the Altar of the burnt-offering Where after the building of the Temple there were two holes one on the West-side of the Altar the other on the South as the Jews tell us in Middoth cap. 3. sect 2. by which it was conveyed into a Canal under Ground through which it ran into the Brook Kidron And there was only this difference they say about these two holes that the Blood of the Sin-offering any part of which was carried into the most holy place was poured out only into that on the West-side of the Foundation of the Altar And if we may believe the Jews the Gardiners bought this Blood of those that were the Treasurers of the Temple to inrich their Ground with it as Constantine l'Empereur there observes And while they were in the Wilderness and all the time they had only a moveable Tabernacle it is most likely there were Receptacles made under Ground with Conveyances to some distant place where it sank into the Earth or was covered with Dust as other Blood is commanded to be XVII 13. For Maimonides thinks the pouring out the Blood so that it might not remain in one place which is constantly and strictly required by the Law was in opposition to an idolatrous Custom of the old Zabij who made a collection of the Blood in a Vessel or in a little Pit about which they sat and ate the Flesh imagining their Gods feasted upon the Blood as I noted before out of Maimonides More Nevoch P. III. cap. 46. Which is at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation For there was the place of it as hath been often observed XL Exod. 6. Ver. 8. Verse 8 And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin-offering c. All that follows in this and the two next Verses v. 9 10. is the same that was ordered to be done about Peace-offerings as appears from v. 10. See therefore the foregoing Chapter v. 3 4 5. Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the skin of the bullock and all his flesh with his head and with his legs and his inwards c. This Sacrifice was so laborious to work in them a greater detestation of sin which was aggravated by the quality of the Person that committed it And Nachmanides hath an observation which in some parts of it at least is very remarkable That all a Man doth being performed in Words in Works or Thoughts God commanded them when they brought an Offering for Sin that they should lay their hand on it which had respect to the Works they had done and make Confession over it which had respect to their Words and burn the Inwards and Kidneys which are the Organs of Thoughts and Desires the Legs also had a respect to a Man's hands and feet by which he doth all his work and the Blood that was sprinkled on the Altar signified his own Blood So that while a Man did all these things he was put in mind how he had sinned against God both in Soul and Body and deserved to have his Blood shed and his Body burnt unless the Mercy of the Creator had accepted a Price of Redemption for him viz. a Sacrifice whose Blood was for his Blood and its Life for his Life and the principal Members of the Sacrifice for the Members of his Body By which it appears that the best sort of Jews had a sense that the Sacrifices for Sin were offered to God in their stead as a Ransom for them And so we Christians are to understand the Sacrifice which Christ made of himself who gave himself a Ransom for us all as the Apostle speaks I Tim. 2. 6. and our LORD saith the same XX Matth. 28. X Mark 45. Such Sacrifices the Heathens themselves had which they called Lustralia from the word lustrare which signifies to expiate among the Romans and that by paying a price For the ancient Poet Ennius as our excellent Mr. Thorndike hath observed translating into Latin a Greek Tragedy called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being taken out of Homer where he speaks of Priamus ransoming of Hector's Corps from Achilles intituled it Hectoris lustra which shows this is the Latin of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ransom or redemption and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in the New Testament to deliver by paying a ransom See his Epilogue Book II. Chapt. 27. Ver. 12. Verse 12 Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the Camp It was not dissected as the Peace-offerings were because no Body was to partake of any part of it being a Sacrifice for the Priests own sin And therefore it was to be carried though not by himself but some other Person to be burnt without the Camp to express the abominabless of the Sin This Rite and the carrying the Blood within the Tabernacle to be sprinkled before the LORD were used only in these two Cases of the Sin of the High-Priest and of all the People For of other Sin-offerings the Priests might eat VI. 26. but of this being for himself he was not to taste at all because he was in a state of Guilt Into a clean place where the ashes are poured out On the East-part of the Tabernacle there was a place for the Ashes to be thrown into when they were taken from the Altar which afterward were carried into a clean place without the Camp And so they were carried out after the Temple was built at Jerusalem at the East-gate of the City into a Valley which lay between Jerusalem and Mount Olivet And burn him on the wood with fire Not upon an Altar but in a fire made with Wood upon the Ground to show the odiousness of the sin as Maimonides thinks For as the whole Burnt-sacrifices were burnt on the Altar because they were an Offering of sweet smelling savour unto God so this was burnt without the Camp upon the Ground to show that the odour of it was ungrateful and abominable More Nevochim P. III. cap. 46. where he also observes that the burning of the Beast intirely being the destruction of it so that nothing of it remained it signified in like manner the utter deletion of Sin so that it should be remembred no more And the Bullock being burnt without the Camp I take it to denote that the People should not suffer for the sin of the Priest which was abolished together with his Sacrifice The same Maimonides hath another observation upon the Title Zebachim that there were three places constituted for the burning of holy things The first was in the Sanctuary as every one knows the second was in the Mount of the House as they called the place round about the Court of the Sanctuary where if any blemish hapned to a Bullock or a Goat they were brought out of the Sanctuary and burnt in a place called Bira and the third was in this place of the Ashes without the City Where the ashes are poured out there shall he be burnt This is repeated
Altar See Dilheirus Disput Philolog Tom. 2. p. 253. Ver. 6. Verse 6 And he shall flay the Burnt-offering Next followed the taking off the Skin which God ordered to be given to the Priests VII 8. Though the Heathen burnt Skin and all in some places as Bochart observes out of Plutarch and Lucian in the fore-named place Hieroz P. I. L. II. p. 324. But whose work it was to flay the Beast is not here expressed The Jews say it belonged not to the Priests to do this but to the Man himself who brought the Beast to be offered For to show in brief what belonged to the owners of the Sacrifice and what to the Priests it may be fit to note out of Abarbanel that each of them had five things to do The Owner of the Sacrifice laid his hand upon it killed flayed cut it up and washt the inwards And then the Priest received the Blood in a Vessel sprinkled the Blood put fire on the Altar ordered the Wood on the fire and ordered the pieces of the Sacrifice upon the Wood. And that the Beast might more easily be flayed there were eight Stone Pillars as the Jews tells us in Middoth cap. 3. and Beams laid over them in each of which there were three Iron hooks fixed That the greater Beasts might hang upon the highest the lesser upon the middlemost and the least of all on the lowest and so be more commodiously stript of their Skins Concerning this Excoriation both Homer and Virgil speak as the afore-named Dilheirus hath observed in the same Book p. 255. And cut it into pieces This followed the Excoriation among the Gentiles also as the same Author shows And it was done with such accuracy that Homer saith they dissected the Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence some great Men have thought St. Paul borrowed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express the Care the Ministers of the Gospel should have in dividing rightly the Word of Truth 2 Tim. II. 15. These pieces were not the very same in Bullocks and Goats that they were in Sheep as will appear afterwards and therefore the greater care was to be used in the cutting of them especially when besides those parts which were offered to God the Priests and the People were to have their share also Ver. 7. Verse 7 And the sons of Aaron the Priest shall put fire upon the Altar This as I said before was one of the works of the Priests who did not put fire daily upon the Altar for being once kindled they were to keep it always burning VI. 13. but stirred it up and blowed the Coals Which is meant by giving fire as the Phrase is in the Hebrew that is disposing it so that it might burn quick Yet if the fire was taken off from the Altar as when they removed the Camp IV Numb 14. none might lay it on again but the Priest Or if it were extinct as it was in the days of Ahaz who shut up the door of the House of God which was not opened till Hezekiah reigned 2 Chron. XXVIII 24. XXIX 34. none but they might kindle it again And lay the wood in order upon the fire This the Priests did every Morning and every Night that the fire might be preserved from going out And when the time of the Morning and Evening Sacrifice came they brought new Wood and laid it in such order upon the fire that it might the better consume the parts of the Sacrifice that were laid thereon Ver. 8. Verse 8 And the Priests Aarons sons shall lay the parts the head and the fat The Hebrew word Peder doth not simply signifie the Fat for which they have another word cheleb but that Fat which is separated from the rest of the Flesh So it is to be understood here and in III. 9. IV. 35. Which being gathered together and thrown into the fire fed the flame and made it burn more fiercely by which means the other parts into which the Sacrifice was divided were the more easily and the sooner consumed Particularly St. Hierom takes it for that Fat which adhered to the Liver and both Solomon Jarchi and David Kimchi observe that this Peder was thrown upon the Head of the Sacrifice when it was cast into the fire just in the place where the Head was cut off from the Body because otherwise the Gore which issued from it might have extinguished the flame See XXIX Exod. 17. In order upon the wood c. That they might lye upon the Wood so as to have the same situation in the Altar that they had in the Beast when it was alive So Maimonides in Maase Korban cap. 6. Verse 9. Verse 9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water These Parts were not to be burnt upon the Altar till they were well cleansed by washing them in Water For which end there was a private Room afterward in the Court of the Temple as now it is likely there was in the Tabernacle called the Washing Room as we find in Codex Middoth cap. 5. sect 2. There they having washed them privately and freed the Inwards from their filth they brought them into the Court where there were new Marble Tables between the Pillars before-mentioned v. 6. and there they were washed more exactly as we read in the same Book cap. 3. sect 5. Where Const. l'Empereur observes out of R. Hobadia the reason why they used to lay the Flesh upon such Tables was Because Marble made it cold and stiff and preserved it from stinking in very hot weather And the Priest shall burn all on the Altar From whence this Sacrifice is called ischeh an Offering made by fire from isch which signifies fire because it was altogether consumed in the fire and no part of it left so much as for the Priest to eat of it Of a sweet savour unto the LORD i. e. Most acceptable For it is a form of Speech taken from Men who are delighted with the good Scent and Taste of Meat and Drink But none can reasonably imagine it was the meer Sacrifice that was pleasing unto God but as Conrad Pellicanus well notes the Devotion Faith Obedience and Sincerity of their Minds who made the Oblation Ver. 10. Verse 10 And if his offering be of the flocks namely of the sheep or of the goats c. If a Man were not able to bring a Bullock for a Burnt-sacrifice which could not be so well spared being of great use in Agriculture he might bring one of these Creatures which were of less value only perfect in their kind as it here follows He shall bring it a male without blemish See XII Exod 5. What the Blemishes were that made any Animal unfit to be offered on the Altar Moses tells us in this Book XXII 22 23 24. where he mentions twelve which shall be there considered Ver. 11. Verse 11 And he shall kill it on the side of the Altar
contra Julianum condemned these Sacrifices of Beasts as hateful to their Gods who they fancied were pleased only with those that were made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Fruits of the Earth and of Frankincense But they might have learnt from Moses if they had pleased Julian and Porphyry being acquainted with his Books that these things were alike acceptable God having respect to the Mind of him that offered not to his Gifts Ver. 3. Verse 3 And the remnant of the meat-offering shall be Aarons and his sons To be eaten by them But that Meat-offering which was offered for the Priests themselves was to be wholly burnt and no part eaten VI. 22 23. It is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire Nothing is more known then the distinction which the Jews make between things most holy and the lighter holy things as their phrase is which I took notice of before The most holy were such as none whatsoever might eat of or none but the Priests and the Sons of Priests and that only in the Sanctuary and no where else See VI. 16 26. Such were all whole Burnt-offerings all the Sin-offerings and all the Peace-offerings for the whole Congregation The lighter holy things were such as might be eaten by those who were not Priests in any place within the City of Jerusalem to which their Camp now answered and such were all the Peace-offerings of particular Persons the Paschal Lamb the Tenth and the Firstlings of Cattle Ver. 4. Verse 4 And if thou bring an oblation of a meat-offering baken in the oven This is the first sort of baked Mincha's for the preparing of which there was an Oven in the Court of the Tabernacle as afterward there was in the Court of the Temple 1 Chron. XXIII 28 29. XLVI Ezek. 20. It shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil or unleavened wafers anointed with oil If the Cakes were thick then the Oil was kneaded together with them But if they were thin like a Wafer then it was only spread upon it before it was baked See XXIX Exod. 2. or as some will have it after it came out of the Oven Concerning its being unleavened see below v. 11. Ver. 5. Verse 5 And if thy oblation be a meat-offering baken in a pan Or in a flat Plate as we translate it in the Margin For Maimonides says this was the difference between Macabath which is the Hebrew word in this place and Marchesheth that the former was a Pan or Plate without any Rim about it and the other had one as our Frying-pans have And so Abarbinel in his Preface to this Book observes out of Jarchi that there was a Vessel in the Temple which was only flat and broad but had no rising on the sides of it So that the Oil being poured upon it when it was set on the fire ran down and increased the Flame and made the Cake hard It shall be of fine flour unleavened mingled with oil This sort of Cake seems to have been both kneaded with Oil and to have had Oil also poured upon it after it was laid upon the Plate Ver. 6. Verse 6 Thou shalt part it in pieces c. This according to Abarbinel was done as it lay baking upon the Plate Or if this Division was made after it was taken off the reason was the same because part of it was to be given to God and the rest to the Priests And pour oil thereon Upon the pieces that they might by this new Addition of fresh Oil be made more savoury It is a meat-offering And therefore to be eaten with Oil v. 1. Ver. 7. Verse 7 And if thy oblation be a meat-offering baken in the frying-pan This Vessel was not flat but deep as Abarbinel observes See v. 5. because that which was baked in it was moist and fluid It shall be made of fine flour with oil The Oil was not kneaded with this sort of Mincha but put into the Pan so that it mixed with the Flour which might be shaken and moved up and down as things are which are baken in Liquors So Abarbinels words are in his Preface to this Book Ver. 8. Verse 8 And thou shalt bring the meat-offering that is made of these things unto the LORD c. This relates to all the bake Meat-offerings before-mentioned which were to be brought to the LORD at his House and there presented to the Priest who was to bring them to the Altar when they were prepared as before directed See v. 1 2. And this variety of Mincha's was allowed that the Table of the LORD i. e. the Altar might be furnished and his Ministers that waited on him entertained with all sorts of Provisions Ver. 9. Verse 9 And the Priest shall take from the meat-offering a memorial thereof A part of the Cake of whatsoever sort it was was separated from the rest for the LORD's portion to whom it was offered as an acknowledgment of his Supream Dominion over them and in commemoration of his goodness to them And shall burn it upon the Altar Before the other parts were eaten by the Priests as was directed before about the fine Flour v. 2. It is an offering made by fire of a sweet savour unto the LORD See v. 2. Ver. 10. Verse 10 And that which is left of the meat-offering shall be Aarons and his sons c. All this Verse hath been explained v. 3. Ver. 11. Verse 11 No meat-offering which ye shall bring unto the LORD shall be made with leaven These words which ye shall bring unto the LORD seem to have a peculiar emphasis in this place importing that no Meat-offering part of which was offered upon God's Altar should be leavened For no part of that leavened Bread which was offered in Eucharistical Sacrifices VII 13. nor the two Loaves offered in the Feast of Pentecost which some mistake for an Exception to this Precept were offered upon the Altar but given intirely to the Priests as their portion Made with leaven There are many Moral Reasons given both by Jewish and Christian Writers why none of the Cakes before-mentioned should have any Leaven in them which I shall not here set down There is some probability in their Opinion who think this was ordered to refresh their Memory by putting them in mind of their Deliverance out of Egypt But Maimonides seems to me to have given the best account of this in his More Nevochim P. III. cap. 46. where he saith God prohibited this to root out the Idolatrous Customs in those days as he found in the Books of the Zabij who offered to their Gods no Bread but leavened Next to this the Account which Abarbanel gives of it is not to be disregarded who thinks it was forbidden because it would have made delay if they had waited at the Tabernacle till the fermentation was perfected For ye shall burn no leaven nor any honey in any offering of the LORD made by fire
