Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Exodus 20:1 - 20:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The Threefold Law of the Covenant for the Covenant People on the Basis of the Prophetic, Ethico-religious Divine Law of the Ten Commandments. Historical Prophecy
Exodus 20-31
a.—The ten words, or the ethical law; and the terrified people, or the rise of the need of sacrificial rites
Exo_20:1-21
Having now given a complete exhibition of the use of òַìÎôְּðֵé in all the other passages, we are prepared to consider what it means in the first commandment. Several things may be regarded as established: (i) òַìÎôְּðֵé is far from being synonymous with ìִôְðֵé . The latter is used hundreds of times in the simple sense of “before” in reference to persons; the former is used most frequently of places, and in all cases òַì has more or less of its ordinary meaning, “upon,” or “against” (over against), (ii) The phrase has nowhere unequivocally the meaning “besides.” The nearest approach to this is in Job_16:14, under (10), where òַìÎôְּðֵé may be rendered “in addition to.” But this is not quite the same as “besides,” and the phrase has there evidently a poetic use. A solitary case like this, where too not persons, but things, are spoken of, is altogether insufficient to establish the hypothesis that òַìÎôְּðֵé in the first commandment means “besides.” (iii) The most general notion conveyed by the phrase in question is that of one object confronting another. Leaving out of account, as of no special pertinency, those instances in which it verges upon the literal sense of “upon (or against) the face of,” and those in which the meaning of òַì predominates, (viz., classes (3), (6), (7), (8), (10), we find that all others are sufficiently explained by this generic notion of confronting. Thus, in all the cases where places are spoken of as òַìÎôְּðֵé one another, class (1); where objects are described as in front of buildings, class (2); and where persons are spoken of as passing in front of others, class (4).—So, too, in the cases in which îֵòַìÎôְּðֵé is used, class (5), in every instance it follows a verb which implies a previous state of hostility; men are to be removed from being over against Jehovah, from confronting Him with their offensive deeds.—So the instance in Psa_18:43 (42), class (9); the dust before the wind is compared with God’s enemies destroyed by Him; the dust confronting the wind illustrates the powerlessness of men confronting an angry God.—So the examples under (12). The translation “over against” satisfies all of the cases. A relation of contrast and opposition is implied.—Likewise, also, the three passages under (11). The son of the beloved wife (Deu_21:16) is not to bo invested with the rights of primogeniture over against the son of the hated one, i.e., in contrast with, distinction from, the other one, while yet by natural right the latter is entitled to the privilege. The phrase òַìÎôְּðֵé may here, therefore, be understood to mean “in preference to,” or “in the life-time of,” but neither one nor the other literally and directly, yet both one and the other by implication. In Num_3:4 Aaron’s sons are represented as being priests over against their father, i.e., not succeeding him, but together with him, as two hills, instead of being distant from one another, are, as it were, companions, confronting each other. So in Gen_11:28 Haran is said to have died over against his father. In his death he confronted his father, i.e., did not, as most naturally happens, die after him, when his father would have been taken away from being with him. By thus anticipating his father in his decease he, as it were, passed in front of him, confronted him, so that this case is quite analogous to those under class (4). In this case, therefore, as in some others, tho meaning of òַìÎôְּðֵé closely borders upon that of ìִôְðֵé , yet is not the same.
The application of this discussion to Exo_20:3 and Deu_5:7 is obvious. Israel is to have no other gods “over against” Jehovah. The simple meaning “before,” i.e., in the presence of, would have little point and force, and besides would have been expressed by ìְôָðַé . The meaning “besides” would have been expressed by æåּìָúִé , áִּìְòָãַé , or some other of the phrases having that meaning. The meaning “over against,” the usual meaning of the phrase, is perfectly appropriate here. All false gods are opposed to tho true God. The worship of them is incompatible with the worship of Jehovah. The command therefore is, “Thou shalt have no other gods to confront me,” to be set up as rival objects of service and adoration. All that is pertinent in the other two renderings is involved hero. Gods that are set up over against Jehovah may be said to be before Him, in His sight; that they are gods besides, in addition to, Him, is a matter of course: but, more than this, they are gods opposed to Him.—Tr.].
The first form of elemental ethico-religious, but therefore all-embracing legislation, comprises the law, the festivals, and the house, of the covenant (chaps. 20–31). It is different from the second form of the legislation (chaps. 32–34 sqq) on account of the breaking of the covenant.
