The Setting Aside of The Tribe of Levi And the Command To Go Forward (Deuteronomy 10:8-10).
The chronological movement is now back to Horeb, but this is placed here in order to follow the replacement of the Levite Aaron by Eliezer. Also replaced are the firstborn sons of Israel by the other families of Levites (Numbers 1:47-53; Numbers 3:39-51). Along with the new covenant are a new High Priest and new servants for the Tabernacle. This is the nearest we come to being told that the appointment of the other Levites was because of Israel's failure at the Mount.
‘ At that time Yahweh set apart the tribe of Levi, to bear the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh, to stand before Yahweh to minister to him, and to bless in his name, to this day. For that reason Levi has no portion nor inheritance with his brothers. Yahweh is his inheritance, just as Yahweh your (thy) God spoke to him.'
“At that time” is a vague connecting reference to the whole process of establishing the covenant after it had been broken at Mount Sinai and the replacement of Aaron thirty eight years later which is simply saying ‘not quite at the same time, but in connection with them'. Chronologically it happened after the renewal of the covenant but before the death of Aaron (Numbers 1:47-53). But it comes in here in order to show that their position still remained firm. Here it comes third in importance of the three renewals: the renewal of the covenant, the renewal of Aaron and the people, and now in a sense the renewal of the priesthood and the Levites.
It was at that time that Yahweh set apart the tribe of Levi ‘to bear the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh, to stand before Yahweh to minister to Him, and to bless in His name'. The first description fits the Levites as such, for the Levites bore the Ark and the Tabernacle with its furniture in the ordinary course of events (Numbers 1:47-53; Numbers 4:4). The second, ‘standing before Yahweh to serve Him' could fit both, for ‘standing before Yahweh' only necessarily includes entering the court of the Tabernacle, which both could do. The third fits only the levitical priests who alone could give an official blessing (Numbers 6:23-24). All were, of course, of the tribe of Levi. For ‘ministering to (serving) Yahweh' and ‘ministering to His name' compare Deuteronomy 18:5; Deuteronomy 21:5, but there were many types of service.
And because of this they had no portion or inheritance among their fellow-tribesmen (Numbers 18:24). Rather the tithe was their inheritance (Numbers 18:26). They would receive no land as their own possession. And even more importantly Yahweh was their inheritance, and their joy should be to serve Him only. They enjoyed the greatest inheritance of all. And this is just as Yahweh had spoken to them. He was faithful in all His dealings.
“The Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh” is the full name for ‘the Ark' mentioned in verse 1, although it is fairly often referred to in shortened forms.
Excursus on The Levites.
The Levites.
It is often claimed that the Book of Deuteronomy knows nothing of Levites as separate from the priests, but only of ‘levitical priests' (‘the priests, the Levites') but Deuteronomy 18:6 clearly differentiates ‘the Levites', who have a lesser ministry than the priests. It also constantly demands that concern be shown for the welfare of the Levites who dwelt among the people within their gates (Deuteronomy 12:12; Deuteronomy 12:18-19; Deuteronomy 14:27; Deuteronomy 14:29; Deuteronomy 16:11; Deuteronomy 16:14; Deuteronomy 18:6; Deuteronomy 26:11-13), because they had no inheritance in Israel. God was their inheritance. We should note that the levitical priests are never stated to be ‘within their gates'. They lived in the few priestly cities, although admittedly among non-priests.
The phrase ‘levitical priests' (‘the priests, the levites), found regularly in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 17:9; Deuteronomy 17:18; Deuteronomy 18:1; Deuteronomy 24:8; Deuteronomy 27:9) is elsewhere used regularly even by those who certainly separate between priests and levites (2 Chronicles 23:18; 2 Chronicles 30:27; Ezekiel 43:19; Ezekiel 44:15; Ezekiel 48:13). It is also found in Jeremiah 33:18; Joshua 3:3; Joshua 8:33.
“Within their gates” may indicate Levites who were not living in the levitical cities, like the Levite of ‘Bethlehem-judah of the family of Judah' (Judges 17:7) and the Levite who sojourned on the farther side of the hill country of Ephraim (Judges 19:1). These could be Levites who were travelling around the cities in their duty of supervising and assessing tithes, and would thus sojourn in different towns for a considerable period of time, and Levites who were moving around as advisers in the Law, often taking up residence in a city (compare Judges 19:29 where the Levite has his own house). They were like lay helpers, doing what the priests did not have time for.