Neither mixed with Bread nor alone by themselves For Honey was a kind of Leaven and it is certain was used by the Heathen in their Religious Rites As appears not only from Maimonides who tells us in the place forenamed that they chose sweet things for their offerings and anointed their Sacrifices with Honey but from a great number of other Authors who make mention of it Particularly Plato who saith in his VI de Legibus that anciently Men did not Sacrifice living Creatures but only fine Flour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Fruits moistned with Honey And so Phylarchus tells us in Athenaeus his Deipnos L. XV. that the Greeks sacrificed Honey to the Sun which was the great God among the Gentiles but poured no Wine upon his Altars Which Polemon in Suidas calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sober Sacrifice because there was no Wine in it but Honey and Water mixed together Nay there was scarce any God among the Heathen to whom Honey was not offered as Bochartus hath shown at large in his Hierozoicon P. II. L. IV. c. 12. But one Testimony may serve for all which is from Pausanias in his Eliaca where having reckoned up at least fifty Altars in the Temple of Jupiter Olympius unto several Deities and some of them common to them all he saith They sacrificed upon every one of them once a Month after an ancient manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Frankincense and Wheat mingled with Honey Which being so common and ancient a thing among the Gentiles in their Idolatrous Worship was the reason it is likely that God forbad it to be used in his Sacrifices And under the name of Honey the Jews think Figs and Dates and all other sweet Fruits are comprehended For the famous Composition among the Egyptians called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was burnt every day Morning and Evening on their Altars consisted of such things as well as of Myrrh Calamus and Cardamum So Plutarch tells us in his Book de Iside Osir and mentions Honey in the first place with Wine and Raisins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Ver. 12. Verse 12 As for the oblation of the first-fruits ye shall offer them unto the LORD but they shall not be burnt on the Altar for a sweet savour There were several sorts of First-fruits as I observed XXIII Exod. 19. That which is here spoken of was of the Corn unground only a little parcht at the fire which was to be presented unto God but not burnt on the Altar because they belong'd to the Priests Ver. 13. Verse 13 And every oblation of thy meat-offering shalt thou season with salt All the fore-named Mincha's which were Korbans as they are often here called were to be thus seasoned because Salt was a thing never wanting at any Table and all Meat is unsavoury without it Neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the Covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat-offerings It is called the Salt of the Covenant of God as some think because required by this Law which they covenanted with God to observe as much as to offer Sacrifices which were not acceptable without Salt as appears from the Repetition of it three times in this one Verse But there is a plainer reason than this which is That the Sacrifices being God's Feasts and they that did partake of them being his Guests who did in a manner eat and drink with him at his Table the Salt that was cast upon all Sacrifices as appears by the words following is called the Salt of the Covenant to signifie that as Men were wont to make Covenants by eating and drinking together where Salt is never wanting at their Tables but a necessary Appendix at every Feast so God by these Sacrifices and the Feasts upon them did ratifie and confirm his Covenant with those that did partake of them For Salt as is commonly observed being a constant concomitant of all Feasts and Covenants being made by eating and drinking at the same Table where Salt was ever used thence Salt it self was counted by the Ancients to be the Symbol of Friendship and proverbially used among the Greeks to express it By which other places may be explained about which some have bestowed vain labour XVIII Numb 19. 2 Chron. XIII 5. where the same words are used but inverted it being called a Covenant of Salt instead of the Salt of the Covenant because Covenants as I said were established by eating together where Salt is never wanting With all thine Offerings thou shalt offer salt Not only with the Minchas or Meat-offerings mentioned in this Chapter but with all other Sacrifices whatsoever Which is so solemnly enjoyned as Maimonides says in the place before-named because the Heathen did not use any Salt in their Sacrifices Which is not unreasonable to think since Honey with which Salt doth not well agree was in such constant use among them And therefore saith he God prohibited us to offer Leaven or Honey and commanded us with great seriousness to use Salt in all our Sacrifices That is as R. Levi of Barcelona explains it Praecept CXVI the Flesh of all Sacrifices was to be salted and the Meal of all Minchas For which he gives these two Reasons because nothing is grateful to the Palate without Salt which also preserves things from Corruption as the Sacrifices did their Souls from perishing Abarbanel saith the same And therefore whatsoever the Custom might be in ancient time among the Heathen in after Ages they learnt from Moses to use it in all their Sacrifices As appears from Pliny and Ovid and many other Authors the first of which says That Salt was so necessary that no Sacrifices were offered sine mola Salsa which every one knows the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And among the Jews this Salt was not brought by him that offered the Sacrifice but was provided at the Publick Charge there being a Chamber in the Court of the Temple as we read in Middoth cap. 5. sect 2. called The Chamber of Salt Which was one of the three Rooms on the North-side of the Court as there were three other on the South-side for other uses where the Flesh of the Sacrifices were powdered as the Mincha's were seasoned at the very Altar And this was so necessary that though a Sacrifice was not lookt upon as null if the Priest neglected to salt it yet the want of it in the Mincha's as the Hebrew Doctors say made them void because it is here so expresly required in this Verse Thou shalt not suffer the Salt of the Covenant of thy God to be lacking in thy Meat-offering And whosoever offered any Sacrifice without Salt or with Honey or Leaven was beaten as Mr. Selden observes L. II. de Synedr cap. 13. Ver. 14. Verse 14 And if thou offer a Meat-offering of thy first-fruits unto the LORD thou shalt offer for thy Meat-offering c. This is very
Action but with acknowledgment of those Mercies which were the occasion of it So Conradus Pellicanus well glosses upon I. 4. which may be best applied to the use of this Rite in Peace-offerings Laying on of Hands signifies Devotion and Faith with acknowledgment of the Divine Benefits for which we cannot offer any thing of our own but rather return and restore to him what we have received that we may understand giving of Thanks to be the greatest of our Sacrifices And kill it See ch I. v. 5. At the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation These being the lesser holy things as the Jews call them were not offered as the whole Burnt-offerings and Sin-offerings were on the North-side of the Altar See ch I. v. 11. but any where else near to the Entrance of the Tabernacle which was in the East where the others were thrown out and therefore a less holy place Only in laying on of hands every Man was bound wheresoever the Sacrifice was killed to turn his Face Westward toward the Sanctuary because then as I said he made certain Prayers and Acknowledgments to the Divine Majesty which was always to be done in that posture And Aarons sons the Priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the Altar round about See ch I. v. 5. Ver. 3. Verse 3 And he shall offer One of the Priests then in waiting at the Altar Of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings c. After the Sacrifice was flayed and cut up as is directed I. 6. The fat that covereth the inwards That is the Omentum as the Latins call it and hath much fat in it See XXIX Exod. 13. And all the fat that is upon the inwards All the Fat which adheres to the Mesentery and other Entrails Ver. 4. Verse 4 And the two kidneys and the fat that is on them The Kidneys are noted by Aristotle to have more Fat about them than any of the other Bowels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. III. de Animal cap. 9. Being so covered with it that in dissecting of a Body the Kidneys at first sight are not to be perceived as Anatomists observe particularly our own Country-man Dr. Highmore Which is by the flanks The Hebrew word Cesilim signifies the Loyns as Bochart hath demonstrated in his Hierozoicon P. I. L. II. c. 45. which have collops of fat upon them as Eliphaz speaks XV Job 27. and thence are easily inflamed XXXVIII Psal 7. And the caul above the liver The Hebrew word jothereth signifies the greatest Lobe of the Liver See XXIX Exod. 13. It shall he take away Separate from the rest of the Flesh to be offered on the Altar For all the Fat here mentioned was God's portion of the Sacrifice the Priest had the Breast and the right Shoulder and he that brought the Offering had the rest as will appear more fully VII 15 c. 31. 32 c. Ver. 5. Verse 5 And Aarons sons Some of those that Minister that day Shall burn it on the Altar upon the burnt-sacrifice By the Burnt-sacrifice seems here to be meant the daily Sacrifice which was burnt every Morning after which this was to be offered but not before it Which is upon the wood that is on the fire The same wood upon which the Burnt-sacrifice had been offered would serve to burn this Fat Which being intirely consumed as the Holocausts were it is called in the following words an offering made by fire of a sweet savour unto the LORD See ch 1. v. 9. That is God was pleased graciously to accept of their pious Acknowledgments the Offerings of these Inwards being as if he that brought them had said I will pour out my Soul unto the LORD in Thanks and Praise for the Benefits he had received So Abarbanel explains it in his Preface to this Book Ver. 6. Verse 6 And if his offering c. be of the flock i.e. Of Sheep or Goats which are both comprehended under the word Flock as was noted before ch 1. v. 2. Male or Female See v. 1. Where I observed a difference between these Sacrifices and whole Burnt-offerings in this respect that either Male or Female were accepted for Peace-offerings but Male alone for the other To which may be added that Birds were allowed for whole Burnt-offerings I. 14 15 c. but not for Peace-offerings which were only of the Herd or Flock i. e. of Bullocks Sheep or Goats The reason seems to be plain because Peace-offerings being to be divided between God the Priest and him that brought them the portion of each would have been so small that it would have made the Feast upon it so very meagre and jejune that it would have been contemptible He shall offer it without blemish It was at his choice whether he would bring it from the Herd or the Flock but in its kind it was to be perfect See chap. I. 3 9. Ver. 7. Verse 7 If he offer a lamb for his offering Though a Bird was not accepted for a Peace-offering yet a Lamb was though not of such value as a fat Sheep or a Goat Then shall he offer it before the LORD This seems to be meant of the Man's presenting it to be offered at the Altar Ver. 8. Verse 8 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering c. This whole Verse is only a direction to do with a Peace-offering of a Lamb or Sheep as they were to do with that of a Bullock v. 2. Ver. 9. Verse 9 And he shall offer of the Sacrifice of the Peace-offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD As was directed in the Offering of a Bullock v. 3. The fat thereof and the whole rump The whole Fat being to be offered as was ordered also before he enumerates the particulars because in this was more Fat than in other Sacrifices of this kind For the whole Rump of a Sheep was to be offered to God though not of a Bullock nor a Goat And the reason was because in those Countries the Tails of their Sheep are so vastly big that as Golius and others assure us the least of them weigh ten or twelve pound and some exceed forty pound weight and they are so very fat that they melt the Fat and keep it to butter their Rice and for other uses as Bochartus observes in his Hierozoicon P. I. L. II. cap. 45. It shall he take off hard by the back-bone The Hebrew word Atzah which we translate the Back-bone denotes that part which is next to the Tail or Rump and therefore must signifie that which Galen calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is a Bone at the extremity of the broad Bone called Os Sacrum confisting of three Cartalaginous parts as he describes it And the fat that covereth the inwards and all the fat that is upon the inwards See v. 3. Ver. 10. Verse 10 And the two kidneys and the fat that is upon them c. This Verse is explained above v. 4. Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the
Bond-woman betrothed to another XIX 20 21. Which are all the Cases belonging to this matter excepting that of the Nazarite defiled by the dead VI Numb 12. and of the Leper XIV 12. who were to be purged with a Sin-offering as well as with a Trespass-offering and therefore not to be considered in this matter See Dr. Owtram L. I. de Sacrificiis cap. 13. n. 8. and Samuel Petitus his Variae Lectiones cap. 22. who hath said the same but not so fully and distinctly If this do not satisfie yet it is plain the Sacrifices which go by this Name of Trespass-offerings and the Rites also about them were so different that they are sufficient to distinguish them from the other For none but Rams and Male-Lambs were admitted for Trespass-offerings which were not used at all in any Sin-offerings And the Blood of the Sin-offerings was put upon the Horns of the Altar as was noted in the foregoing Chapter v. 7 18 25. but that of the Trespass-offerings was sprinkled round about upon the Altar VII 2. Sin-offerings also were offered for the whole Congregation of Israel IV. 13. but Trespass-offerings only for private Persons which made Bonsrerius I suppose after a long discussion of this matter to conclude That the difference betwen Sin and Trespass consisted only in the Sacrifices which were offered for them See him upon the IVth Chapter of this Book v. 1. Ver. 16. Verse 16 And he shall make amends for the harm he hath done in holy things and shall add a fifth part thereunto c. Besides the Compensation mentioned in the foregoing Verse for the damage that was done according to the valuation made by the Priest there was a fifth part more to be added thereunto and given to the Priest who had suffered the damage And the Priest shall make an atonement for him with the Ram of the trespass-offering and it shall be forgiven him The Atonement was not made nor Forgiveness obtained till full Satisfaction for the wrong had been made Ver. 17. Verse 17 And if a soul sin and commit any of these things c. i. e. did eat any of the holy things before-mentioned which God forbad any but the Priests to eat Though he wist it not i. e. Be not certain whether they were holy or no. For the Hebrews generally call this Ascham Talui a dubious Trespass-offering being in a matter about which a Man was in Suspense whether he had offended or not Yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity He shall be obliged to offer this sort of Sacrifice Which was ordained saith R. Levi Barcelon Praecept CXXIII to make Men cautious and fear to sin and to attend diligently in all their Actions that they transgressed not the Laws of God Ver. 18. Verse 18 And he shall bring a Ram without blemish out of the flock with thy estimation c. The Offering before appointed v. 15 c. with this difference only that no fifth part was in this Case to be added because it was not certain whether he had transgressed or no. The Priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not Did not know whether he had offended or not which distinguishes this from the Sin of Ignorance mentioned v. 15. And it shall be forgiven him But if he afterwards came to have a certain knowledge of his Offence he was not excused by this dubious Offering as Rasi observes but was bound also to offer a Sin-offering Ver. 19. Verse 19 It is a trespass-offering In this case a Sacrifice must be offered as well as in a certain Trespass He hath certainly trespassed against the LORD The words in the Hebrew are Ascham ascham lajhova which I think should be translated A Trespass-offering certainly unto the LORD That is in this doubtful case let him take a sure course by offering the Sacrifice here prescribed For though neither this sort of Sacrifices nor Sin-offerings were to be voluntarily which was proper only to whole Burnt-offerings and Peace-offerings yet the very suspicion of a Guilt required a Sacrifice As for all those Offences which might be committed by Men who had no sense nor suspition of them they were expiated by the Sacrifices which were offered for the whole Congregation at certain stated times but no particular Person was to offer either Sin-offering or Trespass-offering of his own accord unless he knew or feared he had contracted some Guilt I cannot think fit to conclude this Chapter without taking notice how Jonathan paraphrases these last words of it who instead of saying he hath trespassed as it is commonly translated against the LORD saith against the Name of the Word of the LORD Which is an observation that might have been made in my Notes upon the two foregoing Books of Moses where many such passages occur which I did not mention And I should not have done it now being unwilling to swell this Commentary with any thing that doth not tend to the explaining the sense of the Text did not the impious Pamphlets that have lately been spread abroad against the Doctrine of the ever Blessed Trinity made it necessary for me to take this occasion to assert That this Doctrine was not unknown to the ancient Jews as appears even from the frequent mention of the Word of the LORD in the Chaldee Paraphrasts where the Hebrew hath only JEHOVAH or the LORD For which I can see no reason at all if there had not been a Notion among them of more Persons than One who were JEHOVAH It doth not always indeed carry this signification in it but there are very many places where by the WORD of the LORD cannot be meant a word spoken by the LORD or any thing else but a person speaking or acting c. who is the LORD There is a famous instance of it in XXVIII Gen. 20 21. where Jacob's Vow is thus translated by Onkelos Jacob vowed a vow saying if the WORD of the LORD will be with me and keep me c. then shall the WORD of the LORD be my God Where the WORD of the LORD is so plainly made the Object of his Adoration that it evidently shows they had a Notion in those days when Onkelos lived which was about our Saviour's time of more Persons than One who was the LORD The Hierusalem Targum also speaks this so clearly that one cannot but be something amazed to meet with such Expressions in it as those upon III Gen. 22. The WORD of the LORD said Behold Adam whom I have created is my only begotten in this World as I am the only begotten in the Heavens above Which may fairly induce a belief that St. John used the known Language of those times when he declared our blessed Saviour's Godhead under the Name of the WORD who was in the beginning with God and was God I Joh. 1. CHAP. VI. Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying What here follows belonging unto the same
concerning these various sorts of Meat-offerings in the second Chapter v. 4 5 7. Shall be the Priest's All but the Memorial of it which was burnt upon the Altar See II. v. 9 10. That offereth it That particular Priest who offered it was to have the remainder for his Portion Ver. 10. Verse 10 And every meat-offering Or but every Meat-offering for here is an Exception to the foregoing Rule Mingled with oil and dry The foregoing Verse speaks of such Meat-offerings as were any ways baken but this of those that were raw which were of two sorts either of Flour mingled with Oil as all voluntary Offerings of this sort were II. 1. or dry without any Oil as some Sin-offerings were V. 11. and the Offering of Jealousie V Numb 15. Shall all the sons of Aaron have one as much as another All the Priests who attended on that day were to have an equal share in this kind of Meat-offering though he alone who Ministred at the Altar had the baked Meat-offerings There are some indeed who can see no reason for this difference though this last sort others think was more easily divided and therefore shared among them all and consequently take these words to signifie the same with those in the foregoing Verse Every one in the course of his Ministry shall have this benefit in his turn of waiting at the Altar Ver. 11. Verse 11 And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings c. These are the only sort of Offerings remaining to be spoken of which when he required them of the People are mentioned in the third place after the Burnt-offerings and Meat-offerings before the Sin-offerings and Trespass-offerings But here are reserved for the last place in his directions he gives to the Priests about them because as there were several sorts of them so there were various Rites to be observed about them Which Rites as I observed before are called here the Law of such Sacrifices Ver. 12. Verse 12 If he offer it for a thanksgiving In this and in the sixteenth Verse we have an account of three sorts of Peace-offerings This which was the principal for Benefits received from God's bounty the other two for the obtaining such Blessings as they desired to receive And this of Thanksgiving was either general for the whole Congregation of which there was but one only at one time of the year in the Feast of Pentecost XXIII 19. which was accounted most holy or particular for private Persons as occasion offered which were accounted less holy And they are these here mentioned which might be either of the Flock or of the Herd but no Birds and either greater or smaller of those kinds that is of the Herd from the first year to the third and of the Flock from the first to the second year compleat If they were older they were not fit for Sacrifice All this R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CXXXVII explains at large Then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil c. The same R. Levi observes that some Peace-offerings were offered without any Bread viz. such as they called Hagigah and Schimcah Sacrifices of Festivity and Rejoycing i.e. at their great Solemn Festivals But these here mentioned were all offered with Bread and that offered with this which was the first of them was called the Bread of Thanksgiving R. Solomon Jarchi restrains this sort of Peace-offerings of Thanksgiving to such wonderful Deliverances as those mentioned in the CVIIth Psalm from Tempests at Sea or dangerous Travels through the Wilderness and the like Aben-Ezra also seems to have been of the same Opinion when he saith That Men being delivered out of Straits and Distresses gave Thanks to God by this Oblation But I can find no ground for this limitation it being far more likely that this Sacrifice was offered by all devout Persons for any Mercy whatsoever that God bestowed upon them Vnleavened cakes and unleavened wafers For none of God's Bread was to be leavened See Chapter the second v. 11. Ver. 13. Verse 13 Besides the cakes Before-mentioned which were to be unleavened He shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving c. Not upon the Altar for that was absolutely forbidden in the fore-named Chapther of this Book but he was to give it to the Priest who waited at the Altar and was to partake of this Sacrifice and to rejoyce together with him that offered it Which is the reason that such different sorts of Cakes are ordered in the foregoing Verse all unleavened of which the Priest was to have his share and also others leavened which are prescribed in this Verse that God's Family his Servants the Priests might want no variety of Bread at their Feasts upon these Sacrifices and that God might show his Friendship with those who offered the Sacrifice by accepting the same Bread at his own Table which they were wont to use at theirs Ver. 14. Verse 14 And of it he shall offer out of the whole oblation c. One of the Cakes before-mentioned v. 12. was to be presented to God for an Heave-offering Concerning which See XXIX Exod. 24 28. And it shall be the Priests that sprinkleth the blood of the peace-offerings Having offered one Cake out of the whole all that remained was the portion of the Priest who sprinkled the Blood of the Peace-offerings on the Altar Ver. 15. Verse 15 And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered c. The reason of this which was observed in most of their Sacred Feasts particularly in the Paschal Lamb XII Exod. 10. and in the Manna it self XVI 19 c. was to maintain the honour and dignity of the Sacrifices that they might not be in danger to be corrupted or turned to any profane use or gratifie Mens Covetousness For as Philo observes in his Book of Sacrifices It was not sit that these holy things should be put into their Cupboards but immediately set before those who were in need for they were no longer his that offered them but his to whom they were offered who being himself most liberal and bountiful would have Guests invited to his Table to partake with those that offered the Sacrifice Whom he would not have to look upon themselves as Masters of the Feast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they are but Ministers of the Feast not the Masters or Entertainers That belongs to God himself whose bounty ought not to be concealed by preferring sordid Parsimony before generous Humanity His meaning is that all the Sacrifice was God's who graciously granted to him that offered it a part of it to entertain his Friends and the Poor whom he would have invited forthwith that no part of it might be converted to any other use but that which God appointed who made the Feast Ver. 16. Verse 16 But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow
slain and divided the Priest was to put what belonged unto the LORD into the Man 's own hands viz. the Fat with the Breast and the Shoulder that he might present it himself unto the Divine Majesty That the breast may be waved for a wave-offering before the LORD This is the manner wherein it was to be presented the Man was to lift it up over his head and wave it to and fro his hands being supported and guided by the Priest See XXIX Exod. 24. and VI Numb 19 20. Maimonides describes the order of it in this manner first the Priest put into the Man's hands the Fat and then laid upon it the Breast and the Shoulder and after that one of the pieces of the Cakes for the Meat-offering upon them all which he waved about Ver. 31. Verse 31 And the Priest shall burn the fat upon the Altar but the breast shall be Aarons and his sons When that part which belonged to God's Altar viz. the Fat had been burnt there the Priests had the Breast and the Shoulder to their own use as Servants have what comes from their Master's Table For it was all offered unto God v. 29 30. who taking only the Fat for himself bad them take the rest viz. the Breast and the Shoulder which had been presented unto God by waving them to and fro as a Sacrifice to the LORD of the World but by him bestowed upon his Ministers for their maintenance in his Service This is more fully expressed in the three next Verses in which there is no difficulty and therefore I shall but lightly touch them Ver. 32. Verse 32 And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the Priests c. This is only a more particular declaration what belonged to the Priest who was to have not only the Breast before-mentioned but also the right Shoulder Ver. 33. Verse 33 He among the sons of Aaron that offereth the blood of the peace-offerings and the fat shall have the right shoulder for his part This is still a more special direction providing for the incouragement of that Priest who on that day ministred at the Altar unto whom the right Shoulder was appropriated as a reward of his pains in offering the Sacrifice Ver. 34. Verse 34 For the wave-breast and the heave-shoulder have I taken of the children of Israel from off the sacrifice of their peace-offerings and have given them to Aaron and his sons c. This doth not contradict what I observed just before for when he saith he hath given these to Aaron the Priest and his Sons the meaning must be to those of his Sons who at the time when these were offered sprinkled the Blood and burnt the fat Ver. 35. Verse 35 This is the portion of the anointing of Aaron and of the anointing of his sons c. In the Hebrew the words are This is the anointing of Aaron c. That is this they have in right of their Unction to the Priest's Office which intitles them to all before-mentioned In the day The Hebrew word Bejom may both here and in the next Verse be translated as I observed before VI. 20. from the day and ever after When he presented them to minister unto the LORD in the Priests office Made them draw near to attend upon him at his Altar Ver. 36. Verse 36 Which the LORD commanded to be given them in the day that he anointed them c. By virtue of a Grant from God when they were made Priests to enjoy this benefit in all future Ages By a statute for ever c. As long as this Law of Sacrifices and this Priesthood shall last See VI. 22. Ver. 37. Verse 37 This is the law of the burnt-offering of the meat-offering and of the sin-offering and of the trespass-offering c. This Verse contains a Summary of what he had commanded Aaron and his Sons from the ninth Verse of the sixth Chapter unto this place And of the Consecrations The whole order of their Consecration is not here directed but in XXIX Exod. only something belonging to that matter VI. 20 c. Ver. 38. Verse 38 Which the LORD commanded Moses in mount Sinai In that mountainous Country which lay near to Mount Sinai as Maimonides truly expounds it For he was come down from Mount Sinai and had delivered to them all that he received there XXXIV Exod. 29 32. before these Commands were given but they still continued near unto it and so the word behar may be translated by mount Sinai For as the last words of this Verse tells us they were still in the Wilderness of Sinai that is in that part of the Wilderness which took its name from its nearness to Mount Sinai In the day that he commanded the children of Israel to offer their oblations unto the LORD c. This doth not precisely signifie that he commanded Aaron and his Sons VI. 9 c. all these things on the very same day that he commanded the Children of Israel what Oblations to bring Chapt. I. 2 c. but they were delivered all at the same time immediately after the other without any other Commandments intervening CHAP. VIII Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying See IV. 1. Ver. 2. Verse 2 Take Aaron and his sons with him Having delivered the Laws and Rules about Sacrifices and the Rites belonging to them he now prepares the Priests to offer them as had been commanded And there is not much said in this Chapter but what hath been explained in XXIâ— Exod. and other neighbouring Chapters where he relates the Orders he received in Mount Sinai about those things which were now performed And the garments XXVIII Exod. 2 4. And the anointing oil XXX Exod. 24 c. And a bullock for the sin-offering and two rams and a basket of unleavened bread See XXIX Exod. 1 2 3 c. These were in their kind the very best of the legal Sacrifices as appears in part from that Expression of the Psalmist LXIX Psalm 30 31. where he prefers Thanksgiving and Praise before a Bullock that hath Horns and Hoofs a young Bullock which began to spread its Horns and Hoofs that is before the very best of all their bloody Sacrifices Ver. 3. Verse 3 And gather thou all the Congregation together c. All the Elders of the People with the great Officers who were set over Thousands and Hundreds c. For these are frequently called by the Name of Col ha Edah which we translate all the Congregation particularly in XXV Numb 7. XXXV 12. XX Josh 6. XXI Judg. 10 13 16. where the Elders of the Congregation and the Congregation and all the Congregation are plainly the same thing Which is further confirmed from the next Chapter of this Book v. 1. where it is said expresly Moses called Aaron and his Sons and the Elders of Israel Ver. 4. Verse 4 And Moses did as the LORD commanded Summoned them to appear before the LORD And the assembly
offend against this Precept if before they went into the Sanctuary they drank no more than the fourth part of a Log which contained an Egg-shell and an half If they exceeded this measure then their Ministry they say was profaned and they were liable to death by the hand of Heaven See R. Levi of Barcelona Praecept CLVIII who hath many Niceties about this matter as hath also Maimonides mentioned by the learned Dr. Outram in his Book de Sacrificiis Lib. I. cap. 6. n. 9. Lest ye die As their Brethren did See upon v. 1. where I observed it to be very probable that they were burnt with Fire from the LORD upon this account They that think it worth their while may see after what manner the Cabbalists make out this and what Reflections they make upon it in Theod. Hackspan's Cabala Judaica n. 144 145. It shall be a statute for ever throughout your Generations And such a Law there was in some Heathen Countries that no Magistrate all the year he was in Office nor any Judge while he was in Action and Employment should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so much as taste a drop of Wine So Plato tells us with which Eusebius compares this Law of Moses Lib. XII Praepar Evang. cap. 25. And Chaeremon the Stoick describing in Porphery's Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. IV. the Diet of the Egyptian Priests tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some of them drunk no Wine at all and others very little Ver. 10. Verse 10 That ye may put a difference between holy and unholy between clean and unclean Here is the ground and reason of this Precept that they might have their Wits about them as we speak and preserve their Minds from being clouded as Nabad's and Abihu's were who put no difference between holy Fire and common and so be able both to put a difference as the first words may be translated between holy and unholy c. and also to teach the People all the Statutes which God had delivered to them as it follows in the next Verse And here it must be observed that as some days and places were more holy than others so were some parts of the Sacrifices also which they might not eat themselves but were reserved for the Altar Some Beasts also were clean and others so unclean that they might neither be offered in Sacrifice nor eaten at their common Tables XI 47. Some Men and Women also were so unclean that they were not to be admitted into their ordinary Conversation much less into the Sanctuary Chap. XII XIII Of all which the Priests were the Judges and therefore had need to be perfectly sober that they might make an accurate difference between one thing and another And for such a like reason it was the Egyptian Priests were so abstemious in drinking Wine because they looked upon it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an impediment to the finding out of Truth So Chaeremon speaks in the forementioned Book Ver. 11. Verse 11 And that ye may teach the Children of Israel all the Statutes c. Which concern the Rites and Ceremonies of God's Worship Ver. 12. Verse 12 And Moses spake unto Aaron and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar his sons that were left This was still spoken on the same day a little after what he had said to them v. 6 7. Take the meat-offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire c. He seems to have been afraid that Aaron's grief for the loss of his Sons might have so disturbed his Mind as to have made him negligent in some part of his duty or that Eleazar and Ithamar through mistake or forgetfulness might have offended against some of the Laws lately delivered about Sacrifices which therefore he here repeats that they might be exactly observed And in the first place that they should eat what remained of the meat-offering as was commanded VI. 16. Where it is required also as it is here to be eaten without leaven and beside the Altar in the Court of the Tabernacle of the Congregation as it is there expressed For it is most holy See there VI. 17. Ver. 13. Verse 13 And ye shall eat it in the holy place This he repeats because they might possibly have forgotten it or not sufficiently attended to the difference between things most holy and things only holy The former of which the Priests alone might eat and that only in the holy place the other all their Family might eat as he saith in the next Verse in any place that was clean Because it is thy due and thy sons due c. No body might eat it but holy Persons for so God directed Chapt. II. 3. VI. 16 17 18. VII 9 10. Ver. 14. Verse 14 The wave-breast and the heave-shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place They were not bound to eat these in the Court of the Tabernacle as in the former case v. 13. but in any part of the Camp that was not defiled Thou and thy sons and thy daughters with thee These being those which the Jews call lighter holy things might be eaten by the whole Family as was before observed For they be thy due and thy sons due which are given you out of the sacrifice of peace-offerings of the Children of Israel They were bestowed upon them by an express Grant VII 34. where though only his Sons be mentioned as they are here yet it is plain all of their Family who were clean might eat of these things See upon VII 19. Ver. 15. Verse 15 The heave-shoulder and the wave-breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat to wave it for a wave-offering before the LORD This also he inculcates again which had been said before VII 29 30. that they must take care first to wave these things before the LORD and to burn the Fat upon the Altar for till this was done they had no right to eat these things And it shall be thine and thy sons with thee When they had been presented to the LORD of the whole Earth and he had received his part these became theirs by an express Grant from him VII 32 33 34. By a statute for ever As long as such kind of Sacrifices should last Ver. 16. Verse 16 And Moses diligently sought the Goat of the sin-offering Which had been offered for the People IX 15. And behold it was burnt This justified Moses his suspicion and fear that some mistake might have been committed in other matters because he found upon a diligent inquisition that they had burnt upon the Altar those parts of the sin-offering which they ought to have eaten themselves VI. 26 29. In which it was the easier for them to mistake without diligent observation of Moses his directions because the sin-offering which had been offered for Aaron himself was just before wholly burnt without the Camp IX 11. and so were all the Sin-offerings for the High-Priest and for the whole Congregation
Account of it in the place I named above that Moses by his admirable Wisdom understood what Creatures were lookt upon as Prophetical by the Egyptians and other Nations and these he prohibited to the Jews Among which he expresly names the Eagle and the Hawk Lib. IV. contra Celsum p. 225. For Diadorus Siculus saith Lib. I. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The People of Thebes worship the Eagle looking upon it as a Royal Bird and worthy of Jupiter And Julian in his Oration upon the Mother of the Gods Orat V. saith That in the time of their strictest Purifications they were permitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Spanhemius truly reads in the late Edition of Julian's Works to eat Birds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except a few which had been commonly held Sacred Which is a plain acknowledgment of the sacredness of some Birds among the Gentles The Ossifrage All Authors in a manner agree that the Hebrew word Peres signifies a kind of Eagle but what kind is not so certain Boobartus thinks it is rightly tranflated by Junius as it is by us the Ossifrage for the Hebrew word Paras in III Micab 3. is used for breaking of bones See Hierozoie P. II. Lib. II. c. 5. The Ospray This is also of the same Species and signifies that sort which the Greeks call Haliaetus the Sea-Eagle But Bochartus in the same Book cap. 6. thinks the Hebrew word Oznija rather signifies that which they call Melaniaetus the black Eagle Which though it be the least yet is the strongest of all other and therefore called Valeria by the Romans and was so noted for many other qualities besides its great strength that it makes it probable Moses did not here omit it Ver. 14. Verse 14 And the Vulture and the Kite after his kind No wonder Interpreters differ in their Translation of the two Hebrew words Daa and Aja the former of which we translate a Vulture the latter a Kite which others translate quite contrary taking Daa or Raa as it is called in Deuteronomy for a Kite because there is no way to find the signification of them unless it be by the roots from whence they may be thought to be derived Which makes Bochart think the first word ought to be translated a Kite called Daa from its very swift flight Most of the ancient and later Interpreters also are of his mind As for the second word in this Verse Aja some take it for a Vulture but Bochart from several observations judges it to be a kind of Hawk or Falcon. See in the same Book cap. 8. After this word there follows in Deuteronomy XIV 13. the name of a Bird which is here omitted called Daja which he takes for the black Vulture as the Reader may find in the next Chapter cap. 9. After his kind Though there be some little difference in shape yet these Birds all belong to one Species See v. 22. Ver. 15. Verse 15 Every Raven after his kind No Body doubts that the Hebrew word Oreb which signifies blackness is rightly translated a Raven of which the Arabian Writers mention four kinds And some think under this name is comprehended not only Crows and Daws and Choughs but Starlings and Pies also See Bochartus cap. 10. p. 202. Ver. 16. Verse 16 And the Owl The Hebrew word Bath-jaana it appears by many places in the Prophets signifies a Bird which inhabits the Wildernesses and desolate Places See XIII Isa 21. XXXIV 13. L Jer. 39 c. By which the ancient Interpreters of Scripture almost unanimously understand the Ostrich though a very learned Man of our own Nation Nic. Fuller in his Miscellanies Lib. VI. cap. 7. indeavours by a probable Argument to support our Translation But it hath been the constant perswasion of the Jews that God did not permit them to eat the Flesh of an Ostrich which is no where forbidden if not in this word And therefore Bochartus maintains against our Fuller and labours to prove that Bath-jaana signifies the fentale Ostrich P. II. Hierozoiv Lib. II. cap. 14. where he shows the word Bath i. e. daughter is prefixed to the name of many Birds without any respect to their Age and doth not signifie their young ones but only the females And the night Hawk In the next Chapter to that now named the same Bochart proves that the Hebrew word Thacmas which we here translate the Night-Hawk signifies the male Ostrich For there is no general name for this Bird in the Hebrew Language to comprehend both Sexes as there is for an Eagle and a Raven and therefore Moses mentions both Male and Female distinctly that none might think by forbidding one of them only he allowed the other And the Cuckow The LXX St. Hierom and some later Interpreters translate the Hebrew word Sachaph by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sea-gull Which the same great Man before-mentioned thinks most probable c. 18. And the Hawk after his kind There is the greatest consent in the Translation of the Hebrew word New which all agree signifies an Hawk from its strength and swiftness in flight which made it Sacred to Apollo For Eustathius observes upon Iliad X. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Hawk flies as the Sun moves very swiftly And every one knows there are very various kinds of these birds Callimachus mentions Six Aristotle X. and Pliny Sixteen sorts See Bochart in the same Book cap. 19. Ver. 17. Verse 17 And the little Owl Interpreters generally agree that Chos signifies a kind of Owl following the LXX who translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet Bochart hath collected a great many ingenious Arguments to prove that it signifies that Bird which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bittern See there cap. 20. And the Cormorant Though the same learned Person doth not approve of this Translation yet he acknowledges the Hebrew word Salach signifies some Sea-bird which sits upon Rocks and strikes at fishes with great force and draws them out of the Waters And so the Talmudists in the Treatise called Cholut expound it and the Gloss upon it there says it signifies the Crow of the Waters that is a Cormorant And the great Owl There are various Translations of the Hebrew word Jansaph which St. Hierom takes for a Stork and others for a Bustard But Bochart acknowledges the Syriac and Chaldee Translation to be the most probable which is the same with ours Ver. 18. Verse 18 And the Swan In this Translation we follow St. Hierom but Jonathan takes it for a kind of Owl which he calls Otja Whereby he means no doubt that Bird which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he saith is like an Owl having Tufts of Feathers about its ears from whence it hath the name of Oâ—â— L. VIII cap. 12. And so the Chaldee the Syriac and the Samaritan here translate the Hebrew word Thinsemeth which a great many Modern Interpreters follow who take this for that which the Latins
