and details could not have been known to Moses. This latter assumption, of course, has no force, if the possibility of prophetic foresight is granted; a possibility which calls for no discussion here. The special interpretation will be considered in the exegetical notes. How unreliable these grounds are appears from the diversity in the views which rest upon them, as seen above.—A. G.]
The form of statement is in a verbal, as in a poetic and rhythmical point of view, peculiar, but with true Mosaic features, as a comparison with the other parts of Deuteronomy will show. We cannot understand how “this song should be viewed in any important sense as inferior in poetical merit to the earlier songs of Moses” (Herxheimer). On the contrary, the noticeable doubling—now of the first, now of the second clauses, even of both, with one corresponding clause standing by itself, refutes any such supposition. As to the rhetorical form, the discourse alternates between animated address, description, declaration, calls to those addressed, prayer to the Lord for them or still devout wishes for their good. See the exposition. Knobel calls this song “the most difficult section of the whole Pentateuch.”
Its relation to the blessings of Jacob. Knobel holds that they “are alike” in their original peculiarities and independence, and that “any imitation cannot be proved.” That the blessings of Moses contain references to those of Jacob is peculiarly clear with respect to the blessing upon Joseph, but they are also traceable elsewhere. But that the one is founded upon the other, and a confirmation of it (Keil), does not seem to be the most appropriate designation. Although Moses here blesses as a father, still “not as father simply, but as a lawgiver.” “No sons stand around the bed of the dying father, but Israel, with its hosts, lay before him.” The patriarchal, Genesis 49, appears, Deuteronomy 33, as a blooming, fruit-promising nationality. This natural progress and development gives less scope for “specific predictions” than for “the purely ideally depicted prophetic glances into the future,” as Keil has well remarked. The parallel between Judah and Joseph shapes and rules the blessings of Jacob, and that of Levi and Joseph the blessings of Moses, which is at the same time genuinely Deuteronomic (Introd. § 4, I.). Moses, “the beginning of the new time of the law, and still at the same time the bearer and the end of the time of the wilderness now coming to a close, blesses the people for this new time which he himself began, and for the future of which he gave the form, and which, in relation to the time of the wandering, should be a time of rest, of partial fulfilment, of the peculiar and now first possible political development of the nation” (Ziegler). “These circumstances,” says Herder, “give the tone and contents of this second blessing: they render an introduction necessary, which was not needful with Jacob. They give a close which is not found there—and for the most part also other necessities and other wishes, although it cannot be denied that the song of the patriarch floats before the mind of Moses.” Comp. Lange, Genesis, p. 649.
The import of the Mosaic blessings. “Moses, in his blessing upon Israel, sets forth “the fulfilment of its destination as the people of God” (according to Schultz), the only true and highest happiness,” to which fulfilment each tribe, according to its nature and peculiarities, already for the most part intimated in the blessings of Jacob, should take part. “Simeon, whose peculiarities did not authorize his distinct mention, and whose independence was therefore already removed, Genesis 49, forms the one exception. The same is true to some extent also with Reuben.” Intimations, “although entirely elementary, still sufficiently definite, reveal both how different are the problems in the kingdom of God on the earth, and how well the Lord knows how to use the different natural peculiarities in their realization.” One “problem is inward with respect to the people itself; another outward with respect to the Gentile nations.” As there are personal charisms or gifts, so also there are national, indeed tribal and family charisms. Israel, in this regard, is the symbol of the manifold grace of God ( ðïéêßëç ÷Üñéò èåïῦ ), as in it the idea of the kingdom of God the one charisms completes itself in the world. But work for the kingdom of God is in like manner a different work, and hence the arranging and grouping of the charisms, their alternations likewise, the leadership also of one or another charism, whence results the then existing spirit of the time in its divine definiteness in the kingdom of God. We observe, in connection with this, that the order of tribes in the blessings of Moses departs, not only from the natural order, but from that observed in the blessings of Jacob. Neither the geography (Knobel), nor any thing else external, gives a sufficient explanation for this departure. As this freedom, corresponding essentially to grace, has its position and value for the work, the work-day of the kingdom of God, so finally the issue of the Mosaic blessing (Deu_33:26 sq.) is significant in reference to the rest, which from eternity lies at the foundation of this labor, in reference to the Sabbath, in which this labor must issue as its termination. That is, in the beautiful words of Lange: “The kingdom of heaven is both the deepest foundation and the highest revelation of the kingdom of God.”
The relation to Deuteronomy 32. The unity. The glory and the praise of Jehovah is here as there the beginning, the end, and the fundamental thought. The difference. Herder, too sharply: “as that between the curse and the blessing.” Better, with Schultz: “the song and the blessing supplement each other as negation and affirmation.” In that the reality in Israel, what it actually is, is prominent, in this its ideality, what it ought to be.