Much depends on the interpretation of the phrase ‘the priests the levites all the tribe of Levi' in Deuteronomy 18:1. The Hebrew appears to be ambiguous. It could in general at first sight indicate that ‘the priests the levites' comprised the whole tribe of Levi, or it could indicate that the whole tribe of Levi was an expansion on the idea of ‘the priests the levites'. However, usage of clauses in apposition elsewhere in Deuteronomy makes the position quite clear. It abundantly confirms the latter. See Deuteronomy 3:4-5; Deuteronomy 15:21; Deuteronomy 16:21; Deuteronomy 17:1; Deuteronomy 23:19; Deuteronomy 25:16 where in all cases one clause in apposition is not just declaring similarity but is an expansion on the idea contained in the other, compare also Deuteronomy 3:18 where there is a reduction in the idea. This would stress that here ‘the whole tribe of Levi' is an expansion on the priests the levites and not just parallel with it. In Deuteronomy 2:37; Deuteronomy 3:13; Deuteronomy 4:19; Deuteronomy 5:8; Deuteronomy 20:14; Deuteronomy 29:10 the clauses in apposition are always of one against a number and therefore not strictly comparable.
Furthermore while ‘to minister in the name of Yahweh' and to ‘stand there before Yahweh' (in Deuteronomy 18:7) could be used of priestly activity, they could also be used of lesser Levite activity. Thus in Deuteronomy 19:17 even litigants are described as ‘standing before Yahweh' (compare 1 Kings 17:1). There is no exact parallel to ‘minister in the name of Yahweh'. The priests ‘stand to minister before Yahweh' in Deuteronomy 17:12, ‘stand to minister in the name of Yahweh' in Deuteronomy 18:5, and ‘minister to Him and bless in the name of Yahweh' in Deuteronomy 21:5. But in Deuteronomy 10:8 ‘Yahweh separated the tribe of Levi to bear the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh, to stand before Yahweh to minister to Him, and to bless in His name'. In Numbers 3:31 the bearing of the Ark was a levitical activity, while in Numbers 6:23 blessing in His name was a priestly prerogative. Thus in Deuteronomy 10:8 to ‘stand before Yahweh to minister to Him' could be a collective activity of both.
In 2 Chronicles 29 ‘you Levites' (which includes both priests and Levites specifically distinguished - 2 Chronicles 29:4-5) are chosen to ‘stand before Him, to minister to Him, and to be his ministers, and to burn incense', again a mixing of levitical and priestly duties. In 1 Samuel 2:11 the child Samuel ‘did minister to Yahweh before Eli the Priest'. At his young age this could not include direct priestly ministry. In Numbers 8:25-26 the Levites ‘minister with their brothers in the tent of meeting'. To be in the Tabernacle courtyard (Leviticus 1:3; Leviticus 1:5; Leviticus 1:11 and often, see Leviticus 4:15), or even gathered round it (Exodus 34:23-24), was always to be ‘before Yahweh'. (See also Numbers 7:3; Numbers 8:10; Numbers 14:37; Numbers 15:15; Numbers 32:21-22 etc; Deuteronomy 1:45; Deuteronomy 4:10; Deuteronomy 6:25; Deuteronomy 12:7; Deuteronomy 12:12; Deuteronomy 12:18; Deuteronomy 16:16 etc). In Numbers 16:9 the Levites ‘do the service of the Tabernacle of Yahweh'. The phrases would therefore seem to cover a wide variety of possible ministries, and to be largely applicable to both Levitical priests and to non-priestly Levites.
The Levites in the Wilderness.
The task of the Levites in the wilderness was mainly that of backroom boys. They were the porters who carried (but did not pack) the tabernacle and its equipment and furniture (Numbers 1:50-53; Numbers 4:15). It would be quite extraordinary for this to be so continually emphasised if in fact it had never happened. In Numbers 3:19 they were ‘given' to Aaron and his sons. Thus they were servants to the priesthood. In relation to the Tabernacle they clearly did some kind of service with regard to it, probably that of repair and maintenance within the limits of where they were allowed to go and making replacements for worn out sections of the Tabernacle (compare Exodus 38:21), organisation of visitors who came to the Tabernacle and general guardianship (Numbers 1:53), assisting those who found difficulty in slaying their sacrifices (compare Ezekiel 44:11), assisting with sanctifying the house of Yahweh (2 Chronicles 29:16) and certainly later singing and music. Thus they ‘ministered before Yahweh'. (The total lack of mention of singers in the Pentateuch in connection with the Tabernacle is a strong argument for it being an early writing. It is extremely unlikely that later inventors would not have included singers when they were such an important part of later worship).