holy things but otherwise leaving them at liberty to perform all manner of Offices in their Family during the time of their Purification More Nevoch P. III. cap. 47. It is apparent also that other Gentiles kept their Women from their Temples a long time after their Child-birth and that Superstitious People would not so much as go within their doors See Dilherrus in the fore-named Book and Chapter Ver. 5. Verse 5 And if she bear a Maid-child then shall she be unclean two weeks as in her separation The time of strict Separation when they brought forth a Female was double to that which was prescribed v. 2. when they brought forth a Male. And so also was the time of their Purification which lasted threescore and six days as they in the other Case by thirty and three The reason of which difference not only the Jews but others also derive from the greater redundancy as R. Levi Barcelonita calls it Praecept CLXVI of Blood in the latter Case than in the former and from the flowness of Nature in its operation which made the Purgation longer before it was effected Hippocrates himself treats of this difference in his Book de Natura Puerp where he saith Women are sooner purged after the Birth of Males than of Females See Joh. Meursius in his Syntagma de Puerperio cap. 6 7. The natural weaknesses of Women also during this time required quiet and little Company from which the very temper of their Blood in those Climates made a longer Separation more necessary than in these colder Regions But if there were no such apparent reason to be given of these things yet vel ex ipsa veneranda antiquitate simplicitate suscipienda forent minimè contemnenda as Conrad Pellicanus speaks upon the foregoing Chapter v. 35. they ought for the sake of their venerable antiquity and simplicity to be duly regarded and not to be despised Ver. 6. Verse 6 And when the days of her Purification are fulfilled for a son or for a daughter Which was not till the end of the fortieth day for a Son and the eightieth day for a Daughter And therefore the Offerings here mentioned were not offered till the day after viz. the LXI day for the one and the LXXXI day for the other because till then her Purification was not perfected as Maimonides observes in his Book de Sacrificiis Tract V. sect 5. where he observes also that they might not eat of holy things till these Sacrifices had been offered for them And she shall bring a Lamb of the first year Which then was in its greatest Perfection as hath been often noted For a burnt-offering In gratitude to God for giving her a safe Deliverance and bestowing a Child upon her and raising her up to her former strength and bringing her again to his Sanctuary Where by this Offering she also commended her self and Child to his continued Care and Blessing and implored his Divine Guidance and Assistance in its Education For these Offerings as I observed before were a kind of Supplication which they that brought them made to God and there was nothing that pious People could more earnestly desire on such occasions than that God would take their little ones into his tuition Who are continually liable to so many Dangers that without the special Favour of God and the Custody of his Angels they could never grow to be able to take any care of themselves They are the words of Conradus Pellicanus upon this place who thence infers how necessary it is that the People of the Church should be admonished frequently to commend their Children unto God both by private and by publick Prayers and take care of their Instruction lest they become like the Horse and the Mule that have no Vnderstanding And a young Pigeon or a turtle Dove for a sin-offering To compleat her Purification from her Uncleanness For that is here meant by Sin the impurity which the Law made by Separating such Persons from others and from the Sanctuary for a time And thus a Sin-offering is commanded to be brought by a Leper when he was cleansed who was charged only with a Legal Uncleanness not a Moral And it is more plain from what is ordained concerning menstruous Women whose Courses were purely natural and yet they were to offer a Sin-offering when they were gone XV. 30. because the Law accounted that a state of Uncleanness And from the case of a Nazaarite who had unwillingly touched a dead Body V Numb 11. where it is said he had sinned by the dead i.e. was legally polluted And this may be the reason perhaps why a Burnt-offering is here mentioned before the Sin-offering which is wont to precede the other v. 7 8. It may be conceived indeed that in all the forementioned Cases those Persons especially Lepers had some way offended God before or in their state of Separation and therefore were to have their sin properly so called expiated by a Sin-offering And R. Bechai also gives another probable account of it that this Sacrifice was offered not for her own Sin but the Sin of her first Parent the Mother of all Living who brought Sin and Sorrow into the World for from a bad Stock there cannot sprout good Branches and therefore God appointed this Offering for the Expiation of that primary Sin Vnto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation unto the Priest It was a most wise Constitution as a Person of excellent Learning Dr. Alix observes which bound this People from their first coming into the World to their going out of it to have a dependence upon the Priests and the Levites who for that purpose were dispersed through all the Tribes of Israel that People might be instructed by them how to govern themselves in all the passages of Human Life For there are Laws not only about Marriages and Successions but about their lying in whether of a Son or Daughter and about all they were to do while that time lasted and when it ended and indeed all the time they lived and when they went out of the World in their Funerals and Mourning for the Dead Ver. 7. Verse 7 Who shall offer it before the LORD and make an atonement for her By this Offering she was restored to the liberty of God's House and to partake of holy things For so it follows And she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood No longer separated from holy Society This is the Law for her that hath born a male or a female All this principally respected the Women yet not excluding her Child who it appears by S. Luke II. 22. was on this day of his Mothers Purification presented unto the LORD That indeed had respect to the Law about the First-born but a very ancient MS. and the Syriac and Origen taking this for the day of their Purification and not meerly of hers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it plainly shows the Child could not be admitted into the
spreading of them after they were first discovered The plague is a fretting leprosie The Hebrew word Mamereth which we translate sretting is very variously rendered by the ancient Interpreters as Bochart hath observed in his Hierozoicon P. I. L. II. cap. 45. where from the Arabick Tongue he thinks it may be best translated an exasperated or irritated Leprosie That is very sharp and pricking which sutes well with our Translation eating into the Garment or Skin till it was consumed Abarbanel translates it painful because this sort of Leprosie in the body of a Man was full of anguish And so this word is used in XXVIII Ezek. 24. where a Thorn is called Mamir and translated by us a grieving Thorn Ver. 52. Verse 52 He shall therefore burn that garment c. It seems this Leprosie could never be got out of the Garment or Skin wherein it was which therefore was ordered to be burnt as never likely to be fit for use Ver. 53 54. Verse 53 54. If it be not spread in the garment c. If the Spot was at a stay and did not proceed further then the Garment as the following Verse directs was to be washed and shut up for seven days in which time it appeared whether the impurity were quite gone or still remained Ver. 55. If the plague hath not changed its colour If washing had not altered that vitious colour but it still continued very red or green And the plague be not spread Or though it be not spread yet it was to be pronounced unclean and adjudged to be burnt It is fret inward Though it did not spread in breadth yet it fretted in depth Whether it be bare within or without In the Hebrew the words are In the baldness of the hinder part or in its forepart which seems to be a manner of speaking taken from v. 42 43. where he treats of bald heads And the meaning is whether it eat into the right side of the Garment which is compared to the forehead or into the wrong side which is compared to the hinder part of the head making it as bare as a bald head is when there is not a hair left For this sort of Leprosie was wont to eat off the nap of the Cloth and make it thread-bare Ver. 56. Verse 56 And if the Priest look and behold the plague be somewhat dark after the washing of it c. If it had changed its colour from very green or red and become duskish or as Abarbanel understands it the Spot was contracted or shrunk up in the washing so that it was gone in part if not in whole then the Priest was to cut out that part of the Garment where the Spot was there being some indication that the whole Garment might not be tainted Ver. 57. Verse 57 If it appear still in the garment c. If after that Spot was cut out the neighbouring parts appeared to have a tincture of a very green or red colour it was to be taken for a demonstration that there was a spreading Leprosie as it here follows in the Garment or Skin which would proceed till it was intirely infected with it Thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire Therefore the Leprosie being incurable there was no other remedy but to destroy the thing wherein it was Ver. 58. Verse 58 And the garment either warp or woof or whatsoever thing of skin it be which thou shalt wash if the plague be departed from them c. Whatsoever after washing had no appearance of such Spots as are before-mentioned v. 49 c. remaining in it there was no further trial to be made of it but being washed a second time it was to be accounted clean i. e. fit for common use Ver. 59. Verse 59 This is the Law of the plague of leprosie in a garment of wollen or linen c. By these Rules the Priests were to judge whether Garments were lawful to be used or no and accordingly to determine as by the Rules in the foregoing part of the Chapter they were to judge and pronounce whether Men and Women were fit to be allowed to keep company with others And when we consider how nice and diligent many Nations were and still are in their washings after any sort of defilement it is no wonder as Conradus Pellicanus here glosses that some Laws of Cleanliness even about their Garments were prescribed to the Jews which admonished them of that inward purgation of their hearts from all impure affections about which they were to be far more solicitous I have forborn to apply what is here said of the Leprosie in this Chapter to the various degrees of Pollutions that are in mens minds because that would have made this Book too large and it is done already by a great number of Commentators both Modern and Ancient particularly among the later by Procopius Gazaeus and Hesychius Presb. Hierosolymorum who sometimes have done it very ingeniously CHAP. XIV Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying All that is said before concerning the Rules whereby they were to discern the Leprosie from the like Diseases were given unto Aaron as well as unto Moses XIII 1. For Aaron and his Posterity were constituted the Judges of such matters in which they had need to be well studied and versed But the way and manner of cleansing a Leper is delivered only to Moses to be by him given unto Aaron and his Sons who were to depend on him as God's great Minister and their Instructer in all Religious Rites Ver. 2. Verse 2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing The manner and means which God hath ordained of purifying a Leper as Maimonides expounds it and restoring him to the Communion of God's People He shall be brought unto the Priest Not to the House of the Priest for he was to go out to the Gate of the Camp as appears by the next Verse and thither the Leper was to be brought to him But these words seem to import the Leper was first to come towards the Camp unto some place which the Priest it is likely appointed and then the Priest having notice of it was to go out and look upon him Ver. 3. Verse 3 And the Priest shall go forth out of the Camp To the place where the Leper was XIII 46. And the Priest shall look Diligently examine in what condition the Leper is by the Rules mentioned in the foregoing Chapter And behold if the plague of leprosie be healed in the leper The Priest no doubt had been informed before he went to make the inspection that there were good grounds to believe the Man was freed from his Leprosie Ver. 4. Verse 4 Then shall the Priest command to take for him c. That some of his Friends or such as he ordered should provide what follows for his Purification Two birds alive that are clean The margin of our Bibles translates it two Sparrows and they
polluted to come unto his Sanctuary For there were so many sorts of Pollutions made by the Law that it was very hard to avoid falling under some of them and consequently a business of great care circumspection and labour to approach as they ought into the Divine Presence For if a Man escaped defilement by a dead body yet he could not easily avoid being defiled by some of the eight creeping things which he might chance to tread upon or might fall on his Meat or his Drink And if he escaped these yet he might be defiled involuntarily by the means mentioned here v. 16. or by touching a menstruous Woman or one that had a Flux of Blood or at least by touching their Bed their Seats or something belonging to them c. All which kept a Man from the Sanctuary which he could not enter therefore when he pleased but was to stay a certain time before he could be admitted to worship God there and not then neither till he had washed himself By all which actions reverence affection and devotion was preserved to the Sanctuary and Men were excited to great humility which in this was principally regarded Ver. 32. Verse 32 This is the law of him that hath an issue c. In this and the next Verse he recapitulates the Matter of this Chapter as he did in the latter end of the foregoing sum up the Contents of that Ver. 33. Verse 33 And of him that hath an issue of the man and of the woman Even of the Person that hath an issue whether it be Man or Woman c. CHAP. XVI Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron This Chapter would have naturally followed the Tenth Chapter where the death of those two Persons is related if that had not occasioned the inserting some other Laws about Uncleanness See Preface to Chapter XI which being delivered Moses now goes on to give direction about the great Sacrifice in which the whole Nation was concerned as he treated of lesser and common Sacrifices in the beginning of the Book When they offered before the LORD and died See X. 1. This is mentioned again to make the Priests careful not only to Sacrifice unto the LORD alone but after such a manner as he ordered Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto thy brother Aaron that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail Into the holy place without the Vail he or some of the other Priests were bound to go every day Morning and Even when they offered Incense But into this as none of them might go at all so he not at all times when he went into the other but only upon one particular occasion which is mentioned here in this Chapter Before the Mercy-seat which is upon the Ark. This being the place of God's special Presence none might enter into it but his principal Minister and he no oftner than the Divine Majesty allowed which was only once a year it appears from v. 29. when he offered the great Sacrifice here prescribed And so much was intimated to Moses before XXX Exod. 10. And the Jews add That on this day of the year he might go in but four times once to burn Incense a second time to sprinkle the Blood of the Bullock then to sprinkle the Blood of the Goat and lastly to fetch out the Censer wherein he burnt Incense If he went in a fifth time he died for his presumption as they say particularly R. Levi Barcel Praecept CCLXXXVI Such sacred places the Gentiles had in some Countries which according to this pattern were opened only once a year Particularly Pausanias mentions in his Book Boeotica the Temple of Dindymene which they thought it was not lawful to open more than one day in the year 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the same he saith of another in the same Book and in his Eliaca of the Temple of Orcus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is opened once every year See Dr. Owtram's excellent Book De Sacrificiis Lib. I. cap. 3. Lest he die As his Sons had done for their Presumption in offering with other fire than God allowed In the like danger Aaron himself had been if he had come into the Divine Presence without his leave and without such caution as is given v. 13. which is the reason of this order here delivered to Moses and by him to Aaron for the prevention of any such dangerous mistake For I will appear in the Cloud upon the Mercy-seat That was God's own Dwelling-place where his GLORY appeared into which therefore none might enter but when he appointed and as he directed The only difficulty is what is meant by the Cloud wherein he saith he will appear on the Mercy-seat One would think he meant as usually the Cloud wherein the Divine Glory resided XL Exod. 34 35. 1 Kings VIII 10 11. But the Cloud seems to have been on the out-side of the Tabernacle and within a Glory or great Splendor only unclouded And therefore most I think understand this of the Smoak of the Incense that the High-Priest burnt when he entred into the most holy place which was the Cloud wherewith the Mercy-seat was then covered v. 13. And there is great reason for this Opinion for if there had been a Cloud in the most holy place over the Mercy-seat before the High-Priest entred what need had there been to make a new Cloud of Smoak as he is ordered v. 13. when the Divine Glory was sufficiently obscured already Besides in the place before-mentioned XL Exod. the Cloud as I now observed is said to be without the Tabernacle and to cover it the Glory only being within and in the other place of the Book of Kings and 2 Chron. V. 13 14. it is said only to fill the House of the LORD i.e. the Body of the Temple but not to be settled upon the Mercy-seat Where we may very well doubt whether there was any Cloud or no but only the Divine GLORY The only ground that I can see for it is that God is said there to dwell in thick darkness which seems to import that the Divine GLORY was wrapt up in a Cloud But however that be expounded these words which we here translate I will appear in the Cloud upon the Mercy-seat may very well be rendred I will be approached in a Cloud i. e. of Incense For so this word we translate appear is used XXIII Exod. 15. not for God's appearing to them but for the Peoples appearing before him and this sense the 13th Verse seems to inforce as Campegius Vitringa hath observed Lib. I. Observ Sacr. cap. 11. Ver. 3. Verse 3 Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place As he might come into it only once a year so then with such preparation and in such a manner as is here prescribed And the Jews say that he was separated from his own House and Family seven days before and
Verse 5 And he shall take of the Congregation of the Children of Israel The former Sacrifices v. 3. were for himself these for all the People Two Kids of the Goats for a Sin-offering These two Goats made but one Sin-offering which is described more largely and particularly v. 8 9 10. The former perhaps which was sacrificed to the LORD was to procure those good things which they had forfeited by their sins and the other the Scape-goat as we translate it to avert those Evils which they had deserved For the name that is commonly given it by the Greeks signifies its power to turn away Punishments Or the simple reason of it might be that the Israelites by this double Sacrifice for both were presented before the LORD might be the more fully satisfied of the Expiation of their Sins There is the like example before of two Birds appointed for the cleansing of a Leper's House one of which only was killed the other let fly away but both of them are said to cleanse the House and to be for atonement XIV 49 52 53. In which some of the ancient Fathers thought they saw a notable Type of our LORD Christ Whose Sacrifice as it was prefigured by all the Legal Sacrifices for the Paschal Lamb it self was a Type of him sacrificed for us 1 Corinth V. 7. so by this more especially on the Day of Expiation Which was of greater and more universal efficacy than all the rest and therefore represented him more fully than the other did Insomuch that these two Goats joyned in one Sacrifice may be thought to represent one Christ consisting of two Natures For since it was not possible as Theodoret expresses it to adumbrate both the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which was mortal and that which was immortal in Christ he commanded two to be brought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Goat which was offered in Sacrifice might prefigure the passible Nature of his Flesh and that which was let go might show the impassible Nature of his Divinity Quaest XXII in Levit. And St. Cyril Discourses to the same purpose in his ninth Book against Julian And one Ram for a Burnt-offering Which was no more than was appointed for Aaron himself v. 3. who herein is equalled with all the Princes of the People in whose name this Ram seems to have been offered Ver. 6. Verse 6 And Aaron shall offer his Bullock of the Sin-offering which is for himself Not by killing it which was done afterwards v. 11. but only by presenting it before God to be sacrificed which was done with a solemn Prayer wherein he beseeched God to be propitious unto him and his The form of it is set down in Massechet Joma cap. 3. sect 8. He laid his hand upon the head of the Bullock and said I have done amiss and been rebellious and sinned before thee I and my House I beseech thee now O LORD remit my Rebellion and my Sin which I have committed and my House c. And make an atonement for himself and for his house For his Family as I said v. 3. and for all the Priests who are called the House of Aaron CXV Psal 10 12. CXXXV 9. And I do not see why all the House of Levi should not also be understood For they are not comprehended under the name of the Congregation of the Children of Israel mentioned in the Verse before and therefore must be contained here under the name of the House of Aaron See I Numb 49. Ver. 7. Verse 7 And he shall take the two Goats Mentioned v. 5. which were to be of equal stature of the same colour and the same price as the Hebrew Doctors say in Joma cap. 6. both designed to the same end the Expiation of their Sins And present them before the LORD at the door of the Tabernacle c. All the Sin-offerings which were made for the Congregation were presented either by the High-Priest or by the Elders IV. 15. and by them devoted to God to be sacrificed on his Altar For this presenting of the Goat is the same with his offering of the Bullock in the Verse foregoing in which was nothing else but his solemn Consecration of them as I said to be sacrificed According to which pattern our blessed LORD and Saviour a little before he suffered upon the Cross and made himself a Sacrifice for us voluntarily offered himself to die for our sins Which is the meaning of those words of his XVII John 19. where praying for his Apostles he saith For their sakes I sanctifie my self that is offer my self to die as an Expiatory Sacrifice for them For that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Owtram hath demonstrated Lib. II. de Sacrificiis cap. 3. And so St. Chrysostom here expounds these words I sanctifie my self by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I offer thee a Sacrifice or consecrate and devote my self to be sanctified And it is not an improbable Conjecture of another very learned Friend of mine now also with God Dr. Spencer that the appointing of two Goats to be both presented to God at the same time and with the same Rites was to preserve the Jews in a belief that there is but one principle of all things who both bestows good things and inflicts evil Contrary to the opinion of the Gentiles who made two Principles one good and the other bad which was the ancient belief of the Chaldaeans and other Eastern People and from them propagated to the Greeks and Romans Most of whose Sacrifices as another very learned Man of our own Country hath observed had respect to these two Principles to one of which they offered in the Morning and to the other at Night See Dr. Windet de Vita Functorum statu sect 3. where he observes that there are plain footsteps of this old Error at this day through all the East as far as China for there was an endeavour to infect Christianity with it by Manes the Persian in the Reign of the Emperor Aurelian nor was there any Heresie that spread so far as this Dotage did Ver. 8. Verse 8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two Goats The manner of it is described in the same Treatise Massechet Joma cap. 3. sect 9. The High-Priest went to the East-part of the Court on the North-side of the Altar having the Sagan his Vicar on his right hand and the head of the House of the Fathers on his left There stood two Goats with an Vrn or Box which they call CALPI the very same name which Lucian and the Scholiast upon Aristophanes give to the same thing as our learned Sheringham upon that Book and Bochart in his Hierozoicon have observed Into this Urn the two Lots were cast which were made of Box-wood as the Misna here says and in after times came to be of Gold But Maimonides in his Treatise on this Subject saith they might be made either of Wood or Stone