Division.—Title, Deu_33:1. Introduction, Deu_33:2-5. The blessings upon the tribes, Deu_33:6-25. The close, Deu_33:26-29.
2. Deu_33:2-5. The introduction takes us up to the only true fountain of all blessing, to Jehovah revealed to Israel. Thus at the very beginning of Deu_33:2. The description of the law-giving through which Israel was and should be this nation, is geographically poetical, brought out through the figure of the sunlight in its glory streaming from every side, corresponding to the all-embracing majesty and greatness of the Lord, because its glory reveals itself from the most remote points at the same time, and consequently fills a wide horizon with the light and splendor of its manifestation. In order to state at once that of which he treats, and to which all further details are sub-servient—for it is scarcely possible that other manifestations of Jehovah can here be referred to (Knob.)—and as to those coming from Egypt, Sinai was the nearest eminence, so Sinai in the South is first named (comp. Deu_1:2). At midday here the eternal sun, as God, sets up his throne, and there his full light appears. The Edomite mountain region, ùòéø , as it forms the eastward limits of the wilderness in which Jehovah found Israel (Deu_32:10) connects with this position in the figure here used, the breaking forth ( æøä ) of the light (Tit_2:11). ôàøð (Deu_1:1) the mountain of Azazimeh, located in the North, and for the most part chalk-masses, and hence in their reflection of the blinding sunlight agreeing well with the shining forth here connected with them. Kadesh is located there, and thus—to remove any misunderstanding, since it might have been thought that the mountains of Et-Tih, lying not far above Sinai, were referred to by the term, the mountains of Paran— îøááú ÷ãù might be rendered with Herder, Knobel and Others, “from the heights of Kadesh,” but then we should have to read øְáָáåֹú ּ÷ָãֵù does not require the rendering ten thousands (as øְáָáָä 32:30), since øáá signifies to heap up, to extend. But the ordinary explanation also meets the parallelism. While the “heights of Kadesh” indeed would only supplement what was already expressed by the Mount Paran, the holy myriads, i.e., the angel hosts, well agrees with the geographical details, the earth localities, completing them by the reference to heaven, (Act_7:53; Heb_2:2; Gal_3:19), which is neither “a mere idle fancy,” nor “an idea elsewhere foreign to the Old Testament, nor even a thought too lately introduced here” (Knobel). In this latter view, indeed, the explanation alluded to gives the best transition to the last clause of the verse, (comp. Jdg_5:4-5; Hab_3:3; Psa_68:17; Gen_28:12; Gen_32:2; 1Ki_22:19; Isaiah 6, etc.Mat_26:53; Heb_12:22; Rev_5:11; Jude Deu_33:14). Since ìîå refers to the Israelites, they are clearly not the myriads. The îï is not to be taken as synonymous with òִí , in which case we should have to read instead of ïàúָä poet: to come forth, åàָúּåֹ with him out of holy myriads, namely those who came with him, in order to express the thought of such a following or attendance. [“The verse thus forms a poetical description of the vast arena upon which this glorious manifestation of the Lord in the giving of the covenant took place.” Bib. Com. And Keil well adds “this manifestation of God formed the basis for all subsequent manifestations of the omnipotence and grace of the Lord for the salvation of His people, Jdg_5:4; Heb_3:3.”—A. G.]. The last and fifth clause completes those two doubled clauses, as answering the question why this manifestation? The thought is thus suggested that it is the giving of the law to Israel which was the object in view. But the expression from his right hand (thus going out from it) justifies the expectation of a gift, and scarcely any other than symbolically, the fire, really the law (Hab_3:4 does not give a proper and full explanation). Comp. Deu_4:11; Deu_4:36. But àֵùׁ ãַּú cannot be rendered ungrammatically fiery law. It is either fire of law, [so the margin in the A. V.,—A. G.], or fire, as in apposition with the law, in connection with which the law was given. De Wette, and Others, refer it to the pillar of fire, for direction, i.e., through which their way was pointed out. But the assertion of De Wette Knobel, that ãַּú is only a recent Hebrew word, adopted from the Persian, has been too readily accepted as true by Schultz, Keil, and Others. Comp. on the contrary Havernick’s Intro., I. 1, who argues in favor of a Hebrew derivation from ãִéï øåּï . It must be a primitive term as a comparison of languages shows, i.e., Sanscrit dhâ, Greek èå ( ôßèçìé ) German Thun. “Aramaisms or Chaldaisms testify, as well, in favor of a very early as of a late composition.” (L. Kœnig, Alttest. Studien II.) The very early form ãַּú would correspond well with the poetic àúä . Knobel reads àַùֵׁãֹåú and explains: out of his hand shoot forth lightning flashes (outpourings, Deu_3:17 Num_21:15). Keil reads with great confidence (after the conjecture of Böttcher), àִùֶּׁãֶú in the sense of “fire of throwing,” fire darting (Exo_19:16). Schultz: fire missile. [The reference to the fire and lightnings which attended the giving of the law is clear. The supposition of the pillar of fire is entirely out of place, and must be rejected. But whether the words àù ãú are to be read as one word, and if so how that word is to be pointed, is an open question. The reading proposed by Keil has in its favor some MSS. authority, and meets the necessities of the case so well that it seems now to be generally accepted.—A. G.].