They would also oversee and monitor the collection of tithes, of which they gave one tenth to the priests (Numbers 18:23-30). Once in the land this would be a huge task and would require constant inspection of crops and herds, collection, storage and disbursement as required. During this activity they would no doubt act as general advisers on the Law, which they would have to know well in order to deal with collecting the tithes (compare 2 Chronicles 17:7-9; Nehemiah 8:7-9). That is why they were scattered among Israel in levitical cities. There was therefore no reason for Moses to refer to them in detail in his speeches. But what do the records actually tell us about them?
There can be no doubt that the term Levites could simply be used to describe the ‘descendants' of Levi, the son of Jacob. They are often addressed as ‘the sons of Levi' (Numbers 4:2; Numbers 16:7-8; Numbers 16:10), a phrase which can also refer to the priests (Deuteronomy 21:5; Deuteronomy 31:9). They are also described as ‘the tribe of Levi' (Numbers 1:49; Numbers 3:6; Numbers 18:2; Deuteronomy 10:8; Deuteronomy 18:1; Joshua 13:14; Joshua 13:33). However, in Exodus 4:14 Aaron is called ‘your brother, the Levite'. This would probably suggest that Aaron was at that time head of the family, and therefore seen as ‘the Levite'. When the tribe had to be consulted it was to Aaron that men went. Or it could possibly suggest in context that ‘the Levite' indicated something special other than just being a descendant of Levi, indicating that members of the tribe were seen as especially skilled at public relations or something similar. While Moses was of the tribe of Levi, his life had taken him far from that sphere. Either way the description indicates Aaron's suitability to act as a front man. Thus it may well be that the tribe of Levi had among them those who were well known for specialising in public relations so that ‘the Levite' had become synonymous with Levites who performed such activity. This would then explain why they were selected out to serve the tabernacle by collecting its dues and watching over its guardianship. But the fact that Aaron was also a Levite by descent must be included in the explanation (compare Exodus 6:25). It is too much of a coincidence otherwise, and ties in with the other references to ‘the tribe of Levi' and ‘the sons of Levi' above.
The appointment of the Levites is never said to have been due to their defence of Moses at the incident of the molten calf, although that may have had some influence, but is more probably connected with their relationship with Moses and Aaron. The sense of tribal unity was strong, and it would be appropriate, especially if combined with the special skills hinted at above. They performed a service for the whole of Israel in that they performed the duties that would otherwise have fallen to the firstborn sons, ‘redeeming' the sons so that they could live normal lives (Numbers 3:12; Numbers 3:40-43; Numbers 3:45). They were therefore very much seen as ‘holy' to Yahweh.
Their inheritance in Israel included their right to tithes and other gifts (Numbers 18:31), although this becomes less absolute in Deuteronomy; the right to dwell in the levitical cities in perpetuity; and the right to harvest the land around those cities (Numbers 35:2), as well as a right to consideration when they were sojourning in other cities. But in fact every Levite was a ‘sojourner' for his true home was ‘the place which Yahweh chose out of all the tribes of Israel to set His Name there' (Deuteronomy 12:5). Yahweh was his inheritance (Numbers 18:20; Deuteronomy 10:9; Deuteronomy 18:2; Joshua 13:33; Joshua 18:7; compare Deuteronomy 12:12; Deuteronomy 14:27-29; Deuteronomy 18:1; Numbers 18:23-26).
One problem that we have is that ‘the Levites' could sometimes mean the whole tribe of Levi and therefore include the priests (2 Chronicles 29:4-5). Compare 1 Samuel 6:15 where Bethshemesh was a priestly city (Joshua 21:13; Joshua 21:16). All priests were Levites even though not all Levites were priests. Thus some tasks spoken of as to be done by ‘the Levites' were to be done by the priestly Levites with the ordinary Levites playing such a part as they could (see 2 Chronicles 29:12-16). It may also be that due to the shortage of mature members of priestly families (they had been decimated at Nob and would often be the target of invaders) the services performed by the Levites were extended during the monarchy to assist in every way possible in excess of what was previously allowed in spite of the strict injunctions of the Law (compare Ezekiel 44:9-14; 1 Chronicles 23:28-31). It is in fact strictly stated to be because they no longer had porterage duties (1 Chronicles 23:26). This lowering of the barriers would tie in with Ahimelech's and David's attitude to the shewbread (1 Samuel 21:4-6). It does not mean that the laws were not there, only that they were allowed to be stretched because it was felt necessary.