This first legislation, the law or book of the covenant in the narrower sense, is evidently the outline of the whole legislation. The presentation of the prophetico-ethical law is found in the ten commandments (Exo_20:1-17); the outline of the ceremonial law and the reasons for it follow on (Exo_20:18-26); in conclusion comes the third part, the outline of the social laws of the Israelites (21–23).
Three questions are here to be settled: (1) How are the several acts of legislation related to the history? (2) How are the several groups of laws related to each other? (3) How is there indicated in this relation a gradual development of legislation?
As to the ten commandments in particular, we are to consider: (1) the form of the promulgation; (2) the relation of the law in Exodus to the phase it presents in Deuteronomy; (3) the analysis of the ten commandments themselves.
That the laws are not artificially introduced into the history of Israel, as e.g. Bertheau assumes, is shown by their definite connection with the historical occasions of them. Thus, e.g., the law of the ten commandments is occasioned by the vow of covenant obedience made beforehand by the people. The ceremonial law as a law of atonement is occasioned by the fright and flight of the people at the thunders of Sinai (Exo_20:21). Thus the holy nation is established; and not till now is there occasion for the theocratico-social legislation, according to which every individual is to be recognised as a worthy member of this nation. The setting up of the golden calf furnished historical occasion for special precepts. The gradually progressive legislation recorded in the Book of Numbers most markedly illustrates the influence of historical events. We have before become acquainted with similar instances. This is true in a general way of the Passover and the unleavened bread. The commands concerning the sanctification of the firstborn and concerning the reckoning of time refer to the exodus from Egypt. The hallowing of the seventh day is connected with the gift of manna; the bitter water occasions the fundamental law of hygienics, Exodus 15. The attack of Amalek is the actual foundation of the ordinance concerning holy wars. So in earlier times the Noachian command (Genesis 9) was a law which looked back to the godless violence of the perished generation; it connected the command to reverence God with the precept to hold human life sacred. So the fundamental command of the covenant with Abraham, the command of circumcision, as a symbol of generation consecrated with reference to regeneration, appears after the history of the expulsion of Ishmael, who was born according to the flesh (comp. Genesis 17 with Genesis 16). But that the book of Deuteronomy—according to the memorabilia on which it is founded—grew out of the danger that Israel might be led by the giving of the law to decline into observance of the mere letter, we have already elsewhere noticed. It may be remarked by the way that the Song of Moses and Moses’ Blessing at the close of Deuteronomy seem like the heart’s blood of the whole book, a song of cursing, and a song of blessing; in the Psalter and prophetic books scarcely anything similar can be found.
How are the individual groups of laws related to one another? That they essentially and unconditionally require one another, and that accordingly they could not have appeared separately, is not hard to show. The decalogue, taken by itself, would lead into scholastic casuistry; the system of sacrifice, taken by itself, into magic rites; the political marshalling of the host, into despotism or greed of conquest. Compare Schleiermacher’s argument in his “Dogmatik,” to show that the three offices of Christ require each other.
From what has been said it follows also that the development of the legislation was gradual. We may distinguish four stages in the Mosaic period: (1) The Passover as the foundation of the whole legislation, and the several special laws up to the arrival at Sinai (primogeniture, reckoning of time, sanitary regulation, Sabbath); (2) the covenant law, or book of the covenant, before the covenant was broken by the erecting of the golden calf; (3) the expansion and modification of the law, on account of the breach of the covenant, in the direction of the hierarchy, the ritual, and the beginning of the proclamation of grace in the name of Jehovah; (4) the deeper and more inward meaning given to the law in Deuteronomy, as an introduction to the age of the Psalms and Prophets.