Deu_33:3. àó . Confirming that which precedes. çáë , found only here, and signifies in general to love—according to the meaning in kindred dialects. It is not however as Knobel holds, the conceiving of an affection once, but rather an enduring love. çֹá is the lap or bosom, and thus it expresses the cherishing love. (Others: the concealing, protecting) affection. òîéí . The thought of other nations than Israel is here out of place; it appears in Deu_32:8 from the contrast of Israel to the nations. Although it should not be translated “the tribes of Israel,” Knobel, yet still they are specially to be thought of; but generally the word is to be taken in the sense of the promises to the patriarchs (Gen_17:4; particularly Gen_28:3, Gen_35:11; Gen_48:4; Gen_48:19). According to the promise Jehovah cherishes in reference to Israel, nations in His bosom, i.e., in the purpose of His love. The subject clause is placed first, to which the three following members correspond. Since it is Jehovah who is spoken of, his saints can only be those of Jehovah, and as the holy myriads, Deu_33:2, so the all justifies the conjecture that the Angels of God are referred to; who are sent forth as the ministers of those who are the heirs of salvation, Heb_1:14. But as the discourse is of Jehovah, so in this blessing it is directed to Israel, and in thy hand, therefore leaving out of view the harshness sought to be justified from Psa_49:19, can only refer to Israel. That the heavenly hosts are in Israel’s power, i.e., are devoted to his service, after Gen_28:12; Gen_32:2, after the allusion to them shortly before, for the law-giving at Sinai, after Deu_4:7, etc., cannot be regarded as too boldly spoken. úָëָä is to bend, turn, whither; and so explains the áéãê of a service which the angels rendered. That the Israelites in the power of God followed at the foot of. the ark of the covenant, (Knobel), and the like, is saying far too little, in itself, and for this passage; and the words can scarcely be understood of being thrust down, prostrated, of being banded together, encamped, either as disciples (Herder) or as those swearing allegiance (Herxheimer). ìøâìê , after thy footstep. Whither thou movest, the hosts of God from heaven move after His hosts upon the earth. Knobel in his perplexity assigns the last member to the following verse. Understanding it of Jehovah, which is the most obvious view, it strengthens the preceding thought in the highest measure. Keil takes éùà as distributive, i.e., each one of them rises up to receive thy utterances. But how can Israel be suddenly taken as the subject, as receiving from the words of God with Moses (the law), or even Moses (Knobel) since he received out of these revelations (the statutes of God)? îãáøúéê on account of thy (Israel) discourses, utterances with God, i.e., prayers. Deu_4:7 gives an excellent explanation. Comp. Num_10:34 sq.; Exo_14:19. Jehovah Himself rises up when Israel speaks to Him. [This ingenious exposition of Schroeder avoids the necessity for supposing any change of person, accounts for the singular éùà , and agrees well with the context. It is suggestive, and well worthy of consideration. Keil paraphrases the verse: “He embraces all nations in His love, has all His holy angels in His hand, so that they lie at His feet, and rise up at His word.” On the whole Schroeder’s view is the better.—A. G.]. After Deu_33:3 has in this way connected the glory of Israel with the glory of Jehovah (Deu_33:2), the communion of the two in the law follows now most appropriately in Deu_33:4. The Jews regard this verse as a citation, taken from the lips of Israel. Hengstenberg: “Moses forgets himself, as it were, places himself upon the standpoint of the people, who in thankful love should rejoice in the favor of God shown to him. Thus Habakkuk in the last verse of his prophecy. Psalms 20, 21. In the New Testament Joh_21:24. And we are familiar with similar examples in the Christian lyrists.” Comp. also Deu_32:31. The supposition, however, of a redaction, easily understood by a reference to the filial piety of Joshua, is natural, who instead of “He commanded Moses a law,” places “Moses commanded us a law.” [Moses however has so completely and uniformly identified himself with the people, that the supposition that he does so here, and actually spake the words as they are recorded, though he did not write them, is much more natural. The piety of Joshua would lead him to record the words, as they were uttered, not to give them any new form.—A. G.].The repetition of the ì is not necessary in the second clause. Comp. Deu_4:6 sq. (Rom_3:2); Joh_1:17; Joh_7:19. Upon ÷äìä comp. Deu_5:19; Deu_9:10; Deu_10:4; Deu_4:10; Deu_18:16. Deu_33:5. Jehovah is the subject, as this shows that Deu_33:4 was originally uttered as suggested above úּåֹøָç öִåָּä àֶú îùֶׁä After the expression of the communion in the law, he closes now with that through the theocracy (Jeshurun, comp. upon Deu_32:15). The law Israel’s, the kingdom Jehovah’s (Exo_15:18). Knobel, when he gathered the heads of the people, sq., comp. Deu_4:10, etc., (Exo_19:24).