day For which reason the greatest care was to be used to see it rightly observed because all their happiness depended upon it For the Land of Canaan was promised them upon condition that they kept the Law offering all the Sacrifices therein prescribed especially this great Sacrifice which was to cleanse them from the guilt of all their Neglects or Breaches of this Law Which should teach us Christians to conclude That as the Inheritance of that good Land was assigned the Jews in consideration of their Sacrifices as the condition of that Covenant by which they were prescribed so the Inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven is made over to us by the Covenant of Grace in consideration of the Obedience and Sufferings of Christ Jesus of which they were a Figure For it is his Blood that cleanseth us from all unrighteousness as St. John speaks and secures our Claim to the heavenly Inheritance That ye may be clean from all your sins If a Man was bound to offer Sacrifice for any sin that was certain he was not excused from it by this Sacrifice on the Day of Expiation but was bound to make that other Sacrifice also But the Day of Expiation freed those who were bound to offer Sacrifices for dubious Offences So Maimonides saith in his Treatise of Offences committed through Error cap. 3. sect 9. that those sins which were known to none but God were taken away by this solemn Day of Expiation without any other Sacrifice But the Misna in the last Section of Joma acknowledges very honestly that the Day of Expiation did not purge Men from the guilt of the Offences they had committed against their Neighbour unless they first gave him Satisfaction Before the LORD Who dwelt among them and would continue to do so if they observed his Laws and took care to be thus cleansed from all their sins But least any Man should mistake this matter it may be here fit to observe that there were no Sacrifices at all appointed by the Law of Moses for Capital Offences and therefore when he speaks here of making them clean from all their sins upon this day such as these for instance Murder Adultery Idolatry c. are not included for this great Sacrifice could not obtain a Pardon for them but only for Offences committed against the Ritual Laws contained in this Book and that also when they were committed through Error or Ignorance for if they were done presumptuously cutting off was threatned to them See XV Numb from v. 22. to v. 32. And this appears plainly from the Sacrifices themselves that are here appointed which had no vertue in them from their own worth and value but only from God's Institution to make Expiation for any Sin For the death of a Bullock or a Goat was not of such account with God that it could prevail for the taking away of guilt unless he had given it such a power And that power which he was pleased to allow unto them was neither infinite nor could it be so For the guilt that they were principally designed to abolish was not of such a nature as to require such an Expiation It arising from things which were neither good nor evil in themselves and therefore could not create such a guilt Such were all the uncleannesses from certain natural Fluxes from touching a dead Body and innumerable other such like Impurities which depending wholly upon the will of God who by a positive Law made such things to bring Men under a guilt by the same Will he appointed a proportionable Expiation of it by these Sacrifices whose power to cleanse depended also purely upon his pleasure And if they had any vertue to purge Men from the real guilt of sins committed against the Eternal Laws of God this they had not of themselves but from the most gracious Will of God who was pleased to apply to this purpose the future Satisfaction of the immaculate Lamb of God of which these Sacrifices were a Shadow and Type For a Body being prepared for the Son of God and he offering himself for us that was a Sacrifice of such infinite value in its own nature that it expiated all manner of sins of all Men. To this effect that excellent Person Joh. Wagenseil discourses in his Confutation of R. Lipman's Carmen Memoriale p. 488. Ver. 31. Verse 31 It shall be a Sabbath of rest unto you In the Hebrew the words are a Sabbath of Sabbaths i. e. a great or perfect Sabbath like that of the Seventh day in every Week on which they might do no manner of Work And so the Seventh day is called just as this is a Sabbath of Rest or Sabbath of Sabbaths See XXXI Exod. 15. XXXV 2. which gave occasion to those jeers we meet withal in Martial and others at the Jews fasting on their Sabbath days For reading Moses his Books carelesly they fancied the Jews observed as strict a Fast upon every Sabbath day as they did on this which was but once a year And ye shall afflict your Souls by a statute for ever See v. 29. Ver. 32. Verse 32 And the Priest whom he shall anoint c. The High-Priest who should be anointed and consecrated in his Father's stead when he was dead is here ordered to make this Atonement yearly That is what was now done by Aaron was to be done by every High-Priest successively when he was legally put into his Office by vesting him with the Priestly Garments anointing him and offering the Sacrifices of Consecration VIII 7 10 22. This Statute confined the sacred work of this day to the High-Priest who alone could perform it But it shows withal as the Apostle observes the great imperfection of this Legal Priesthood which could not by reason of death continue always in one Person but there were many Priests succeeding one another in the Office which became often vacant Whereas our great High-Priest because he continueth for ever i. e. never dies hath an unchangeable Priesthood and therefore is able to save to the uttermost or evermore those that come to God by him VII Hebr. 23 24 25. And shall put on the linen clothes even the holy garments He was to take a special care not to officiate on this day in any other Garments but those mentioned v. 4. which were peculiarly appropriated to this Service and called the white Garments which were a Figure perhaps of the perfect Purity of our great High-Priest who as it there immediately follows VII Hebr. 26. is holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners Ver. 33. Verse 33 And he shall make an atonement for the holy Sanctuary c. In this Verse he only sums up the whole duty of the day in which a general Atonement was made for all Things and for all Persons The only thing to be observed is That the Expiation of the Sanctuary the Tabernacle and the Altar preceded the Expiation of the Priests and of the People who were to be expiated by the Sacrifices offered
the punishment of every one who killed another Man IX Gen. 6. so here he is condemned to die who sacrificed any where but at the Tabernacle And that man shall be cut off from among his people This not another punishment unless we suppose it relates to his Posterity and therefore the first word should be translated not and but for And the meaning either is that the Magistrate should pass the Sentance of Death upon him or God would destroy him himself The latter sense is most probable because he threatens v. 10. to execute Vengeance with his own hand upon him that was guilty of eating Blood It is thought indeed by some that cutting off doth not signifie death but as in other places of this Book cutting off is so evidently joyned with death that so little cannot be meant by it as depriving such Persons of the priviledges of God's People for instance when any offered his Children to Moloch XX. 2 3 4 5. or did not afflict his Soul on the Day of Atonement XXIII 29 30. so here in this place it most certainly signifies the putting him that was guilty of this Crime to death because he was to be punished as a Murderer Which severe Penalty was enacted in this case to preserve the Israelites from Idolatry For if they had been permitted to offer Sacrifice where they pleased they might easily have forsaken God by altering the Rites which he had ordained nay by offering to strange Gods particularly to the Daemons which in those days frequented the Fields and indeavoured to perswade the ignorant that they were Gods as seems to be intimated in the next Verse and v. 7. Ver. 5. Verse 5 To the end Or For this cause i. e. to avoid that heavy punishment before-mentioned That the Children of Israel may bring their Sacrifices Or Shall bring as the Vulgar Latin translates it regarding the sense more than the words Ideo Sacerdoti offerre debent c. Therefore they ought to bring to the Priest their Sacrifices c. Which they offer in the open field Where the Pagans erected their Altars to procure fruitfulness to their Fields Insomuch that Libanius saith in his Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Temples or Holy Places were the very Soul or Life of the Fields 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that in them lay the hope of the Husbandmen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How old this Idolatry was we cannot certainly tell but it continued a long time among the Israelites as we learn from the Prophet Jeremiah XIII 27. and Hosea XV. 11. where he saith Their Altars were as heaps in the furrows of the field that is there were abundance of them notwithstanding this early prohibition given by Moses And among the Gentiles Festus tells us they offered Sacrifices to the terrestrial Gods in terra upon the very ground according to the Hebrew phrase here on the face of the field but to the infernal Gods in terra effossa in holes or pits digged in the Earth and to the caelestial in aedificiis à terra exaltatis in Buildings exalted above the Earth i. e. upon Altars which had their name from hence ab altitudine from their height as both he and Servius also tell us And every one knows that they delighted to set them in high places on the tops of Mountains and Hills especially where there were Groves and shady Trees under which they set them even in Valleys and in the High-ways Fields and Meadows For they were so fond of them that those who were against erecting of Temples to their Gods as Zeno was yet never sacrificed without Altars which they set in the open Air to signifie they believed he whom they worshipped could not be circumscribed Even that they may bring them unto the LORD Or They shall bring them even unto the LORD who had settled his Habitation at the Tabernacle and would be worshipped no where else with Sacrifices Vnto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation unto the Priest Here seems to be another reason why they were not permitted to offer in the Field because God would have none but the Priests Men appointed by himself to attend for this purpose at his House to offer Sacrifices to him according to the Rites he had prescribed And offer them for peace-offerings unto the LORD Upon these words Nachmanides grounds the forenamed opinion That whilst the Jews continued in the Wilderness they ate no Meat at their own private Tables but what had been first offered to God at the Tabernacle Behold saith he God commanded that all which the Israelites did eat should be Peace-offerings Which was afterwards altered when they came to Canaan and lived remote from the House of God And such a Custom prevailed among the Gentiles who would not sit down to eat at their Tables till they had offered Bread and Wine unto their Gods Thus it was among the Chaldees as appears from I Daniel 8. But then they had many Altars every where even in their own private Houses Whereas here in the Wilderness there was but one Altar which could not contain all the Fat that was to be burnt on it every day if we suppose the Israelites to have commonly killed Beasts for their own eating It seems to be the truer opinion that they seldom or never did that while they were in the Wilderness but all the Beasts they killed were for Sacrifice of which Moses here speaks So R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CLXXXVII and other Jewish Doctors they are here forbidden to offer a Sacrifice to God any where without the Tabernacle He mentions indeed only Peace-offerings but the reason is because they were most common being offered not only for all the Mercies they had received but for all they desired to obtain from God as Abarbanel observes upon the VIIth Chapter of this Book where the several sorts of them are mentioned Men were more forward also to bring these Offerings than any other because they were to have their share of them and feast upon them Ver. 6. Verse 6 And the Priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the Altar of the LORD at the door of the Tabernacle This depends upon the foregoing command of offering all their Sacrifices at the Tabernacle that so the Blood might be sprinkled upon the Altar and poured out at the bottom of it as is required in other places of this Book and not kept together in a Vessel or a hole in the Ground As the manner of the ancient Idolatry was when they offered their Sacrifices in the Field and sate about this Blood and feasted upon the Flesh of their Sacrifice So Maimonides saith the Custom of the Zabij was More Nevoch P. III. cap. 46. And burn the fat So the manner was in all Sacrifices which is said also to be for a sweet savour unto the LORD See I. 8 9. III. 3 5. IV. 35 c. Ver. 7. Verse 7 And they shall no more It seems by this they had been guilty
are threatned to be cut off if they did not observe this Law Ver. 10. Verse 10 And what man soever he be of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among you See v. 8. That eateth any manner of blood This is forbidden before III. 17. and repeated again VII 26. See both those places where it is explained what Blood he means either of Birds or Beasts Nothing is said of Fishes because they were not offered at the Altar and have little Blood in them nor is there any direction given any where how they should be killed It is said indeed in this place that they should not eat any manner of Blood but the meaning seems to be neither of Blood offered at the Altar nor of Beasts killed for their own use Or else it is to be limited as before to the Blood of Beasts and Birds v. 13. for Fishes were not at all considered And here the reason is added why they should not eat Blood which was not mentioned in the fore-named places because it was the Life of the Beast and was therefore reserved to make Atonement for their Souls I will even set my face against that soul c. That is be extreamly angry with him and severely punish him by cutting him off as it here follows from the Body of the Nation Maimonides observes in the fore-named place More Nevoch P. III. cap. 46. that this is the same Expression which is used against him that offered his Children to Moloch XX. 3. and that this phrase is never used in Scripture concerning any other sin but only these two Idolatry and eating Blood For the eating of Blood gave occasion he shows to one kind of Idolatry in the worshipping of Daemons whose Food the ancient Idolaters imagined the Blood was by eating of which their Worshippers had Communion with them See XVI Psal 4. and Grotius there Ver. 11. Verse 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it to you upon the Altar to make an atonement for your souls c. Some think here are two distinct Reasons against eating of Blood but the words as they lie in the Hebrew may well be translated Because the life of the flesh of any Beast that is is in the blood therefore I have given it to you or appointed it for you upon the Altar to make an atonement c. Which is as much as to say The Life of the Beast lying in the Blood I have ordained it to expiate your sins that by its death in your stead your life may be preserved and therefore I require you not to eat that which is appointed for so holy an end For it would have been very unseemly if they had vulgarly used that to which they owed the favour of God and their very Lives Nothing could be more rational than this Precept viz. That a thing so sacred as to be peculiarly appointed for them upon the Altar should not lose that honour and esteem that was due to it As the Blood would have done if it had been allowed to be commonly eaten for that is very contemptible which goes into the Draught as our Saviour speaks and at last becomes Ordure For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul The Blood that is of the Sacrifices which by God's appointment are offered to expiate your sins that is to preserve you from perishing For to make an Atonement and to be a Ransom are the very same thing as appears from XXX Exod. 12. compared with v. 15 16. And to be a Ransom is to deliver from Death as appears from the words in that place they shall every Man give a Ransom for his Soul unto the LORD that there be no Plague among them For the sins of the Sacrificer being laid upon the Beast which he offered by imposition of his hand on its Head and confessing them there they were taken away by the Blood of that Beast unto which they were translated And that not meerly by the Obedience of him that offered the Sacrifice which the followers of Socinus say God accepted but by the Blood of the Sacrifice it self as these words expresly declare which was offered in his stead Thus Theodoret upon these words God commanded the Soul of the Irrational Creature with its Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to be offered instead of thy Rational and Immortal Soul And thus the Jews themselves understand it particularly Aben-Ezra upon these words saith the Soul instead of the Soul i.e. the Soul of the Beast was offered instead of the Soul of the Man And R. Solomon Jarchi to the same purpose One Soul comes and makes Expiation for another Soul And Maimonides more largely I have spared the Soul of the Man and given this Blood upon the Altar that the Soul of the Beast may make Expiation for the Soul of the Man And so Abarbanel and many more which may be seen in Dr. Owtram's most learned Book De Sacrificiis Lib. I. cap. 22. n. 11. Ver. 12. Verse 12 Therefore I said unto the Children of Israel No soul of you shall eat blood neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood What other reason soever there was before for not eating Blood See IX Gen. 4. this is the reason why God forbad it to the children of Israel and to all that joyned themselves unto their Religion Ver. 13. Verse 13 And whatsoever man there be of the Children of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among you which hunteth and catcheth any Beast or Fowl that may be eaten Though no other Beasts or Fowls be mentioned but those that were taken in Hunting that being a very common thing in those days yet the Precept extends to all those that were bred at home and were allowed by the Law for their Food So a MS. Author mentioned by J. Wagenseil in his Annotations upon Sota cap. 2. excerpt Gemarae n. 6. where he puts abundance of Cases upon this Subject He shall even pour out the blood thereof and cover it with dust Though it was not the Blood of a Sacrifice offered at the Altar but of a Beast or Bird killed for their own use they might not eat it but bury it in the Ground lest any Beast should lick it up as it is commonly interpreted Maimonides hath found a deeper reason for this which is That no Body might meet and feast about it By which means Moses broke their Society and Fellowship with Daemons who in those times were thought to feed upon the Blood in a Bowl or Hole whilst their Worshippers sate about it eating of the Flesh So he writes in the place often before-mentioned More Nevoch P. III. cap. 46. And this was the more necessary while they remained in the Wilderness because Daemons were wont to haunt such places and there appear but not in Cities or habitable Places See Mr. Selden Lib. II. de Synedr cap. 4. p. 201. If a Man