Furthermore is to be noticed the difference between the first oral proclamation of the law through the mediation of Moses and the engraved inscription of it on two tablets. This begins after the solemn ratification of the covenant, Exo_24:15, Exo_31:18 Exo_32:19, Exo_34:1. Thus at this point also in the giving of the law the oral revelation precedes the written, although at the same point the revealed word and the written word blend intimately together, in order typically to exhibit the intimate relation between the two throughout the Holy Scriptures. A positive command of Holy Scripture has already been made, Exo_17:14 : eternal war against Amalek, in a typical sense. The fact also is of permanent significance, that Aaron the priest was making the golden calf for the people at the same time that Moses on the mount was receiving the tables of the law. That the ten commandments were written on the two tables, that therefore the ethico-religious law of the covenant is divided into ten commandments, is affirmed in Exo_34:28, and Deu_10:4. But on the question, how they are to be counted, and how divided between the two tables, opinions differ. Says Keil: “The words of the covenant, or the ten commandments, were written by God on two tables of stone (Exo_31:18), and, as being the sum and kernel of the law, are called as early as in Exo_24:12 äַúּåֹøָä åְäַîִּöְåֹäֹ [the law and the commandment]. But as to their number, and their twofold division, the Biblical text furnishes neither positive statements nor certain indications—a clear proof that these points are of less importance than dogmatic zeal has often attached to them. In the course of the centuries two leading views have been developed. Some divide the commandments into two divisions of five each, and assign to the first table the commandments respecting (1) other gods, (2) images, (3) the name of God, (4) the Sabbath, and (5) parents; to the second those concerning (1) murder, (2) adultery, (3) stealing, (4) false witness, and (5) covetousness. Others assign to the first table three commandments, and to the second, seven. They specify, as the first three, the commandments concerning (1) other gods, (2) the name of God, (3) the Sabbath; which three comprise the duties owed to God: and, as the seven of the second table, those concerning (1) parents, (2) murder, (3) adultery, (4) stealing, (5) false witness, (6) coveting one’s neighbor’s house, (7) coveting a neighbor’s wife, servants, cattle, and other possessions; as comprising the duties owed to one’s neighbor.—The first opinion, with the division into two tables of five commandments each, is found in Josephus (Ant. III., 5, 8) and Philo (Quis rer. divin. hær. § 35, De Decal. § 12 et al.). It is unanimously approved by the church fathers of the first four centuries, and has been retained by the Oriental and Reformed churches to this day. The later Jews also agree with this, so far as that they assume only one commandment respecting covetousness, but dissent from it in that they unite the prohibition of images with the prohibition of strange gods, but regard the introductory sentence, “I am Jehovah, thy God,” as the first commandment. This method of enumeration, of which the first traces are found in Julian, the Apostate, quoted by Cyril of Alexandria, adv. Julianum, Lib. V. init., and in a casual remark of Jerome on Hos_10:10, is certainly of later origin, and perhaps propounded only from opposition to the Christians; but it still prevails among the modern Jews.
The second leading view was brought into favor by Augustine; and before him no one is known to have advocated it. In Quæst. 71 in Exod., Augustine expresses himself on the question how the ten commandments are to be divided: (“Utrum quatuor sint usque ad præceptum de Sabbatho, quæ ad ipsum Deum pertinent, sex autem reliqua quorum primum: Honor a patrem et matrem, quæ ad hominem pertinent: an potius illa tria sint et ista septem”) after a further presentation of the two views, as follows: “Mihi tamen videntur congruentius accipi illa tria et ista septem, quoniam Trinitatem videntur illa quæ ad Deum pertinent, insinuare diligentius intuentibus;” and he then aims to show, further, that by the prohibition of images the prohibition of other gods is only explained “perfectius,” while the prohibition of covetousness, although “concupiscentia uxoris alienæ et concupiscentia domus alienæ tantum in peccando differant,” is divided by the repetition of the “non concupisces” into two commandments. In this division Augustine, following the text of Deuteronomy, generally reckoned the command not to covet one’s neighbor’s wife as the ninth, though in individual passages, following the text of Exodus, he puts the one concerning the neighbor’s house first (vid. Geffken, Ueber die verschiedene Eintheilung des Dekalogs, Hamburg, 1838, p. 174). Through Augustine’s great influence this division of the commandments became the prevalent one in the Western church, and was also adopted by Luther and the Lutheran church, with the difference, however, that the Catholic and Lutheran churches, following Exodus, made the ninth commandment refer to the house, while only a few, with Augustine, gave the preference to the order as found in Deuteronomy 2