3. Deu_33:6-25. The easy natural connection of the blessings upon the individual tribes, with what precedes, arises out of the common relations to Jehovah, and the rich promises to Israel. Thus the Mediator of the law is the speaker of the blessings. And first
Deu_33:6. Reuben: A moderated wish and blessing for the first-born, but one who was already displaced, Gen_49:8 sq. îñôø is something easily counted (Deu_4:27; Gen_34:30), and can scarcely therefore be taken to designate that which is innumerable. (Herder: His men should be numerous again). The negation appears clearly as an explanation of éäé , since a co-reference to åéäé in the following clause, cannot well be regarded as allowable. [See the rule, Ewald, § 351, as referred to by Keil, p. 500, who however disregards it here and carries the negation to the second clause.—A. G.]. The view of Knobel, and others is perhaps the best, because he had sunk down to a small number; still there remains a blessing therewith, and the natural claim of Reuben, according to the judgment of Jacob, as also the low note which Moses here struck, was not altered, (comp. Num_16:1 sq.; 1Ch_5:3 sq.). He should not entirely disappear as a tribe, (Gen_42:2; Gen_43:8) should much more remain while Simeon is passed over in silence as dead. Some MSS. of the Sept. interpolate the name of Simeon in the second clause, and connect it with: ἔóôù ðïëὺò Ýí ἀñéèìῷ . Herxheimer speaks of a “happy life;” Knobel of a “prosperous condition.” Both remind us of Reuben’s local distant position, exposed to Moabitish and Arabian inroads.—[The Moabitish stone so lately discovered shows that the cities of the Reubenites assigned to them by Joshua, were for the most part taken by the Moabites. They seem also to have wrested in part some of the cities assigned to the more warlike and energetic tribe of Gad. Schlottmann, Die Siegesaule Mesa. The Moabite Stone by Christian De Ginsburg, LL. D., London, 1870.—A. G.]—According to Num_26:7 this tribe, and still more that of Simeon, had suffered considerable losses. Num_25:14 should be considered in connection with the latter tribe; but it still bad a continued existence (1 Chronicles 4), so that the circumstances of a later time give no occasion for the omission of this tribe in the blessings of Moses. But it is in accordance with the Messianic and redeeming character of Judah that it receives into itself, as it were, the tribe of Simeon, Jdg_1:3; as indeed this tribe had its location within the bounds of Judah, Jos_19:2 sq.—[Simeon shared in the general blessings; but as dispersed in Israel, he had no individual blessing. This tribe had not, like that of Levi, made any efforts to retrieve its position, or to remove the stain which rested upon it, but had added new sins to that which brought upon it the curse of Jacob. Although they did not perish utterly (1Ch_4:24; 1Ch_4:39-43), they were still regarded as included with the other tribes, especially with Judah, with whose “fate and objects,” as Schultz remarks, “they shared as far as possible.”—A. G.]