that the Poor might know where to come for it as R. Levi Barcelonita explains it Praecept CCXIII. And this whether they were in the Land of Israel or out of it as Mr. Selden observes out of the Talmudists Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 6. p. 692. where he shows it was the custom to add something to the sixtieth part proportionable to the largeness of the Field or the multitude of the Poor or the greatness of the Crop Neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest That is if an ear or two of Corn fell as they cut it or bound it up out of the Sheaves or from under their Sickle they were not to gather them up from the ground but leave them for the Poor as oft as they fell But not if there fell three ears at a time as the Talmudists determine See Mr. Selden in the place above-named and the same R. Levi Praecept CCXIV. Ver. 10. Verse 10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard When they had cut off the great Bunches they were not to examine the Vine over again for the scattered Grapes or small Clusters Neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy Vineyard If any fell to the ground as they gathered them they were not to take them up That is if one or two Clusters fell but not if three much less if more for they construe this as they do the Precept about Ears of Corn v. 9. They also say they were bound to leave the Corners of the Vineyard uncut as well as the Corners of the Field R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CCXXX and CCXXXI and Mr. Selden Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 6. in the place before-named And these Precepts obliged such Strangers as sojourned among them mentioned XVII 8. XVIII 26. who before they were admitted to embrace the Jewish Religion were examined whether they understood that they must observe such and such Precepts particularly these here mentioned which were propounded to them plainly and distinctly and after they had promised to keep them they were Circumcised c. As G. Schickard observes out of the Talmud the custom was after the destruction of Jerusalem in Mishpal Hamelek cap. 5. Theorem XVII Thou shalt leave them for the poor and the stranger Though by Stranger the Jews think is understood a Proselyte of Righteousness as they call him who had embraced their Religion by receiving Circumcision yet they did not hinder any poor Gentile from partaking of this Charity as the same R. Levi says And if any one transgressed any of the Precepts contained in these two Verses he was beaten as Mr. Selden shows Lib. II. de Synedr Cap. 13. n. 8. I am the LORD your God I give you the Country to which you go with these reserves for the Poor and have been so bountful to you that I require you to be so them Ver. 11. Verse 11 Ye shall not steal Here are several Moral Precepts put briefly together for the maintaining Justice and Truth without which Societies cannot be preserved And first he forbids Theft the coveting of other Mens Goods being the Source of the other Sins that follow And whether they were the Goods of an Israelite or of a Gentile Idolater that any Man stole he was bound to make Restitution as R. Levi observes Praecept CCXXXII See XXII Exod. 1. Neither deal falsly This is a Divine Caution as the Hebrew Doctors observe against denying a thing that was deposited with them or which they had found c. which they would never pretend they had not if they were disposed to be sincere and upright in their Dealing Neither lie one to another Words being intended to declare the Mind and for no other end he that hears us speak hath a right in Justice to be done him that what we speak be true For otherwise he doth not know our mind by our words and then we had better be dumb But though all kind of lying be contrary to the intention of God in giving us Speech yet this relates particularly to such lies whereby a Man's Neighbour was injured defrauded for instance of his Goods which he had deposited with another or of the just Debts which were owing him c. But though the simple denying of such things was not punished with beating as Mr. Selden represents the opinion of the Talmudists Lib. II. de Synedr cap. 11. yet he that denied a thing deposited with him was not admitted to be a Witness in any case though he had not forsworn himself unto which this lying disposed him So R. Levi Praecept CCXXXIII Ver. 12. Verse 12 And ye shall not swear by my name falsly Much less was it lawful for them to confirm the lies fore-mentioned with an Oath So the Jewish Doctors interpret it as Mr. Selden observes in the same place If any Man did and was found guilty he was adjudged to restore the principal and a fifth part more VI. 5. And whether he forswore himself knowingly or ignorantly he was to expiate his Crime with a Sacrifice But if he was ignorant of that Command concerning a Sacrifice or if though he had the thing which he denied in his keeping yet he had really forgot it when he swore he had it not he was freed both from the fifth part and from the Sacrifice See V. 4. Neither shalt thou profane the Name of thy God By calling God to witness unto a frivolous thing or to a rash Resolution As if a Man swore in his anger he would not speak to such a Person but afterwards did or he would not eat of such Meat c. In such cases the Jews say when a Man's heart was touched with Repentance for his rashness and incogitancy he was to go to some wise Man or to three Neighbours and desire them to absolve him from his Oath of which he truly repented Which they did when they found him truly penitent saying Be thou loosed or It is remitted to thee or the like So Selden observes out of Maimonides Lib. II. de Synedr cap. 11. n. 9. Plato hath said some remarkable thing concerning Forswearing and also of Lying and Deceit For which I refer the learned Reader to his eleventh Book of Laws p. 916 917. Edit Serrani I am the LORD And therefore expect the greatest Reverence to my Name and that you should deal honestly one with another Ver. 13. Verse 13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour neither rob him c. Here are several Precepts almost coincident in their sense but have some peculiar Negations belonging to them For as R. Levi Barcelonita observes in all things from which God would have them carefully abstain he multiplies admonitions Praecept CXXXVI Accordingly here to defraud is to keep in ones hand that which belongs to another and such a Person he saith is called an Oppressor in Scripture The Vulgar Latine refers it to that which Men get from others by Calumny as the next words relate to that which is wrested
which forbids them to covet their neighbours wife which did not give them leave sure to covet the Wife of a Gentile provided they did not covet the Wife of an Israelite A Neighbour therefore is every other Man as in XXII Deut. 26. and more plainly in XI Exod. 2. where the Egyptians are called their Neighbour And therefore D. Kimchi saith very honestly upon the XVth Psal 3. A Neighbour is every one with whom we have any dealing or conversation Which justifies our blessed Saviour in making this Command of Loving their Neighbours as themselves to reach all Men with whom they had to do X Luke 27 28 c. I am the LORD Unto whom you are all equally subject and upon that account ought to love one another See v. 34. Ver. 19. Verse 19 Ye shall keep my statutes This may be thought to be premised to what follows lest such Commands as are contained in this Verse seeming small should be neglected by them Thou shalt not let thy Cattel or rather make them gender with a divers kind As Horses with Asses Goats with Sheep c. whose mixture one with another they were by no means to procure But if they did of themselves come together it was lawful to use such Heterogeneous Creatures as were so produced For they did not abhor the use of Mules which were either begot by accident among them or brought from other Countries to them The reason the Jews commonly give for this Precept is because God having made all things perfect in their kind it was a presumptuous attempt to go about to mend his Creation and add to his Works By this means also Men were deterred from unnatural Mixtures which they saw to be abominable in Brutes So R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CCXLIX and Philo whose words are very ingenious Lib. de Creatione Princip Things of the sâ—me kind were made for Society one with another but things heterogeneous as we call them were not intended to be mixed and associated and therefore he who attempts to mingle them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wickedly destroys the Law of Nature To the same purpose Josephus See Selden Lib. VII de Jure N. G. sec Hebr. cap. 3. p. 798. Maimonides also himself gives this reason of this Precept More Nevoch P. III. cap. 49. where he saith No Creature hath a desire commonly to mix with a Creature of another kind and therefore Men ought not to promote such a desire But after all there might possibly be a respect in this Precept to some Idolatrous Customs which Moses intended to prevent or abolish for there is good ground to think the following Precepts in this Verse were so intended and in after times some Gentiles did procure such Mixture of Creatures as are here forbidden Mules for instance in honour of their Gods See our learned Dr. Spencer Lib. II. de Leg. Hebr. Ritualibus cap. 20. where he indeavours to prove that by Cattel in this place are peculiarly meant Oxen and Asses which were used in Husbandry and are of such different Natures that none would ever have thought to procure their Conjunction unless he had been moved to it by the Devil Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed The reasons of this according to the Jews are the same with the former and R. Levi extends it to Trees which he saith they were not to ingraft of different kinds one upon another But it concerns they say only such Seeds and Plants as are for Mens food not those which are for Medecine Praecept CCL But Maimonides found a particular reason for this Precept from the Idolatrous Customs of the old Zabij Who not only sowed different Seeds and grafted Trees of a divers kind upon one another in such or such Aspect of the Planets and with a certain form of words and fumigations but also with abominable filthiness at the very moment of the Incision Which he proves out of a Book concerning the incision of an Olive into a Citron and doubts not that God forbad his People to sow with mingled seed that he might root out that detestable Idolatry and those preternatural Lusts which abounded in those days More Nevoch P. III. cap. 37. Neither shall a Garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee In the Hebrew the words are A Garment of mixtures of Schaatnez shall not come upon thee But that they might certainly know what Schaatnez was it is explained in XXII Deut. 11. to signifie as we translate it a Garment of Woollen and Linen mixed together The Jews have taken abundance of pains to find out the original of this word which Bochartus derives from the Arabick word Saat which signifies to mingle and nez which signifies to weave Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 45. But Joh. Braunius I think hath demonstrated that it doth not import the weaving of any different things together but only of Linen and Woollen and that by Woollen is to be understood only what is made of the Wooll of Sheep not of Camels or Goats which they called by the same name Lib. I. de Vestitu Sacerd. Hebr. cap. 4. n. 2 3 6. Where he observes out of Maimonides in his Halach Kelaim that if a Man saw an Israelite wear such a Garment it was lawful for him to fall upon him openly and tear his Garment in pieces although he were his Master who taught him Wisdom And the reasons for this abhorrence are commonly such as are given of the former Precepts to preserve them from the horrid Confusion which was among the Gentiles by incestuous and unnatural Mixtures But Maimonides takes it to have been principally intended as a Preservative against Idolatry The Priests of the Gentiles in those times wearing such mixed Garments of the product of Plants and Animals with a Ring on their finger made of some Metal as he says he found in their Books More Nevoch P. III. cap. 37. By which mixture it is likely they hoped to have the beneficial influence of some lucky Conjunction of the Planets or Stars to bring a Blessing upon their Sheep and their Flax. Ver. 20. Verse 20 Whosoever lieth carnally with a Woman that is a bondmaid betrothed to an husband The Jews had some Servants that were Gentiles who if they embraced the Jewish Religion were baptized sometimes with the reservation of their Servitude and sometimes with the full grant of Liberty But some there were in a middle Condition partly free and partly servile viz. when part of their Redemption-money had been paid and part was still behind Now as while a Woman was a perfect Slave no Israelite might marry her so when she was partly free though he might Espouse her and the Espousals were valid yet they could not be of full force till her liberty was perfected And of such a Maiden the Hebrew Doctors understand Moses to speak in this place that was in part free but not wholly as the next words interpret it And not at all redeemed nor
CCLII against Gluttony and Drunkenness such as the rebellious Son was guilty of XXI Deut. 18 c. which made Men prone to shed blood for so he understands this Precept Thou shalt not eat upon blood i. e. eat till thou art excited to shed blood unto which he applied XXXII Deut. 15. Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked But this is a very forced Interpretation and our Translation is not exact for he doth not say Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood but ye shall not eat upon the blood or at the blood Which Oleaster very sagaciously suspected to be a piece of Superstition unknown to him And so did the LXX when they translated it Ye shall not eat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the Mountains which was an Idolatrous Custom mentioned in IV Hosea 13. and here forbidden as Procopius and Hesychius imagine But the Hebrew word haddam no where signifies a Mountain but Blood as the Vulgar here truly translates it There is a Greek Scholion which renders these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye shall not eat on the house top Which in all likelyhood as some have conjectured was a mistake of the Transcriber for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the blood which is the litteral Translation of the Hebrew phrase and imports something more than is prohibited XVII 12. where he simply saith No soul of you shall eat blood But here warns them against an Idolatrous Practise of the Zabij who to enter into the Society of Daemons and obtain their favour were wont to gather the blood of their Sacrifices into a Vessel or a little Hole digg'd in the Earth and then sitting about it to eat the Flesh of the Sacrifices imagining that by eating as it were of the same food for they thought the Daemons fed upon the blood as their Worshippers did upon the flesh they contracted a Friendship and Familiarity with them So Maimonides relates in his More Nevoch P. III. cap. 46. For the prevention of which Idolatrous Custom God ordered their Sacrifices to be offered only at one place where his own House was and there the Priests sprinkling the blood and they eating the flesh of their Peace-offerings God and they feasted together upon them Nachmanides is wont to oppose Maimonides in his Notions yet this was so plain that he confesses as Dr. Cudworth hath observed in his Treatise of the Right Notion of the Lord's Supper Chap. ult that blood it self was forbidden in the Law upon the account of the Heathens performing their Superstitious Worship in this manner by gathering together blood for their Daemons and then coming themselves and eating of it with them whereby they were their Daemon's guests and by this kind of Communion with them were enabled to prophesie and foretel things to come And this Interpretation is the more probable that they hoped by eating of the blood of the Sacrifices or the flesh or both to have such familiarity with them as to receive Revelations from them and be inspired with the Knowledge of secret things if we consider the two other Prohibitions in this Verse that are joyned with this of not eating upon blood which show that it was a Rite of Divination Neither shall ye use inchantment In the Hebrew the words are lo tenakashu which all agree signifie some Superstitious observation or other whereby they made omens and guessed what should happen to them either from Men's sneezing or the breaking of a Shoes Latchet or the name of a Man they met withal or some Creatures crossing their way or passing upon their right hand or their left And most following the LXX and the Vulgar Latin take it for Divination by the flying or crying or pecking of Birds But the word Nachash signifying a Serpent and having no relation at all to Birds the famous Bochartus thinks tenachashu which seems to be derived from thence to relate rather to the ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divination by Serpents than to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divination by Birds For it was very much in use among the Gentiles in old time as appears from Homer in his VIIth Iliad where Chalcas seeing a Serpent devour eight Sparrows with their Dam divined how long the Trojan War would last And many such instances he heaps up together in his Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. I. cap. 3. R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CCLIII refers this to any kind of Divination by their Staff falling out of their hand by a Serpent creeping on their right hand or a Fox going by their left c. which made them forbear any work they were about but he thinks withal it may signifie as we translate it Inchantment to cure Wounds for instance by reading a Verse of the Law or laying the Book of the Law or a Phylactery upon a Child's head to procure sleep which are such Superstitions as are now in use among some Christians who hang the first Verse of St. John's Gospel about Peoples Necks to cure an Ague But such things could not be meant by Moses who had not yet delivered them a Copy of his Laws nor can we certainly fix upon any other in particular which were then in use See J. Coch upon the Title Sanhedrim cap. 7. n. 18. and Maimonides de Idololatria cap. 11. sect 4 5 6 c. where he gives a great number of instances of such Superstitious Observations as were in use among the Heathen some of which are mentioned by Theophrastus in his Characters of Superstition and by Plutarch in his Book on the same subject and are derided by Terence in his Phormio Act. IV. Scen. 4. With which Superstitions the greatest Persons were anciently very much infected and they were so settled in Mens minds that when they became Christians they could not presently shake them off as appears by the frequent Reprehensions which St. Chrysostom and others give to those who continued to be governed by them Particularly in his VIII Homily upon the Colossians he chides his People severely for contemning the Cross of Christ and calling in old drunken Women with their Salt their Ashes and Soot to free those that were bewitcht And more especially in his VI Hom. against the Jews he sharply rebukes those that used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Charms and things hung about the Neck to cure Agues whereby they got a worse disease in their Souls and wounded their Consciences c. And in other places he Reprehends their observing of Omens good and bad some of which which were very strange See Tom. VI. p. 610 611. Edit Savil. Nor observe times Take no notice of days according to the Precepts of Astrologers who made some to be lucky others unlucky For the Jews generally think something of this nature is here forbidden the Hebrew word teonenu being derived they imagine from Onah which signifies time as R. Levi before-mentioned saith Praecept CCLIV such an hour being thought by Superstitious People to be fit for business but another very cross to it Which
