The Maintenance of the Priests (Deuteronomy 18:3-5).
‘ And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from those who offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw (stomach).'
Here there is an extension to what is give to the priests from the offerings and sacrifices (other than the whole burnt offering), possibly to compensate for the loss of their portion in animals slaughtered in the cities and not sacrificed. They were to be given the ‘shoulder', the two ‘cheeks' and the ‘stomach'. Discoveries in the Canaanite sanctuary at Lachish reveal many right shoulder bones of animals suggesting that their priests too received the shoulder from sacrifices. In Leviticus 7:28-36; Numbers 18:8-19 the priest's portions were the shoulder and the right ‘thigh' (or breast). This may simply therefore indicate different terminology for similar parts, or an improvement in the priests' portion, or both. The shoulder was a special waveoffering. The ‘thigh/breast' was a special heave offering or contribution, but as it was not for the priests generally, but given to the individual priest who offered the sacrifice, it may have been omitted here. It would be assumed without mention due to its special nature and long custom (Leviticus 7:32-34).
Compare here 1 Samuel 2:12-17 where the priests insisted on parts being set aside before the boiling so that they were not soaked, and then claimed further parts as the meat was boiling by ‘pot luck' (although this method was frowned on). They had, possibly unilaterally, extended their rights.
Note On Differences in Technical Sacrificial Terms.
To say that the technicalities of an ancient cult are not always apparent to us is to understate the case. Technical language would be used in regulations for the cult which had its own specialist meaning, and might be very different from those used in popular speech. Compare how in Roman Catholic usage the 'chasuble', for example, is a technical term, but might in popular usage be simply called a 'priestly garment' or 'robe'. Leviticus/Numbers used technical language, Deuteronomy uses 'popular' language (it is in a speech to the common people). Comparisons are therefore not always easy. So before we try to reconcile the two we have to solve the problem of the meaning of the language.
We must recognise that while our versions translate as best they can, the actual meanings of many ancient Hebrew terms, especially technical ancient Hebrew terms to do with the cult such as are mentioned in Leviticus/Numbers, are not always fully clear to us. It partly depends on how often they were used and in what context. Thus RV/ASV margin has 'shoulder' as a possible alternative rendering for 'thigh' in Leviticus 7:28-36 because they recognised the uncertainty as to the meaning of the word, while the word translated 'shoulder' in Deuteronomy 18:3 usually means 'arm' when referred to men (but of course cannot with domestic beasts). LXX actually translates both as the same word, brachion.
So the Hebrew terminology in use is not as certain in meaning as the English suggests, and comparisons are therefore fraught with difficulty. Deuteronomy is a speech and uses terms in a popular sense giving the general idea. The word translated ‘stomach', and sometimes 'inner part', is used only in Deuteronomy 18:3 and nowhere else although a cognate is used in Numbers 25:8, where it could simply generally mean a vague 'body'. In both cases the exact meaning has to be guessed at in the context. It could equally be a popular term for the rough equivalent of breast (in beasts breast and belly can be pretty close together). This being so the passages could quite well be saying a similar thing, but merely in different terminology, technical and popular. On the other hand it is equally possible that for different reasons there had been alterations to the detail.
Secondly we should note that it is not at all certain that Deuteronomy 18:3 is referring to the same sacrifices as the more technical verses in Leviticus and Numbers. The latter are referring to certain specific offerings and sacrifices, while Deuteronomy is simply referring to a general 'offering sacrifices'. Furthermore Leviticus is referring to heave offerings, what is 'waved' before Yahweh (difficult with the guts), before being given to the priests, Deuteronomy is referring to what is given to the priests in general, not what is specifically waved before Yahweh, and that from what are not necessarily technical offerings. The cult and related activities were in fact far more complicated than we tend to realise, much of it regulated by custom, something which comes out when we try in our simple way to reconcile everything as though it was not very involved. We must not try to make it simplistic. It was not. If we had a full knowledge of the complicated requirements of and differences in the cult under varying circumstances and a dictionary of its technical terms we might perhaps not have so many problems as we do.
And in all our considerations we have to remember that like any language Hebrew developed. It was relatively primitive at the time of Moses, a tribal language, whereas by the time of the Exile (over 700 years later) it had become much more sophisticated, and even more so by the time of Jesus (another five hundred years). Even if we ignore the technicalities, languages, and the meaning of words, change over long periods (try reading Chaucer in the original). Modern Hebrew may give us a little help as to the meaning of ancient Hebrew, but on the whole it is positively misleading. The only way we can know the meaning of ancient Hebrew is by comparison of the use of terms in different parts of Scripture written at the same period (a problem in itself) combined with a comparison with uses in Ugaritic literature which used a fairly similar script. Where words are rarely used we regularly have to guess, especially in the case of technical terms. We usually do have a general idea as to their meaning, but not so as to be too specific. This being so what are called 'discrepancies' are not necessarily as clear in the Hebrew as it may seem in English versions. Sometimes the attempt at a translation creates an apparent discrepancy that is not actually there in the original. This must ever be kept in mind
(End of note.)
‘ The firstfruits of your grain, of your new wine, and of your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep, shall you give him.'
The priests also received the firstfruits, that which ripened first, of the grain, wine and oil, and first fleeces of the sheep, giving them all round provision (compare Numbers 18:12). The fleeces are an addition which had probably become the custom. Deciding what was and was not firstfruits would presumably have been sorted out with Moses by Aaron.
‘ For Yahweh your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to minister in the name of Yahweh, him and his sons for ever.'
The reason for these gifts was that they were the chosen of Yahweh out of all the tribes for the purpose of standing to give priestly service in the name of Yahweh (compare Deuteronomy 17:12; 1Ki 8:11; 2 Chronicles 5:14; for ‘stand to minister'; Exodus 28:43 for ‘to minister'. Contrast Deuteronomy 10:8; 2 Chronicles 29:4-11 where it includes the service of the Levites). They, and they alone, had this privilege. The priesthood was their inheritance (Joshua 18:7).
As king, priest and sanctuary dominated ancient society, so here in Deuteronomy all were (as here), or were to be (Deuteronomy 12:5; Deuteronomy 17:15), the chosen of Yahweh, as well as were the people (Deuteronomy 7:6). All was under His sovereignty.