Deu_33:7. Judah. After the omission of Simeon, Judah as the head-tribe follows upon the nominally first-born (Reuben). This blessing is the first introduced through the peculiar formula ( åæàú ); it is distinguished also by the method of prayer used (Gen_9:26). The striking brevity points to the rich details in the blessing of Jacob. The voice of Judah is not merely his prayer for a prosperous return after he had gone out into the earlier contests (Hengstenberg, Keil), but according to Lange’s finer feeling, something mysterious, i.e., the utterance of a desire after a return generally out of all, even the last struggle, into the glory of a peaceful dominion.—Unto his people embraces as Gen_49:10, more certainly, than the Israelitish tribes. (Herder, perhaps too strongly: “a tribe which thirsts for the end of the pilgrimage”). Upon the pre-eminence of Judah comp. Num_2:7; Num_10:14; Num_23:24. Hengstenberg’s Christologie, 2 Edition I. s. 88. For the criticism upon the historical explanation see Knobel, p. 344. But his own view of this passage, as referring to the flight of David from before Saul is too personal entirely for a tribal blessing. Comp. Deu_33:12.—[Knobel, after an allusion to the explanation given above, which he rejects, discusses and lays aside one by one, the views that it refers to the days of Jehoiachin, to the disruption under Rehoboam, to the period of David’s residence as king at Hebron, and fixes as the only possible sense the time of David’s flight from Saul. The reasoning he adopts, viz. that the circumstances of the history at each of these periods cannot well be made to agree with the words in question, bears against his own assumption. “For” (Bib. Com.) “it is impossible, on his own principles, to explain how the disasters, apostacies and confusion of Saul’s reign and of the times of the Judges could have happened at a date not long preceding that in which the song was penned—a song which everywhere speaks of peace and plenty.”—A. G.]—Schultz strangely calls in question the idea of a return in áåà . As the preposition á belonging peculiarly to this root denotes entrance ( áéú , áàä ), so the verb signifies to enter. The Hiph. can only be either: to effect an entrance into his allotted inheritance in Canaan (J. H. Michaelis, Herder), with which the exalted character of the blessing upon Judah does not accord, because that was not less to be desired for all Israel, or: to make an entrance again to his home, and with this to his people with whom he dwells. That the separation from his people supposed, can be no other than that occasioned by his warlike expedition, is clear from what follows. There is here a similar mingling of war and victory (peace) as in Gen_49:8 sq. (The explanation of Schultz: “give to him the people,” is very nearly the opposite of the text, which says: “bring him to his people,” and the àì is not so much: bring him to the king of his people, as: king over his people.) øá ìå , scarcely (Deu_3:26) be sufficient for him, for if Judah’s own hand is sufficient for him, what need is there of the Lord’s help as immediately follows! Others: He has hands sufficient (!). Farfetched: He stretches out widely ( øáá ), or: upon his side, fights ( øéá ) for him. A participle from øéá to thrust, press, strive. ìå : “for his people;” for himself, would not suit the connection. We might also refer úäéä from the end of the clause to éãéå . His hands, fighting for him, help, sq., be thou: Because contending for Israel, Judah is thought of as in straits, hence the prayer for help from his adversaries, and assistance against them. Deu_33:8-11. Levi: As Judah had the pre-eminence in external things, so the blessing of the tribe of Levi is clearly connected with it, on account of its pre-eminence internally, but it can only come after Judah, partly because, Gen_49:7, Levi is scattered as a tribe, and partly for a criticism upon those who know so much of the hierarchy in the Old Testament. What Judah was for Israel, Levi was in Israel. The prevalent tone of this blessing in its reference to Jehovah points also to the connection of the two. For the Thummim and Urim comp. Upon Exo_28:30. (Hengstenberg, Egypt., p. 154), a pluralis majestatis, the “medium through which Israel might have the advantage of light and infallible truth, as it designates the assemblage of all lights, and of all perfection and infallibility.” [The article in Smith’s Bib. Dict., by Prof. E. H. Plumptre, gives, perhaps, as clear and satisfactory a theory of the Urim and Thummim as we can now attain. It includes however conjectures and suppositions, which a fuller knowledge will probably show to be unfounded. The general end and purpose is clear, but how the divine will was manifested, is involved in uncertainty.—A. G.]