We have the more readily borrowed the language of a decided Lutheran on this question, inasmuch as he, in distinction from some others who seem to regard adherence to the mediæval division as essential to Lutheran orthodoxy, displays a commendable impartiality. The leading reasons for the ancient, theocratic division are the following: (1) The transposition of the first object of covetousness in Exodus and Deuteronomy, “thy neighbor’s house,” “thy neighbor’s wife.” The advocates of the ecclesiastical view would here rather assume a corruption of the text, even in the tables of the law, than see in this transposition a weaving of the two precepts into one commandment. (2) The difference, amply established by sacred history, as well as by the history of religion in general, between the worship of symbolic images, and the worship of mythological deities: in accordance with which distinction the two prohibitions are not to be blended into one commandment. (3) Of very special importance is the brief explanation of the law given by Paul in Rom_7:7 with the words, “Thou shalt not covet.” According to this explanation, the emphasis rests on the prohibition of covetousness, and the expansion “thy neighbor’s house,” etc., serves merely to exemplify it. But when the commandment is divided into two, the chief force of the prohibition rests on the several objects of desire, so that these two last commandments would lead one to make the law consist in the vague prohibition of external things, and need to be supplemented by a great “etc.;” whereas the emphasizing of covetousness as an important point leads one to refer the law to the inward life, and, so understood, looks back to the spiritual foundation of the whole law in the first commandment, whilst a kindred element of spirituality is found in the middle of the law, connected with the precept to honor father and mother.—As to the distribution of the law into two ideal tables, the division into two groups of five commandments each is favored especially by the fact that all the commandments of the second table from the sixth commandment on are connected by the conjunction å [“and;” in the A. V. rendered, together with the negative, “neither”] in Deuteronomy (Exo_20:17, etc.). Moreover, in favor of the same division is the consideration that parents in the fifth commandment stand as representatives of the Deity and of the divine rule. As the first commandment expresses the law of true religion, and the second, the requirement to make one’s religious conceptions spiritual and to keep them pure; so the three following commandments evidently designate ramifications of religious conduct: the duty of maintaining the sanctity of religious knowledge and doctrine; of religious humanity (or of worship), and of the most original nursery of religion, the household, and of its most original form, piety. Nevertheless, when one would divide the ten commandments between the two actual tables of Moses, he fails to find distinct indications; hardly, however, can the assumption be established that only the precepts themselves stood on the tables, but not the reasons that are given for some of them.
As to the whole system of the Mosaic legislation, we are to consider the arrangement which Bertheau has made in his work “Die sieben Gruppen mosaischer Gesetze in den drei mittleren Büchern des Pentateuchs” (Göttingen, 1840). According to him, the number 7, multiplied by 10, taken seven times, lies at the foundation of the arrangement. We have already observed that we do not regard as well grounded the dissolution of the Mosaic code of laws from history as its basis. Moreover, a clear carrying out of the system would show that we could regard the origin of it only as instinctive, not as the conscious work of Rabbinic design. The ten commandments, Exo_20:1-17, form the introduction of this arrangement. But the ritual law follows immediately, beginning with a group, not of ten, but of four laws, Exo_20:28 sqq.
1. The Lawgiver. That Jehovah is the lawgiver does not exclude the mediation mentioned Gal_3:19 and elsewhere. Comp. Comm. on Gen_6:1-8. Quite as little, however, does this mediation obscure the name of the lawgiver, Jehovah. Keil (II. p. 114) inconclusively opposes the view of Knobel, who takes the first words, “I am Jehovah,” as a confession, or as the foundation of the whole theocratic law. Just because the words have this force, are they also the foundation of the obligation of the people to keep the theocratic commandments. For the lawgiver puts the people under the highest obligation by their recognising him as benefactor and liberator. An absolute despot as such is no lawgiver. Israel’s law is based on his typical liberation, and his obedience to the law on faith in that liberation. The law itself is the objective form in which for educational purposes the obligations are expressed, which are involved in its foundation.
2. The first Commandment. The absolute negation ìֹà stands significantly at the beginning. So further on. Antithetic to it is the absolute àָðֹëִé [“I”] of Jehovah at the opening of His commandments.— éִäְéֶä àֱìֹäִéí , the gods become, spring up gradually in the conceptions of the sinful people, hence àֲçֵøִéí ּìְêָ in connection with àֱìֹäéí is to be explained as = ἕôåñïé (according to Gal_1:6) with the LXX. and the Vulgate (alieni, foreign), not = alii, other. òַìÎëָּðָé may mean before my face, over against my face, against my face, besides my face, beyond it. The central feature of the thought may be: beyond my personal, revealed form, and in opposition to it—recognizing, together with the error a remnant of religiosity in the worship of the gods.—The “coram me” of the Vulgate expresses one factor of the notion, as Luther’s “neben mir” [“by my side”] does another. [vid. under “Textual and Grammatical”].