For the fact is that no theory about the Levites can be acceptable which does not explain why they were seen as rewarded with their major nine tenths share in the tithes, and other privileges, something not likely to have happened if they were separated as Levites much later as a result of being degraded. Such generosity to the demoted would have been unprecedented. It can only be explained by the fact that they were numerous and had heavy duties early on. Any theory must also explain the great stress in Numbers on their being mere porters of holy things (once they had been packed by the priests), with a sentence of death on them if they touched the holy things. These things are unlikely to have been inventions of a later date when they had wider, even though limited duties, which included contact with holy things. Nor at a time when they were comparatively few in number. But they do very much indicate wilderness conditions, the latter because transportation was constantly required, and the former because the overall level of tithes in the wilderness would be comparatively limited, and therefore they would need all in order to be able to enjoy life reasonably. This serves to confirm that the picture drawn in the Pentateuch of the Levites in contrast with the priests is the true one. Once they entered the land and there was an expectation of larger tithes, the use of these tithes was also expanded (Deuteronomy 12:17-19; Deuteronomy 14:22-29) although they still remained ‘sanctified' to Yahweh. But even here a large portion of the tithes would go to the Levites for there was no way in which all the tithes could be conveyed to the Central Sanctuary, and even if turned into money could be eaten in one short week. Thus there would be much left for the Levites (Deuteronomy 14:27) and every third year for others as well (Deuteronomy 14:29). That being so we can accept the picture drawn in the Pentateuch as the accurate one from the beginning.
End of Excursus.
The renewal of the covenant, the High Priesthood, and the service of the Tabernacle being settled and described discreetly in order to cause the least offence, Moses reminds them that their own destruction had only been prevented by his intercession.
‘ And I stayed in the mount, as at the first time, forty days and forty nights, and Yahweh listened to me that time also. Yahweh would not destroy you (thee).'
The reference to forty days and forty nights was obviously important to Moses for this is the fifth time that he has stressed it (compare Deuteronomy 9:9; Deuteronomy 9:11; Deuteronomy 9:18; Deuteronomy 9:25) (five regularly signifies covenant connection). He clearly saw it as a complete period which was necessary in His dealings with Yahweh. It stressed that His dealings with Yahweh had been lengthy and considered, not just of the pop-in pop-out variety. The same would be true of Elijah (1 Kings 19:8). Compare for the phrase Genesis 7:4; Genesis 7:12 where it spoke of a lengthy period of Yahweh's activity in judgment. But as a result of his continual intercession over that period Yahweh had ‘listened to' him. That was why Yahweh had not destroyed the covenant-breaking nation of Israel.
‘ And Yahweh said to me, “Arise, take your journey before the people, and they shall go in and possess the land, which I swore to their fathers to give to them.” '
Thus it was as a result of Moses' intercession that they had been spared to begin their journey, and now that they had been commanded to continue their journey.
“Arise, take your journey.” Compare Deuteronomy 2:24 where similar words are used of their present going forward; and Deuteronomy 1:6 with Deuteronomy 2:3 where the departure from Horeb and the departure after the wilderness wandering was described in similar terms. The command to go forward can thus be seen as indicating the command given at Horeb, and also indicating the recent command, which was a renewal of the first command.
For as a result of the renewal of the covenant Yahweh had called on him to take the people forward (Exodus 2:34; Exodus 33:1-2). The covenant had been made safe. There is a contrast here with Deuteronomy 9:12, ‘Arise, get down quickly--.' Then the covenant had been in jeopardy. Now that is seen to be behind them and he can ‘arise' for another purpose,. so as to begin the successful carrying out of the covenant.
But the phraseology also parallels Deuteronomy 2:24, ‘Rise up, take your journey --' referring to their going forward to defeat Sihon, king of the Amorites. There is the same certainty of victory here. So Moses may well have intended the comparison of these two verses, missing out the sad episodes in between. In the first instance they were to leave Sinai/Horeb, and journey on so as to go in and possess the land, which Yahweh had sworn to their fathers to give them, just as they had possessed Sihon's land. The promises were secure, and they could go forward with confidence. Yet there had been a loss of privilege. Yahweh's angel would go with them rather than Yahweh Himself (Exodus 33:1-6). In some way His presence among them was to be lessened after this. But in the second instance they had to go forward from where they now, confident on the back of their victories over Sihon and Og, so as to take possession of the land.