. Thummim here, before Urim, as it does not occur elsewhere, brings into prominence (according to Hupfeld, viewed as having a positive import), “the sincerity of mind, the right position of the heart towards God and man,” because such perfection could be asserted of Levi. The divine illumination, for his judicial decisions (Deu_17:9) which belongs to him, is based upon this. Others regard it as a wish; let both be and remain with him. Of this tribe as an ideal person (Deu_33:9; Deu_33:11, plural) or of the idealized tribe-father (?) it is then said that he is çñéã i.e., that Levi in all this, comes into view only as the bearer of the divine çֶñֶã , viz., as participating in the grace of God, standing in the covenant of grace with Jehovah, as His chosen one. [ çñã designates Levi as the object of the divine choice and favor, and not his moral character. But still there has obviously, from the whole blessing here, when compared with that in Gen_49:5-7, been a great change in the moral and religious character of this tribe. A change which the events in the intervening history illustrates; especially those recorded in Exo_32:26 sq., and Num_25:11 sq.—A.G.]. After such an emphatic allusion to the distinguished honor of the tribe (comp. Intro., § 4, I.) with reference to the high-priesthood in Levi there follows an historical reference, for Levi must have changed the curse of Jacob first into a blessing through his standing (Exodus 17) as through his falling (Numbers 20) if indeed this latter reference is in place here. V. Gerlach cites Exo_17:7 only, which is sometimes called both Massah and Meribah. [Both passages are referred to. The two provings by means of water are chosen, “because in their correlation there they were best adapted to represent the beginning and the end, and therefore the whole of the temptation.” Schultz.—A. G.]. úøéáäå Knobel renders arbitrarily: “thou blamedst.” But if not on that account, still on account of the òַìÎîֵé there may be a reference also to Num_20:13, a slight intimation of the sin of the two chief personalities of the tribe, i.e., of Moses as well as Aaron. If we hold that the probable address of Jehovah, in thy Thummim, sq., in connection with the seventh verse continues even in the second clause, then we must interpret the provings and strifes as introduced indeed by the people, but as fundamentally proceeding from Jehovah, according to Deu_8:2 sq. But in this latter passage it is the whole people who are spoken of, and indeed their humiliation and trial by the Lord; while here it avails peculiarly of Levi, and indeed his trial and strifes. This latter term sounds somewhat strange when used of God to Levi, while it is on the contrary classic with respect to the conduct of the people towards Moses and Aaron (Exo_17:2; Num_20:3; Num_20:2), and toward Jehovah (Exo_17:7 : Num_20:13). Comp. further Deu_6:16; Deu_9:22. But why this difference? The reference to the Lord may very well, in the second clause, pass over into the address of Israel in order to return again at the close of Deu_33:9 sq. to Jehovah! With this most natural interpretation we gain perhaps a reference of the provings on the side of the people to the Thummim, and of their strifes to the Urim; and moreover a reason why the former precedes the latter here. Israel had proved or tested before all the faithfulness of Levi, of God, then truly also striven against the light of Levi and of God. The prominent reference in Deu_33:8 to Exodus 18 agrees well with Deu_33:9 also, as in any case the following references are on this supposition more appropriately added than if Numbers 20 still came between. He denies the strongest natural ties when the interest of Jehovah are concerned, Deu_13:7 sq. (Mat_10:37; Mat_19:29; Luk_14:26). The cases referred to: Exo_32:26 sq. (Num_25:7 sq.). Knobel applies it only to the entire concession to his divine calling. Others refer to Lev_21:11, or understand it of his not accepting persons, of the impartiality of the Levitical criminal judge (Deu_1:17). ëé gives a proof of the described disposition through his observing and guarding (Deu_32:10); because they held fast what God had spoken from Sinai, and had shown themselves to be the guardians of the covenant proclaimed there, even with the sword. Upon these historical events rests finally, as upon its basis, the description of Levi’s calling. Deu_33:10 relates chiefly to his duties as Deu_33:11 is full of promise. Comp. Deu_17:9 sq.; Deu_24:8. The incense service is in the holy place, the sacrificial service in the court.—(At thy nose) the nose as the prominent member for the face, thus the same as before thee; perhaps also with reference to his anger. çéìå , not his substance, revenues, but the strength, which needs the divine blessing for resisting, as well as for working, e.g. in his judicial activity and office (Schultz). The work must on account of the úøöä refer here to the sacrifices. The loins (dual) of the lower part of the back come so far into view as with their crushing (Deu_32:39), whoever has risen up against him must become powerless and fall away; parallel to the first clause. ÷îéå (Exo_15:7) especially those rising against his priesthood (Numbers 16) as against his judicial office (Deu_17:12).—The haters (Deu_32:47) should not indeed proceed to an actual revolt or outbreak. ÷îéå and é÷åîéï , a play upon words. Their hatred is parallel to the favor, acceptance, of the Lord, in the second clause. îï occurs only here in this position [it usually stands before the infinitive.—A. G.]. As it is with Judah’s enemies, so with those who rise up and hate Levi; and thus the two blessings run parallel even to the end.