the Fact Which is the very reason given of it in the Mischna Tit. Sanhedrim cap. 7. n. 4. And so R. Solomon The Beast was killed lest it should be said there is the Beast for which such a Woman was put to death Ver. 17. Verse 17 If a man shall take his sister c. Whether she was his Sister by the whole Blood as we speak or by half Blood only by the Fathers side or Mothers he was not permitted to marry her by the Law mentioned XVIII 9. And see her nakedness It is the same with uncovering her nakedness to lie with her as it is there expressed and here in the end of the Verse he hath uncovered his sisters nakedness the sense of seeing being put for that of touching or any other in this Language It is a wicked thing A flagitious or nefarious wickedness as the Vulgar expresses it But the Hebrew word Chesed signifying sometimes in the Prophetical Language Mercy and Indulgence the Talmudists take these words as if they came in by a Parenthesis to obviate an Objection which might be made that Cain and Abel married their Sisters True saith Moses that was by an indulgence in the beginning arising from the necessity of things when there were none but Brothers and Sisters in the World But now they shall be cut off in the sight of their People who marry such near Relations So the Gemara Hierosol ad Tit. Sanhedrim See Selden Lib. V. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 8. p. 581. And so the Chaldee Paraphrase ascribed to Jonathan whose words are these It is a filthy thing but I used an indulgence to the first Men by whom the World was to be propagated until Mankind was sufficiently multiplied after that whosoever doth any such thing let him be cut off c. And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people Publickly put to death See v. 10. He shall bear his iniquity i. e. The punishment of it Chap. V. 1. Ver. 18. Verse 18 And if a man shall lie with a Woman having her sickness c. Here the Sentance of Death is pronounced upon them whereas in XV. 24. it is only said the Man should be unclean seven days Therefore many think in that place he speaks of doing this ignorantly and here of doing it knowingly But if the Man might be ignorant of the condition she was in the Woman her self could scarce be so and therefore others think when the fact was altogether private they only incurred a Legal Impurity for a certain season but when it was publickly known and proof made of it before a Judge it was a capital Crime Because it was done in contempt and despite of the Law otherwise it could not have been so publickly known as to be legally proved Whether this Law oblige in the state of Christianity is at large discussed by Bishop Taylor not to mention other Writers abroad in his Doctor Dubitantium Book II. Chap. 2. Rule 3. n. 8. and Book III. Chap. 2. Rule 2. n. 3. c. Ver. 19. Verse 19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mothers sister c. See XVIII 12 13. They shall bear their iniquity It not being said they shall die or be cut off as in the former cases it hath made some conclude this Sin being not of so high a nature as the foregoing was punished only as those that follow v. 20 21. where they that committed them are threatned to die childless Ver. 20. Verse 20 If a man shall lie with his uncles wife c. See XVIII 14. They shall die childless This is understood by some as if Moses meant they should be put to death before they could have any fruit of such a Conjunction But most think he only means that either they should have no Children or that their Children should not live but die before their Parents or be lookt upon as a spurious Issue and not inherit their Estate which is the sense St. Austin puts upon these words And Procopius Gazaeus also mentions it and says this was the Roman Law about all incestuous Marriages Semen eorum non recensebitur inter liberos Such Issue shall not be reckoned among their Children Ver. 21. Verse 21 And if a man shall take his brothers wife c. See XVIII 16. They shall be childless See v. 20. Ver. 22. Verse 22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my judgments c. Particularly these concerning the foregoing matters See XVIII 4 5. That the Land whether I bring you to dwell therein spue you not out As it did the former Inhabitants See XVIII 25 28. Ver. 23. Verse 23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the Nation which I cast out before you Viz. of the Amorites as the Hebrews rightly expound it for they were the principal Nation in Canaan and extreamly given to Idolatry R. Levi Barcelonita extends this to all their Customs in cutting their hair and such like Praecept CCLXII but it seems here particularly to relate to their Marriages and Idolatry See XVIII 3. For they committed all these things These words shew that the foregoing have particular respect to their abominable Marriages and Idolatry Therefore I abhorred them So as to cast them out of their Country XVIII 25. Onkelos translates it My word MEMRI abominated them Which is a plain intimation of a Notion they had in ancient times of more Persons than one in the Deity and particularly here denotes him whom St. John calls the WORD For Memra Word plainly signifies a Person in this place and a Person of the same Essence with Jehovah Ver. 24. Verse 24 But I have said unto you Made you a promise Ye shall inherit their Land and I will give it unto you to possess it c. For he promised to expel the former Inhabitants of that Country to make room for them See III Exod. 8 17. XXIII 27 28. XXXIII 3. I am the LORD your God which have separated you from other people This may refer either to what goes before that they should not live like other Nations because he had by peculiar Laws as well as by signal Deliverances distinguished them from all the People of the Earth or to what follows that he had made such a difference between them and other People that in their very Diet they should not agree with them much less in the fore-named Impurities For that the difference of Meats was instituted to keep them from familiar conversation with their idolatrous Neighbours is very evident as I before observed and the Gentiles themselves took notice of it and looked upon them as unsociable People upon this very account Josephus often mentions this Objection against them And Euphrates complains in Philostratus de vita Apolon Lib. cap. 2. That of old they separated not only from the Romans but from all Mankind for they had invented 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a manner of living that would not let them mix with other
the Father before the Mother with such like things he may consult Simeon de Muis in his Varia Sacra p. 356 c. Ver. 3. Verse 3 And for his sister a virgin I see no reason why it should be restrained to his whole Sister both by Fathers and Mothers side as some of the Hebrew Doctors would have it for that his half Sister by either of them was nigh unto him as it here follows it appears by the Law about incestuous Marriages XVIII 9. Which hath had no husband To take care of her Funeral which her Brother therefore though a Priest might It is commonly observed that there is no mention here of his Wife But Maimonides with great reason thinks it was lawful for him to mourn for her but it was needless to mention her who by the Law of God was dearer to him than Father or Mother And there is this Argument for it that Ezekiel who was a Priest is forbidden by a special command to mourn for his Wife which otherwise he would have done XXIV 16 c. Ver. 4. Verse 4 But he shall not defile himself being a chief man among his people But though he might defile himself for such very near Relations yet he might not for the greatest Man in the Nation who was not so near of kin to him This seems to me to be the easiest and the most natural sense of this Verse by adding the particle lamed which in the two foregoing Verses is put before Mother Father Son Daughter Brother and Sister to Baal i. e. chief man as we translate it nothing being more usual than to omit such a particle which yet must be understood when it hath been often before-mentioned And thus the Vulgar Latin understands it And the sense is the same if we take it as our Translation seems to intend it But he shall not desile himself for any other being a chief man c. As for the Marginal Translation I can see no ground for it and there must be a greater Supplement by adding for his wife which one cannot well think is here forbidden as I observed on the foregoing Verse They also who translate it A chief Ruler shall not defile himself c. have still less reason the whole Discourse in this place being concerning the Priests To profane himself He himself in Sacred Offices being the greatest Person would have been prophaned i. e. rendred a common Man if he had mourned for any but those whom Nature had very closely linkt him unto Ver. 5. Verse 5 They shall not make baldness upon their head neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard nor make any cuttings in their flesh Though they were allowed to mourn for some persons yet for none after this manner that is according to the Custom of certain Places in Chaldaea as Aben-Ezra glosses upon these words And he might have added also of the Egyptians among whose Ceremonies we find this in after times and it 's likely had been very ancient For Jul. Firmicus tells us in the beginning of his Book That in their Annual Lamentations of Osiris they were wont to shave their heads that they might bewail the miserable misfortune of their King by depriving themselves of the ornament of hair c. And he adds that they did tear their flesh and cut open the scars of their old wounds c. where Johan Wouver observes the same out of several other Authors And Plutarch in his Book of Superstition saith they generally used in mourning to be shaven whereas the Hebrews let their hair grow See X. 6. XIX 27. Ver. 6. Verse 6 They shall be holy unto their God Attend to their Office unto which they are peculiarly consecrated and not without great necessity be at any time unfitted for it And not profane the name of their God By doing as the common People did or rendring themselves uncapable to Minister unto the LORD as they were when they were any way defiled For the Offering of the LORD made by fire They attend upon his Altar where the Burnt-offerings Peace-offerings and all the rest were offered And the bread of their God do they offer The word And is not in the Hebrew and the sense will be clearer if it be left out The offering of the LORD made by fire being called The bread of their God i. e. his Meat or Food For the Altar was his Table and what was burnt thereon was in the Nature of his Provision which in the Scripture Language is comprehended under the name of Bread So Solomon Jarchi saith whatsoever may be eaten is called bread See III. 11. Thus Fruit is called Bread XI Jer. 19. and Milk XXVII Prov. 27. and Honey 1 Sam. XIV 28. And therefore no wonder the Sacrifices are here called by that name and by Malachi his Meat or Food III. 12. Which phrase is used as the Author of Sepher Cosri well observes to keep up the Notion that God dwelt gloriously and kept House among them Pars II. cap. 26. Ver. 7. Verse 7 They shall not take a wife that is a whore All incestuous Marriages were as much forbidden Priests as any other Men. But besides here are three sorts of Persons whom it was unlawful for a common Priest to marry though there was no Kindred between them The first is a Whore whereby the Hebrew Doctors understand not only one that was a common Prostitute but one that was not an Israelite or an Israelitish Woman with whom a Man had lain whom it was unlawful for her to marry Which comprehends not only all such as are forbidden in the XVIIIth Chapter of this Book but those also in XXIII Deut. 2 3. See Selden de Successionibus Lib. II. cap. 2. 3. and Vxor Hebraica Lib. I. cap. 7. Lib. III. cap. 23. Or profane A Woman was accounted so as he shows in the same place who was either descended from such a Person as is before-mentioned or who was born of such a Conjunction as is here forbidden to a Priest And there are those who think it may be understood of one that had been consecrated to a false Deity whom she served with the use of her Body which she exposed to the Worshippers of that Deity Who though she afterwards repented and became good yet a Priest was not to marry her no more than an ordinary Whore But the simplest meaning of these three seems to be that they should not marry one that had prostituted her Body or that had been any way vitiated though against her will or was of suspected Chastity or as it follows was devorced from her Husband Neither shall they take a Woman put away from her Husband For commonly Women were put away for some fault as Abarbanel notes and were presumed not to be such as a Priest should desire To the same purpose Procopius Gazaeus A Priest saith he should not only fly from manifest Evils as Fornication but decline whatsoever may blemish his Fame now
your wickedness nor suffer theirs to go unpunished but do equal Justice unto all Yet the Jews by a Stranger here will understand only a Proselyte of Righteousness as they call him that is one who had intirely embraced their Religion for such alone they imagine were equalled with them See Selden Lib. IV. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 1. pag. 468. Ver. 23. Verse 23 And Moses spake unto the Children of Israel that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of their Camp c. It appears by this that all the foregoing Admonitions were repeated to Moses upon the occasion of the Law against Blasphemy before he proceeded to put it in execution And the Children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses Executed the whole Sentence pronounced by God against the blasphemous Person v. 14. CHAP. XXV Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses in Mount Sinai saying That is in the Wilderness of Sinai I Numb 1. For they stayed almost a whole year not far from this Mountain from whence they did not remove till the twentieth day of the second Month of the second year after their coming out of Egypt See X Numb 11 12. And thus the Hebrew Particle Beth is often used for by or near as in XXXVII Gen. 13. V Josh 13. and we find this expression again in the end of the next Chapter and in the conclusion of this Book Which shows that all here related was delivered to Moses in the first month of the second year after their coming out of Egypt immediately after the Tabernacle was set up XL Exod 17. Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them For what follows was of universal concernment When ye come into the land which I give you This Law though delivered before they left Mount Sinai could not take place till they came into Canaan Then shall the land keep a Sabbath Rest from being tilled or sowen c. See XXIII Exod. 11. Vnto the LORD In obedience to him and in honour of him Some have understood the foregoing words When ye shall come into the Land which I give you as if they were to begin the Sabbatical year as soon as they entred into Canaan which is very absurd for so not the seventh but the first would have been the year of Rest And that had been very inconvenient if not destructive the War making such great waste no doubt that Provision would have been very scarce if no care had been taken for the ensuing year It is to be considered also that the old store upon which they lived when they entred into the Land of Promise was the fruit of the labour of the Canaanites and not of the Children of Israel The meaning therefore is that the seventh year after their entrance into Canaan or rather after they were settled and had rest in it they should let the Land rest The only question is When this year was to begin whether in the month of Tisri which answers to our September which was the ancient beginning of the year or in Nisan answering to our March which was made a new beginning of it by an express Law XII Exod. 2. the former still continuing the beginning of the year for Civil things as this for Sacred Now there is great reason to think that this Sabbatical year was to commence from September when all their Harvest was over which began in March Then they were not to sow as they were wont to do in October and the following Months but to stay till the return of this Season the next year For if this year had been to begin in March they could not have reaped the Harvest of the sixth year Ver. 3. Verse 3 Six years shalt thou sow thy fields and prune thy Vineyard and gather in the fruit thereof XXIII Exod. 10. But what was allowed in other years is forbidden in this Ver. 4. Verse 4 But in the seventh year shall be a Sabbath of rest unto the Land a Sabbath for the LORD Or unto the LORD as we translate it before v. 2. who though he gave this Land to them continued the Proprietor of it as he declares v. 23. and the LORD in chief himself Of whom they held it by this Tenure that they should till it c. only six years together for their own use and in the seventh let it lye in common for such uses as he appointed And it was for the honour of the LORD that they observed this Law for as the weekly Sabbath was an acknowledgment that they were his so this Sabbatical year was an acknowledgment that their Land was his Thou shalt neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard By this he explains what he means by letting it rest And these two words sow and prune comprehend all other things that were usually done about their Fields or Trees as plowing digging dunging c. And though a Vineyard be only mentioned yet it is plain by XXIII Exod. 10. that Olive-yards are comprehended under the same Law and these are mentioned only as examples of all other Fruit-trees which were to be left in common as these were Maimonides seems to be something too curious in what he saith upon this Subject for inquiring why Moses mentions only these two things sowing and pruning his resolution is That for these two if Men offended in them this year they were punished with that scourging called Malkut but if they offended in any other sort of Labours belonging to the Culture of the Fields or of Trees they were not punished with the scourging of Malkut which was by a certain measure not exceeding thirty nine stripes but with the scourging called Mardut i. e. of Contumacy and Rebellion which was without number or measure As if a Man digged or ploughed his ground if he gathered out the stones or dunged it c. if he planted Trees or grafted c. he suffered the scourging of Rebellion And more than this he saith it was not lawful in the seventh year to plant any Tree though it was not a Fruit-tree nor to cut off the dead Branches nor to make a smoak under them to kill the Worms nor to anoint young Plants to preserve them from the bitings of Birds c. If they did they were liable to the scourging of Murdut Nay he is so nice as to say it was unlawful to sell to any Man any Instrument of Husbandry in this year as a Plough a Yoke a Sieve c. yet he allows them when they were under the oppression of the Gentiles and bound to find Provision for their Armies to sow so much as would maintain them Of which things he discourses at large in his Treatise called Schemitta ve Jobel cap. 1. and cap. 7. Ver. 5. Verse 5 That which groweth of it self Either from Seed which fell casually the year before or from the old Root which sprouted out again as Maimonides expounds it in the same Treatise
â—hen they were all carried Captive they only numbred the rest of every seventh year without any Jubile It shall be a Jubile unto you Whence this year hath the name of Jobel there are so many Opinions that Bochartus himself scarce knew which to follow Josephus saith it signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberty and the LXX and Aquila translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remission having a regard to the thing rather than to the import of the word Jobel which never signifies any thing of that nature D. Kimchi tell us that R. Akiba when he was in Arabia heard them call a Ram by this name of Jobel and thence some fancy this year was so called because it was proclaimed with Trumpets of Rams-horns But what if there were no such Trumpets as Bochart thinks there were not these Horns being not hollow See Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 43. p. 425 c. where several other Opinions are confuted The most probable that I meet withal is that it was called Jobel from the peculiar sound which was made with the Trumpet when this year was proclaimed For the Trumpet blowing for several purposes viz. to call their Assemblies together to give notice of the moving of their Camps to excite Souldiers to fight and to proclaim this year there was a distinct sound for all these ends that People might not be confounded but have a certain notice what the Trumpet sounded for And this sound mentioned before v. 9. was peculiarly called Jobel as Hottinger thinks who considers a great many other Opinions in his Analecta Dissert III. wherein he follows Joh. Forsterus who near an hundred years before observed that Jobel which we commonly translate Trumpet XIX Exod. 13. and other places doth not signifie the Instrument it self but the sound that it made And when it is used absolutely alone it signifies this year which was called Jobel from that sound which was then made as the Feast of Unleavened Bread was called Pesach from the Angel passing over them when he slew the Egyptians The Opinions of the Hebrew Writers about it are collected and largely represented by Josephus de Voisin Lib. I. de Jubilaeo cap. 1. And ye shall return every man unto his possession Unto his Field or his House which his Poverty had forced him to sell but now was restored to him without any price because they were not sold absolutely but only till this year By which means the Estates of the Israelites were so fixed that no Family could ruin it self or grow too rich For this Law provided against such Changes revoking once in fifty years all Alienations and setting every one in the same Condition wherein they were at the first By which means Ambition was retrenched and every Man applied himself with affection to the improvement of his Inheritance knowing it could never go out of his Family And this application was the more diligent because it was a religious duty founded upon this Law of God And ye shall return every man unto his family From which he had been estranged by being sold to another Family either by himself or by his Father or by the Court of Judgment So here are two parts of the liberty fore-named more expresly declared Their Land which was alienated returned to the first Owner and such as were sold for Servants into another Family came home again to their own Family being freed from their Servitude Which was a figure of that acceptable year of the LORD as St. Luke calls it IV. 19. in the Prophet Isaiah's Language wherein our blessed Saviour preached Deliverance to all Mankind The Jews themselves are not so stupid as to thinâ— nothing further was intended but only freedom from bodily Servitude in this year of Jubile for Abarbanel himself in this very Verse indeavours to discover something of a Spiritual Happiness For the former part of the words now mentioned Ye shall return every man to his possession he saith belong to the Body but the latter part And every man unto his family belongs to the Soul and its return to God So several others whom J. de Voisin produces in the forenamed Book cap. 2. And if our Dr. Lightfoot hath made a right Computation the last year of the Life of our Saviour who by his Death wrought an Eternal Redemption and restored us to our heavenly Inheritance fell in the year of Jubile the very last that was ever kept For if we count from the end of the Wars of Canaan which was seven years after they came into it and I do not know why we should not think they began to number then and not seven years after as Maimonides would have it there were just fourteen hundred years to the thirty third of Jesus Christ that is just XXVIII Jubiles And it is the Confession of the old Book called Zohar as he observes That the Divine Glory should be freedom and redemption in a year of Jubile See Harmony of the New Testament sect 59. And Vsserij Chronologia Sacra cap. 13. Ver. 11. Verse 11 A Jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you It is a question whether the year of Jubile was the year following the forty ninth year or the forty ninth year was the Jubile which reckoning the foregoing Jubile for one was the fiftieth year Josephus Scaliger in his fifth Book de Emend Temporum and several other great Men are of this last opinion to avoid a great inconvenience which otherwise would ensue viz. That the forty ninth year being the Sabbatical year in which the Land was to rest if the next year to that had been the Jubile two Sabbatical years would have come immediately one after another for the Land was to rest in the year of Jubile as it here follows One would have expected therefore that in the forty eighth year there should have been a special Promise that the Land should bring forth Fruit for four years and not for three only as the Blessing is promised every sixth year v. 21. Thus Jacobus Capellus reasons in his Historia Sacra Exotica ad A. M. 2549. But others think this Objection not to be so great as to make them depart from the letter of this Law which saith v. 10. Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year and here in this Verse A Jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you Though a very learned Man P. Cunaeus thinks this is of no great moment either way for it is usual in common speech Septimanam octidum appellare and Hospinian in like manner we call a Week octiduum eight days because we reckon utramque Dominicam both the LORD's days And the greatest Writers anciently called an Olympiad which contained but the space of four compleat years by the name of Quinquennium See Lib. I. de Republ. Judaeorum cap. 6. Yet besides the express words of the Law the Consent of the Jews sways very much the other way for they accurately distinguish between the Schemitta or Year of