3. The Prohibition of Image Worship, Exo_20:4-6. Image, ôֶּñֶì , from ôָּñַì , to hew wood or stone. It therefore denotes primarily a plastic image. úְּîåּðָä does not signify an image made by man, but only a form which appears to him, Num_12:8, Deu_4:12; Deu_4:15 sqq., Job_4:16, Psa_17:15. In Deu_5:8 (comp. Exo_4:16) we find ôֶּñֶì ëָּìÎúְּîåּðָä , “image of any form.” Accordingly åְëָìÎúְּîåּðָä is here to be taken as explanatory of ôֶּñֶì , and å as explicative, “even any form” (Keil). “Image” is therefore used absolutely in the sense of religious representation of the Deity, and the various forms are conceived as the forms of the image. Comp. Deu_4:15, “for ye saw no manner of similitude [no form] on the day that Jehovah spake unto you in Horeb.” The medium of legislation therefore continued to be a miracle of hearing; it became a miracle of sight only in the accompanying phenomena given for the purpose of perpetually preventing every kind of image-worship.—In heaven. Keil says: “on the heaven,” explaining it as referring to the birds, and not the angels, at the most, according to Deu_4:19, as perhaps including the stars. The angels proper could not possibly have been meant as copies of Jehovah, since they themselves appear only in visions; and even if the constellations were specially meant, yet they too were for the most part pictorially represented [and in this sense only is the worship of them here prohibited]. The worship of stars as such is covered by the first commandment. Comp. Romans 1.—Under the earth. Beneath, under the level of the solid land, lower than it. Marine creatures are therefore meant. This commandment deals throughout only with religious conduct. The bowing down designates the act of adoration; the serving denotes the system of worship. Keil quotes from Calvin: “quod stulte quidam putarunt, hic damnari sculpturas et picturas quaslibet, refutatione non indiget.” Still it is clear from Romans 1 that the gradual transition from the over-estimate of the symbolical image to the superstitious reverence for it is included.
According to Keil the threat and promise following the second commandment refer to the two first as being embraced in a higher unity. But this higher unity is resolvable in this way, that the sin against the second commandment is to be regarded as the source of the sin against the first. With image worship, or the deification of symbols, idolatry begins. Hence image worship is condemned as being the germ of the whole succeeding development of sin. That which in the classical writings of the Greeks and Romans is signified by ὕâñéò , the fatal beginning of a connected series of crimes which come to a conclusion only in one or more tragic catastrophes, is signified in the theocratic sphere by òָåֹï , perversion, perverseness. The evil-doing of the fathers has a genealogical succession which cannot be broken till the third or fourth generations (grandchildren and great-grandchildren) are visited. This is shown also by the Greek tragedy, and the third and fourth generation is still to be traced in the five acts of the modern tragedy. Now the image-worshipper is worse than the idolater in that he makes this fatal beginning. But as the ὕâñéò proceeds from an insolence towards the gods which may be called hatred, so also image-worship arises out of an insolent apostasy from the active control of the pure conception of God, from the control of the Spirit. In the Old Testament, it is the golden calves of Jeroboam at Dan and Beersheba which are followed by such catastrophes in Israel. It may also be asked: What has the mediæval image-worship cost certain European nations in particular? That the hereditary guilt thus contracted forms no absolute fatality, is shown by the addition, “of them that hate me.” This is a condition, or limitation, which is echoed in the ἐö ’ ᾦ ðÜíôåò ἥìáñôïí of Rom_5:12. But the condition cannot be made the foundation, as is done by Keil, who says that by the words ìְùׂðְàַé and ìְàֹäֲáַé [“of them that hate me” and “of them that love me”] the punishment and the grace are traced back to their ultimate ground. This would vitiate the force of what he afterwards says of the organic relations of humanity. The organic hereditary conditions of guilt, of which even the heathen know how to speak (vid. Keil, p. 117), are limited by morally guilty actions. Because reference is here made to organic consequences, the fathers themselves are not mentioned. Because the transmission of the curse is hindered by the counter influence of ethical forces and natures, checks grow up as early as between the third and fourth generations. The sovereignty of grace is concerned in this, as also in the opposite parallel, “unto the thousands,” i.e., unto a thousand generations. This wonderfully subtle and profound doctrine of original sin is not Augustinian, inasmuch as it assumes special cases of sin and individual and generic counteracting influences within the sphere of the general condition of sin. It is, however, still less Pelagian; yet, as compared with the notion of guilt embodied in the Greek tragedians, it is exceedingly mild. The hereditary descendants of such a guilty parentage fill up the measure of the guilt of their fathers, Mat_23:32. In this passage also the notion of guilt, as distinguished from that of sin, is brought out. Guilt is the organic side of sin; sin is the ethical side of guilt. The whole judicial economy, moreover, is founded on the jealousy of God; i.e., as being the absolute personality, He insists that persons shall not dissolve the bond of personal communion with Him, that they shall not descend from the sphere of love into that of sensuous conceptions.
