DESERT

mentioned as a possible alternative. Some critics suggest that the preaching was to the fallen angels mentioned in 2 P 2<, Jude «, either after Christ's death or before the Incarnation. The word 'spirits' is used of angels in the NT (Ac 23'), but is used also of spirits of the dead (He 1223, cf. Lk 24"-39), and 1 P 4« seems to prove that this is the sense here.

We may pass by fanciful theories such as that the passage refers to the preactilng of Enoch regarded as an. incarnation of the Messiah. The apocryphal Book of Enoch records preaching of punishment to fallen angels, but says nothing of a preaching of salvation to the souls of men. And the word ' preached ' in 1 P 3" implies preached the gospel.

If it is asked why should only one set of sinners be mentioned, we may reply that they were typical sinners, whose fate, as Dr. Bigg shows (Com., ad loc), was much questioned at the time when St. Peter wrote. There is some evidence that a belief was current in the Jewish schools to the effect that a time of repentance would be allowed to the sinners who perished in the Flood before the final judgment. We may hope for fresh light on the point from further research, and for the present may rest content with the interpretation which enables us to quote these passages in 1 P. as proving that moral distinctions exist in Hades, and that moral change is possible for moral beings there as here, unless they sin against light.

A. E. BuBN.

DESERT.— See Wilderness.

DESTROY (utterly).— See Ban.

DEUEL. — Father of Eliasaph, prince of Gad (Nu 1" 742. 47 i02i')=Reuel, Nu 2". (perhaps the original name).

DEUTEBONOSTT.- 1. Structure, Origin, Influence. — The book consists of three speeches (l«-4", 5-26. 28, 292-302i>) and two poems (chs. 32. 33), all of which are represented as having been uttered by Moses on the plains of Moab before the crossing of Jordan. The slight narrative (chs. 27. 31. 34) is concerned mainly with the last days of Moses. Chapters 1-3, however, contain an historical sketch cast into the form of a speech.

Chs. 5-26. 28'-" are a unity with a formal opening (414-19) and close (29'); and this section, apart from some later additions, is homogeneous. Thus chs. 5-11 elaborate those principles concerning Jahweh and His relation to His people which give a peculiar character to the Hebrew polity; chs. 12-26 develop these into a code of law; 28' -^« pronounces blessings on obedience, curses on disobedience. This section, it is now agreed, was the Law-book found in the Temple in the 18th year of Josiah (b.c. 622-621), which formed the basis of the reform described in 2 K 22 f. Thus Josiah abolished the high places in Judah and Jerusalem (228- '8), and confined legitimate worship to the sanctuary at Jerusalem; and this centralization of the cult is the dominating idea of Dt 5-26. Again, Josiah purified the Jahweh-worsiiip from baser elements, destroying the Asherah (2 K 23«, cf. Dt 162") and the houses of sodomy (2 K 23', cf. Dt 23'"). His opposition to idolatry was directed against the same forms as those denounced in Deut. (cf. the sun-worship, 2 K 23'- ", Dt 17^; and the worship of Milcom, 23'»- ", Dt 12!'). The Passover, celebrated in his day at Jerusalem, is stated to have been unique (2 K 2Z'^^)\ and Deut. forbids the celebration of the Passover elsewhere than in Jerusalem (16"). The king abolished the super-stitious means of learning the Divine will (2 K 232*), which Deut. forbids (IS'"). The demands of the Law-book and the performance of the king are parallel.

It is, however, a more difficult question how far the reforms which Josiah instituted in obedience to Deut. were new, and how far they were a return to older practices from which the nation had degenerated during the early monarchy. Three other codes can be dis-tinguished in the Pentateuch, and a comparison of

DEUTERONOMY

these with Deut. helps to determine its place in the development of Israel's religion. An examination of the social legislation in Deut. leads to the conclusion that it is later than the Book of the Covenant (Ex 20-23='). Though we are not justified in calling Deut. a deliberate expansion of this legislation, it certainly represents a more developed state of society, as is seen, e.g., in its numerous laws about contracts. And in one particular it controls the cult at a cardinal point which Exod. left vague: the ' every place where Jahweh records his name' (Ex 202<) has become 'the place which Jahweh shall choose to put his name there' (Deut. passim). When Deut. is compared with the Law of Holiness (Lv 17-26), the codes are seen to be framed for different purposes — Leviticus as a handbook for priests, Deut. as a layman's manual. But their legislation is parallel. Compared with P, Deut. is earlier, for questions left uncertain in Deut. are decided in P. See further, art. Hexateuch.

The few references in Deut. to events in Israel's history bear out the conclusion thus reached, for they are dependent on JE, but show no acauaintance with P's history. It is difllcult, e.g., to explain the absence of Korah in Dt 11', if the author read Nu 16 in its present form, where Korah from P has been woven into the early story. When chs. 1-3 (see below) are included in this scrutiny, they support the inference that Deut. was an independent book, before P was incorporated with JE.

There are further indications of the date at which this code was introduced. Thus Deut. insists throughout on one sanctuary, at which legitimate worship can be offered to Jahweh.

The extent to which this dominates the code is not to be measured merely by the number of times the command is repeated. Older customs are recast in consequence of this change. The Passover altera its character from a family to a national festival (16"-). A central tribunal is set up to replace the decisions at the local shrines (17"-)-Asylums for the manslayer are needed (19'^, since the village altars where he once found safety (Ex 21'*) are abolished, etc.

Now this was an innovatipn in Israel. Elijah, far from condemning the high places, is indignant at the sacrilege which has thrown down the altars of Jahweh (1 K 19"). When he leaves the polluted land to seek Jahweh, he makes his way not to Jerusalem, but to Horeb (contrast Is 22'). Hosea and Amos find much to condemn in the worship which was practised at Bethel and Dan, but never suggest that any worship offered at these shrines was ipso facto illegitimate. Yet these were the rehgious teachers of the nation. Deut., again, forbids the erection of pillars beside Jahweh's altars (12"); it is difficult to understand how Isaiah (19'9) could have associated a pillar with Jahweh-worship, had this law been accepted in his day. The worship of the host of heaven — one of the few forms of idolatry specified in Deut. — is not mentioned till it receives severe blame from the prophets of the 7th cent. (Jer 82 19" 3229, Zeph 1'). But this Assyrian cult became a real danger to Israel's reUgion, when Manasseh came under Eastern infiuences.

Hezekiah is the first king of whom we learn that he attempted to remove the high places (2 K 18"). Evidently, however, this was an unpopular step, for the Rabshakeh was able to appeal to the conservative instincts of the nation against a king who practised such questionable innovations (1822). What impelled Hezekiah was a religious, not a political, motive. The splendid monotheistic teaching of Isaiah carried with it the inference 'One God, one sanctuary.' Besides, the abuses which were associated with the local shrines compelled the religious leaders of the nation, who had been influenced by the teaching of Hosea and Amos, to go to the root and abolish such worship altogether. The one means of purifying their worship was to sever it from the high places with their Canaanite associa-

187