Deu_33:12. Benjamin.—As the blessing of the later born, Judah, precedes that of his brother Levi, so also of the sons of Rachel the younger comes before the elder, Joseph. This blessing lies directly in the face of the hypothesis of Knobel as to the origin of chap. 33 at the time of David’s flight, making Deu_33:7 relate to the desire for David, and Deu_33:11 an expression of the sharp, Stern wish against Saul, etc. Saul might indeed be for Benjamin what David should be for Judah. The beloved of Jacob (Gen_44:20) here appears as the beloved of the Lord, and thus first truly as the son of prosperity (Gen_35:18). This distinguishing relation to the Lord becomes to Benjamin a dwelling, and thus describes how he dwells and lives rather than where. For òìéå , which Knobel designates as “very difficult,” cannot refer to a settlement by the temple, but if not, according to the fundamental view of chap. 32, to one grounded upon the Rock Jehovah, still in accordance with Deu_1:31 or Deu_32:11 to one whose existence is supported by Jehovah. ùëï usually refers to the presence of the Lord (12. 5, 11, etc.) and hence this thought floats before the mind of expositors; but it occurs here, as in Deu_33:20, of the sleeping lion! It is scarcely possible that the participation of Benjamin in the place chosen for the sanctuary (Jos_18:28) should be referred to here, nor even the mountain-district which fell to this tribe, and might symbolize its rest upon the eternal Rock. The founding [dwelling] upon Jehovah is not therefore anything local, but a property in which Benjamin stands as the representative of all Israel (comp. Deu_33:28), as the designation at the very beginning of the blessing also may apply to all the people (Psa_60:5; Jer_11:15). The Sept. reads òìéå as if it were àֶìְéåֹï , and connects it with the following clause. The security [safety] which grows out of the dwelling founded upon the Lord is also not merely for Benjamin, but equally for the other tribes (Deu_33:28); and with this the reference of çôó is put beyond question. The peculiar word is without doubt connected with çáá (Deu_33:3); äåֹó is the edge, border; thus truly: surrounding, protecting. The òìéå is repeated with marked emphasis: upon such a rock. Benjamin is a protecting tower for others. The connection with the blessing of Jacob (Gen_49:27) is effected through ëìÎäéåí , which is equivalent to the “morning and evening” there. The warlike character ascribed to him there, appears now in the service of others, so that only the fruits of it, the enjoyment, come into view here. The third clause is parallel to the first, and confirms the security of Benjamin and of that which he protects, as it illustrates more fully the repeated òìéå . The shoulders obviously come into view with reference to the bearing; the dwelling is of Benjamin, who is the subject here, so that His is equivalent to Jehovah’s. Comp. Deu_1:31; Deu_32:11. As Jehovah appears as the Rock, so also as the eagle. The representative character of the last of the twelve sons of Israel with respect to the whole people gives rise to this feature in the blessing, which is also ascribed to Israel generally. (Knobel makes Jehovah the subject, and explains the dwelling as referring to the position of the tabernacle at Gibeon between the mountain-ridges of Benjamin.)—[Knobel’s view which he rests mainly upon the geographical position of Gibeon is certainly far less tenable, than that which explains the dwelling of the residence of Jehovah in the temple afterwards built in the land of this tribe. But the subject is clearly Benjamin, as Schroeder holds, although the comparison is rather with the father who carries his sons while tender and young, than with the eagle.—A. G.]
Deu_33:13-17. Joseph. We have here a fullness of details and of words as with Levi, which surely has its origin here, as also in Genesis 49, in the fact that it is a double blessing both of Ephraim and Manasseh. The elaborated and figurative language corresponds well with the fact that Joseph is Israel’s ornament and glory as over against the Egyptians (Herder: “The kindness of Joseph is still ever before the eyes of him who utters the blessing, and his sons are clothed in the rich beauty of their father”). As in all cases, especially in the dwelling of Benjamin, the reference to Canaan is predominant, so the progress from the blessing, Genesis 49, to that spoken here, is marked by the prominence given to his inheritance. The author of such blessings upon his land is Jehovah; the second causes ( îï is equivalent to through or with) are given in the accumulated expressions which follow. The waters from beneath (richness in springs, Deu_8:7), as from above, according to Gen_49:25, whence some have altered the explicative îèì into îֵòָì (Gen_27:28). It is a question whether in Deu_33:18 the words treat of productions matured by the influence of the sun, and also by that of the moon in its different phases (Keil), or of the fruits which ripen only once in a year, and those which grow in each month, fruits of all seasons of the year (Knobel). åîøàù , Deu_33:15, as åîúäåí (Deu_33:13), unless îâã is to be supplied. Whether olive-groves, or vineyards, or merely the rich and beautiful wild forests, are referred to, is uncertain. The reference to Gen_49:26 and the parallelism exclude the explanation of ÷øí (literally: what is before, used both in a local and temporal sense) as the east, although this in itself is allowable, and Johlson retains it here with reference to the easterly mountains of Gilead, assigned to Manasseh. The poetical expression celebrates the strength and sublimity of the mountain-region. Deu_33:16. Moses here first sums up still all that relates to the land, but makes prominent immediately after the earth: and all its fullness, significantly for the transition to the person of Joseph, the affection, grace and good-will of the Lord in a setting both genuinely Mosaic (Exo_3:2), and at the same time, as Gen_49:24 