4. The third commandment. The sin against the first commandment banishes the name of Jehovah by means of idol names; the sin against the second obscures and disfigures it; the sin against this third one abuses it. Here then the name, the right apprehension, or at least knowledge and confession, of the name, are presupposed; but the correctness of the apprehension is hypocritically employed by the transgressor of this commandment in the interest of selfishness and vice. According to Keil ðָùָׂà ùֵׁí does not mean “to utter the name,” and ùָׁåְà does not mean “lie.” But to lift up a name must surely mean to lift it up by uttering it, though doubtless in a solemn way; and though ùָׁåְà signifies wasteness and emptiness, yet it is here to be understood of wasteness and emptiness in speech. The moral culmination of this sin is perjury, Lev_19:12 : hypocrisy in the application of sacred things to criminal uses, especially also sorcery in all forms.—Here the punitive retribution is put immediately upon the person who sins, as an unavoidable one which surely finds its object, and whose law rests on the nature of Jehovah Himself.
5. Exo_20:9-11. Here is to be considered: (1) The significance of the law of the Sabbath; (2) the institution of the Sabbath; (3) the ordinance of the Sabbath; (4) the reason for the Sabbath. The idea of the Sabbath will never be rightly apprehended, unless it is seen to be a union of two laws. The first is the ethical law of humanity, which here predominates; the second is the strictly religious law, which is made prominent in Leviticus 23. The law of the Sabbath would not stand in the decalogue, if it did not have a moral principle to establish as much as the commandments not to kill, commit adultery, or steal. The physical nature shall not be worn out, dishonored, and slowly murdered by restless occupation. Hence the specification: “No kind of work or business;” and that, not only in reference to son and daughter, man-servant and maid-servant, but also in reference to the beasts themselves and the stranger within the gates of Israel (i.e., in their cities and villages, not in the houses of the stranger), as the foreigner might imagine that he could publicly emancipate himself from this sacred humane ordinance. This point is brought out in Deu_5:14-15; Exo_23:12. It is seen further on, in the sabbatical year and in the great year of jubilee, Reference is made to it in Deu_16:11.—That there existed already a tradition of the Sabbath rest, may be inferred from the tradition of the days of creation; so also circumcision as a custom prevailed before the institution of it as a sacrament. But that circumcision, as a patriarchal law, symbolically comprehending all the ten commandments, continued to outrank the Mosaic law of the Sabbath, which was not till now raised to the rank of one of the chief ethical commandments, is shown by the Jewish custom as indicated in Christ’s declaration, Joh_7:22-23.—The ordinance of the Sabbath first specifies the subjects of the command: “Those who are to rest are divided into two classes by the omission of the conjunction å before òַáְãְּêָ ” (Keil). Next, the degree of rest: “ îְìָàëָä , business (comp. Gen_2:2), in distinction from òֲáֹãָä , labor, means not so much the lighter work (Schultz) as rather, in general, the accomplishment of any task, whether hard or easy; òֲáֹãָä is the execution of a particular work, whether agricultural (Psa_104:23), or mechanical (Exo_39:32), or sacerdotal, including both the priestly service and the labor necessary for the performance of the ritual (Exo_12:25 sq., Num_4:47). On the Sabbath, as also on the day of atonement (Lev_23:28; Lev_23:31) every employment was to cease; on the other feast-days, only laborious occupations, îְ&