shows, in full harmony with that of Jacob. It is not, however, so much “an addition of the spiritual blessings of the covenant of grace to those merely natural,” as rather an addition to the needy (as Joseph himself had been in Egypt, as Israel always is) of divine mercy permanently shadowed forth, which, as is evident, forms the basis of all that is said, and is itself the very kernel of the whole remarkable utterance. Hence we have not now as before åּîִÎ , but neither an accusative of the instrument, nor of a more precise definition (Schultz: “and indeed through the good-will,” etc.); but øְöåֹï is abstract, on which account, and because at the same time all is included, it is connected with the feminine form ( úáåàúä ), as in a neuter sense. For the rest comp. Gen_49:26. ðæéø retains the reflexive signification: who has separated himself through the plan or disposition of his life upon which he devoutly entered, but is not to be taken in the moral sense Gen_39:8, much less in the sense of a ritual abstinence, but rather in the sense of one who has consecrated himself to the Lord, as an instrument of His holy purposes with Israel, as he himself interprets or explains it to his brethren, Gen_1:20. The expression has nothing to do with ðֵæֶø , “diadem” (Johlson: “the crowned”). But even the signification, “prince” (Delitzsch), is not established at least by the reference to Lam_4:7. Schultz refers it “to the esteem in which he was held by the tribe-father, Jacob.”—The head and the top of the head (crown) point to the long hair of the Nazarite; but whether the divine good-will and all blessings are to be viewed as a garland upon the head is questionable. It is simply said to come upon him, that it may be his lot and portion. Deu_33:17. The description introduces here a figure corresponding to the fruitfulness of the land with reference to the firstling of Joseph, i.e. according to Gen_48:14 sq., Ephraim; although the closing member shows that Manasseh, the first-born in the order of nature, is included, but in less power and potency. To refer it to Joshua (V. Gerlach, Schultz) is too personal; even in Levi Aaron is not individualized. The glory (majesty) which is attributed to Ephraim, or which is desired for him, should manifest itself, make itself felt through peculiar remarkable strength, hence the horns, as the pride and strength of the bullock, give the tone and coloring to the statement, especially the horns of the øְàֵí , the wild bullock, either from øָí , to be high, or øָòַí , the outbreaking, raging (comp. Num_23:22; Num_24:8; Psa_22:21). After the results of such power have been extended even to the remotest nations, the ends of the earth (in apposition), unless together [even to] is to be supplied (“which easily appears as the most fearful power.” Schultz); the horns of the first born are explained at the same time as the thousands of Manasseh; an explanation which has a “joyful ring and tone.” Schultz (Jos_17:14 sq.).
Deu_33:18-19. Zebulon and Issachar. After the two sons of Rachel, we have now the sixth and fifth sons of Leah. As Benjamin closing the births of Rachel comes before Joseph, so Zebulon closing those of Leah stands before Issachar; or it is as with Ephraim and Manasseh, even as Judah before Levi. Its purport is very similar to Gen_49:13 sq.; but the address here is to Zebulon alone. So certain is the blessing, that each tribe is directly called upon to rejoice. Deu_33:18. Still the occasion, nature and object of this rejoicing is the peculiarity of each tribe, fixed already at the blessing of Jacob (Gen_49:13 sq.), but almost directly the opposite the one to the other; in the one, the wide-world enterprise and efforts; in the other the comfortable enjoyment of home life (Gen_25:27). This contrast serves to complete both. Graf, Keil, miss the characteristic feature of the picture when they explain the going out and tents as equivalent to labor and rest, and apply both, to both tribes. The parallelism of the clauses is the parallelism of the brothers. The outgoing is that of the shipping and commercial life of Zebulon; in the tents applies to the grazing and agricultural pursuits of Issachar. Schultz: In thy tents, i.e. “in order to furnish animals for the caravan-merchants, or to become the bearers of their goods.” (Herder: “The outgoing, as the contrast with Issachar shows, is the departure from the tents; Zebulon will use its vicinity to Sidon and the coast for the purposes of trade through a variety of industries abroad,” etc.). The peoples, Deu_33:19, without any precise definition, must refer to the other nations of the world, who in distinction from the aggressive method (as in Deu_33:17), are here in an attractive, but Still undefined way, called to the mountain. This calling is attributed to both tribes dwelling together: to Zebulon, because of his wide world commerce and intercourse; to Issachar, because from its easterly and southerly mountain-district, through which it is the beloved Land, and as it appears with its mountain-heights from the sea (Deu_3:25), it represents and symbolizes the mountain (chap. 7) in prospect as the dwelling-place of Jehovah (Exo_15:17), and thus awakens a sursum corda in the seamen. (Keil: Moriah, Gen_22:14.—[But Keil holds that while Moriah has thus been designated and sanctified by the sacrifice of Isaac required of Abraham, there is no distinct or direct allusion to this mountain in the words of Moses here,—A. G.]—Herder: Tabor; Knobel: Carmel.). The sacrifices [slain-offerings] offered there, not burnt-offerings, as is clear from the sacrificial meals connected with them, to which the nations are invited as guests, are æִáְçֵéÎöֶãֶ÷ , i.e. such as bring out clearly the moral quality of Israel as the people of the law (Deu_6:25; Deu_25:15), include praise and thank-offering of every kind; and thus serve to introduce what follows. Zebulon and Issachar have, namely, such an occasion for praise and thankfulness, and must give them