who were not of the Hebrew Nation and could have no Fields or Vineyards might yet have something of their own stable and certain and not be forced always to want a perpetual possession It shall not go out in the Jubile They say in the Gâ—mara of Bava kama that the Houses in Jerusalem were not subject to this Law because that City as they pretend did not belong to any certain Tribe See L'Empereur upon that Book cap. 7. p. 172. Ver. 31. Verse 31 But the houses in the Villages which have no walls round about them shall be counted as the fields of the Country c. The quite contrary Law is made for Country-houses which might be redeemed at any time and if they were not returned to their first Owners at the Jubile The reason of this difference is very plain for the Houses in walled Cities were their own proper Goods but in the Country they were accounted part of the Land which was God's And so these words are to be understood they shall be counted as the fields in the Country that is fall under the same Law with the Lands v. 23. Ver. 32. Verse 32 Notwithstanding the Cities of the Levites Of which we have an account XXXV Numb 2. These are accepted from the foregoing Law concerning Houses in walled Cities as it here follows And the Houses of the Cities of their possession may the Levites redeem at any time Not any of their Houses but only those which they possessed in the XLVIII Cities assigned to them for their Habitations If they purchased Houses in any other places they were subject to the same Law with other Men v. 29. Insomuch that a Levite who was Heir to his Mother who was an Israelite was to redeem as other Israelites did and not after the manner of the Levites for the Levites had a Right different from other Men only in the Cities of their Possessions as Maimonides observes in the forecited Book cap. 13. But if an Israelite was Heir to his Mother a Levite he redeemed as the Levites did though he were not of that Tribe because the Right of their Redemption was tied to the places and not to the persons as he there speaks Ver. 33. Verse 33 And if a man purchase of the Levites then the House that was sold and the City of his possession i.e. in the City of his possession shall go out in the year of Jubile If he did not redeem it before it was to come back to him for nothing in this year But there is another Translation in the Margin which the first words will bear viz. If one of the Levites redeem them Though he was not near of kin v. 25. yet any Levite might redeem any of these Houses However they were to be restored to that Tribe at the Jubile For the Houses of the Cities of the Levites It is plain by this that in the foregoing words he speaks of the Houses and not of the Cities themselves Are their possession among the Children of Israel They were of the same nature of the Land that other Tribes had which could not be alienated for ever For they having no other Possessions that could be sold but Houses it was reason these Houses should return to their Owners at the Jubile as other Mens Possessions did v. 10. Ver. 34. Verse 34 But the field of the Suburbs of their Cities See XXXV Numb 4 5. May not be sold As their Houses might be but if any Man bought them the Bargain was immediately void The Tradition among the Jews as Maimonides says in the same place that not be sold in this place signifies not be changed so as to turn a Suburb into a Field or a Field into a Suburb but Fields Suburbs and Cities were to continue perpetually in the same state For it is their perpetual possession Their Fields were to be always in their own hands And the reason why Houses may be sold when the Fields could not seems to be this because the Houses belonged to particular Levites who might alienate them for a time and not suffer much by it but the Fields of the Suburbs were common to the whole Body of the Levites who would have been undone if they had wanted Pasture for their Flocks which were all their Substance Some indeed fancy that these Suburbs were enclosed and every Family of them had its several Portion but as there is no proof of this so had it been thus such Families could not without great inconvenience have wanted their Lands for the feeding of their Flocks Ver. 35. Verse 35 And if thy brother be waxen poor and fallen to decay with thee In the Hebrew it is When his hand faileth so that he is not able by his Labour to support himself and his Family Then shalt thou relieve him By bestowing Alms upon him as the Jews interpret it not by lending him Money though the following words seem to incline this way See Selden Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 6. Yea though he be a stranger or a sojourner By a Stranger they understand a Proselyte of Righteousness and by a Sojourner a Proselyte of the Gate as Mr. Selden there observes out of Jarchi and Abarbanel p. 694. They say Hyrcanus was the first that began 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to entertain Strangers of other Countries by building Hospitals for their Reception That he may live with thee Have a comfortable Subsistance by the Relief of Charitable People for every Jew they say was bound to contribute something towards it and this was to prevent their selling themselves as some did through extream Poverty v. 39. Ver. 36. Verse 36 Take thou no usury of him or increase Though these are promiscuously used yet the next Verse seems here to expound Vsury to signifie that which is taken for Money and Increase that which is taken for Corn Fruits or Goods They that would see more of these two words Nesek and Tarbith may consult Salmasius de Vsuris where he hath largely discoursed of them I shall only further observe that this Precept follows the other of Relieving poor People by Alms very fitly because it is as great a Charity unto some to lend them Money without Usury as it is to give freely unto others See Notes on XXII Exod. 25. XXIII Deut. 19. But fear thy God Lest he that is so good to thee should punish thee for thy inhumanity towards the Poor of whom he hath a care as well as thee That thy brother may live with thee This is repeated to show that by these Laws God intended to provide for the Poor such a comfortable Subsistance in their own Country that they might not be tempted to forsake it and therewith perhaps forsake their Religion Ver. 37. Verse 37 Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury nor lend him thy victuals for increase Some thought if they lent Money freely they might receive more than they lent of other things therefore the latter Clause of
expressed by hickethi I will smite or punish you v. 24. Seven times for your sins If we should by a litteral account multiply the number of Plagues mentioned v. 24. seven times the threatning here would amount to this That their Rebellion not amended by so many Plagues but continued still from Age to Age notwithstanding all the Corrections inflicted on them for their Reformation v. 23. should in conclusion be punished one thousand one hundred ninety seven times more severely than at first v. 18. But the simple sense is That their obstinate contempt of his Laws should be punished with new and more grievous Plagues Which was fulfilled as our Dr. Jackson observes Book I on the Creed chap. 22. in their Captivity in the days of Manasseh Jehojachim and Zedediah and again in the time of Ptolomy the first under Antiochus Epiphanes For these later Calamities were at least seven times greater both for extent and durance than the former Persecutions which they suffered from the Philistines Moabites Ammonites and Syrians By all which and by what follows it plainly appears that these Threatnings were a kind of Prediction For Moses evidently foresaw they would not prove so obedient as he desired XXXI Deut. 27 29. and consequently that these Threatnings in case of Disobedience would turn into Prophecies Unto every one of which their History exactly answers as the Book of Deuteronomy will give me occasion to show more fully Ver. 29. Verse 29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat This is the very utmost Calamity that could come upon a People and yet as Conradus Pellicanus observes it is put before the throwing down of their High-places and Images c. As if the devouring of their Children such was their incredible Lust after Idols would seem a less Evil to them than the loss of their Images This was fulfilled among the Israelites in the Siege of Samaria 2 Kings VI. 29. and among the Jews in the Siege of Jerusalem before the Babylonian Captivity IV Lament 10. and in the last Siege by Titus as Josephus relates Lib. VII de Bello Judaico cap. 8. Ver. 30. Verse 30 And I will destroy your high places Where they were wont to worship their Idols according to the manner of the Heathen who built Temples and Altars and offered Sacrifices to their Gods upon Mountains and high Hills especially such as were shaded with Trees Insomuch that the Indians in Philostratus call the high Mountain Caucasus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the House of the Gods And the ancient Persians as Herodotus saith in his Clio cap. 131. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 going up to the top of the highest Mountains there offered Sacrifices unto Jupiter calling the whole Circle of the Heavens by that name And in the Island Naxus the highest Mountain was also consecrated to him as from his worship on Mount Athos he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hesychius They that would see more of this matter may look into Cuperus his Apotheosis Homeri p. 15 16 c. And the reason of their choosing these places for their Worship was because they thought their Sacrifices would be more acceptable there than in Valleys For as Lucian himself saith they thought themselves in such High-places to be nearer to their Gods and so should more easily obtain Audience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. de De◠Syr. and Tacitus saith the same in the last Book of his Annals How much the Israelites were inclined to follow the Nations of the World in this appears too plainly by their History which shows that High-places were frequented in the Reigns of their good Kings as well as of their bad Yea they were so fond of them that when they could not go to them they offered upon the tops of their Houses XIX Jerem. 13. XXXII 29. I Zephan 5. And cut down their Images The Hebrew word Chammanecem which we translate your Images properly signifies Temples erected for the worship of the Sun as Aben-Ezra says upon this place For it is certain that the Hebrews call the Sun Chamma from whence comes the word Chamman the Temple of the Sun whom the ancient Phoenicians took to be the Lord of Heaven So Sanchoniathon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the Sun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though it is very probable that as Superstition increased the name of Chammanim was given to other Temples as well as those of the Sun See Bochart in his Canaan Lib. II. cap. 17. Others take this word to signifie what the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Temples of the Fire which being worshipped by the Eastern People Temples were erected in honour of it But this is not much different from the former the Persians worshipt the Sun in the Fire which was the Symbol and Representative of the Sun See Selden Syntagma II. de Diis Syris cap. 8. And cast your carcases upon the carcases of your Idols Which were both burnt together as some imagine However this expresses the utmost Contempt both of them and of their Idols who were alike detestable Their fondness of them also when they were alive seems to be represented by throwing them upon them when they were dead And the Hebrew word gillulim which we barely translate Idols importing something belonging to the Dunghil is taken by some to signifie the Images of Baal-peor who was worshipped as the Jews say after a most beastly manner These Idols whatsoever they were though dressed up finely yet were no better then dead Carcases without any Life or Soul in them And we might think if that Superstition were so old that Moses alludes to the little Images of Isis which were made of Plaister and Clay and are found frequently in the Sepulchres of Egyptians at this day Unto which Christoph Arnoldus in his Epistle to Wagenseil thinks the Talmudists allude when they say that Pharaoh's Daugher becoming a Proselyte to the Jewish Religion washed her self in the River Megullile from these dunghil Idols as some render it of her Father's House Excerp Gemarae in Sota cap. 1. sect 40. The Dutch Interpreters translate it Dreck-goden not meerly for the matter as Arnoldus thinks but also for the form of a Beetle which lives in dung For so they represented Isis as Plutarch tells us in his Book de Isid Offic. See Wagenseil Sota p. 1176. And my soul shall abhor you As so offensive to me that I can bear with you no longer This is directly opposite to his promise if they would be obedient v. 11. My soul shall not abhor you Ver. 31. Verse 31 And I will make your Cities waste Their Walls being thrown down and their Houses burnt And bring your Sanctuaries unto desolation They had but one Sanctuary and therefore some think their Synagogues are comprehended under this name for they are sometimes called Sanctuaries as I observed before But the Sanctuary properly so
crucifying Christ the LORD and accept the Punishment of their Iniquity acknowledging that so horrid a Crime deserved so long and so heavy a Punishment For every Child as he observes in another place Book XI p. 3750. is born as it were heir to his fathers sins and to their Plagues unless he renounce them by taking their Guilt upon him and such hearty Confession as this Law prescribes and patient Submission of himself to God's Correction Ver. 46. Verse 46 These are the Statutes and Judgments and Laws which the LORD made between him and the Children of Israel This may be thought to refer either to all the foregoing Book of Laws or to what is said in this Chapter Menochius thus expounds it these are the Punishments which God threathed to the breakers of his Laws But it is more reasonable to take in the whole in this manner these are the Statutes and Judgments and Laws together with the Promises and Threatnings annexed to them which the LORD made between him and Israel In Mount Sinai See XXV 1. By the hand of Moses By the Ministry of Moses who delivered these Laws from God's own Mouth It is obvious to observe that instead of these are the Laws which the LORD made between him and the Children of Israel Onkelos the famous Chaldee Interpreter hath between his WORD and the Children of Israel Which Theodorick Hackspan produces among other places to prove that in those Paraphrasts the WORD of the LORD signifies no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself Which though it be true in some places yet in others as I have observed before it cannot have that signification particularly in CX Psal 1. where the Hebrew words are The LORD said unto my Lord which are thus expounded by Jonathan The LORD said unto his WORD Where it can signifie nothing but another Divine Person And so Onkelos might intend it here that the LORD made all these Laws between his Eternal WORD and them CHAP. XXVII Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying Some Religious People it is possible were touched with such a sense of what Moseshad now delivered in the foregoing Promises and Threats that they thought of giving themselves wholly unto God or of vowing some of their Goods to him and therefore he gives Moses further Directions for the regulating of such Vows Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them when a Man shall make a singular Vow And first If any Man vowed himself or his Children wholly to the Service of God in the Tabernacle he directs what was to be done in that case Which he calls a singular or extraordinary Vow and by Philo is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great Vow it being a wonderful piece of Devotion as the word japhli in the Hebrew imports because Men were desirous to help God's Priests in the meanest Ministry such as bringing in Wood carrying out Ashes sweeping away the Dust and such like The person shall be for the LORD by thy estimation The meaning would have been more plain if the words had been translated just as they lie in the Hebrew According to thy estimation the person shall be for the LORD For this immediately suggests to ones thoughts That the Service of the Persons themselves thus devoted was to be employed in the Tabernacle but a value set upon them by the Priest and that to be employed for the LORD i. e. for holy uses for repairing the Sanctuary suppose or any thing belonging to it The reason why God would not accept the Persons themselves as they desired but the value of them for his Service seems to be because there was a sufficient number of Persons peculiarly designed for all the Work of the Tabernacle which he would not have incumbered by more Attendants there than were needful Ver. 3. Verse 3 And thy estimation shall be That the Priest might not either overvalue or undervalue any Person the Rates are here set down which he should demand for their Redemption Of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old For at Twenty years of Age saith Procopius Gazaeus Men begin to be fit for business and continue so till sixty when it is time to leave it off Thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver That this one Rule should serve for all Men though of different qualities Philo thinks was fit for several reasons which he gives in his Book of Special Laws The principal is because God regarded only the Vow the value of which was equal whosoever made it whether a great Man or a poor After the shekel of the Sanctuary See XXX Exod. 13. Ver. 4. Verse 4 And if it be a female then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels Women could not be so serviceable as Men and therefore were valued at a less rate For all that they could do was to spin or weave or make Garments or wash for the Priests and Levites Ver. 5. Verse 5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old It appears by this that though a Child of five years old could not make a Vow yet his Parents might solemnly devote one of that Age to God and it did oblige them to pay what is here required for the use of the Sanctuary Thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels and for the female ten shekels Less is required than for those above twenty because their Life was more uncertain and they were less capable to do any Service before they came to their full growth Ver. 6. Verse 6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old c. Before a Child was a Month old it seems it was not capable to be devoted to God but then it might And still less was still demanded as the value of them because Children so small were very weak and imperfect and the price therefore set accordingly But the words may be understood not of Children that were a Month old but that were in the first Month of their Life And Samuel we find was devoted to God before he was born Ver. 7. Verse 7 And from sixty years old and above if it be a male then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels c. They are valued much less after sixty than before v. 3. because their Service then was little worth and their Life likely to be short And for a female ten shekels The Hebrews think it observable that in their youth v. 3 4. Males were valued almost double to Females but now in old Age they are made almost of equal value For old Women continue very serviceable in many things when old Men are not whence they have a saying An old Woman in an House is a Treasure in an House Ver. 8. Verse 8 And if he be poorer then thy estimation If he be not able to pay according to the forenamed Rates Then he shall present himself before the Priest Who was then
of whom it was bought c. Not unto him who bought the Field and then vowed it to God but unto the Hereditary Owner which is the meaning of the next words Even unto him to whom the possession of the Land did belong Ver. 25. Verse 25 All thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary c. Full weight according to the Standard kept in the Sanctuary See XXX Exod 13. and XIX of this Book v. 36. Ver. 26. Verse 26 Only the firstling of the Beasts which shall be the LORD's firstling no man shall sanctifie it By vowing it to be a whole Burnt-offering or a Peace-offering unto the LORD as Maimonides expounds it The reason was because no Man could lawfully vow that which was not his own as the Firstlings were not they being the LORD 's already as it follows in the end of this Verse The same Reason held as Maimonides likewise observes in all things belonging to God as Tenths Yet they devised ingeniously enough as he speaks a way to give these Firstlings to God by a new Obligation and yet not offend as they imagined against this Law For they interpret these words of Firstlings already brought forth No Man might sanctifie such but while they were in the Womb they might saying I vow that Lamb suppose which my Ewe goes with to be a whole Burnt-offering to God if it be a male But they could not vow it for a Peace-offering because no Man could alter any thing for his own profit Whether it be ox or sheep Under these two are comprehended all other kind of Creatures whose Firstlings belonged to God It is the LORD's III Numb 13. VIII 17. For this reason no Man was to presume to vow such things it being a kind of mockery to make a present of that to another which was his own before See Mr. Mede concerning this Verse p. 512. Ver. 27. Verse 27 And if it be of an unclean beast Most understand this of the Firstling of an unclean Beast Against which there is this Objection That such things were before ordered to be redeemed not with Money but with a Lamb XIII Exod. 13. Therefore it seems more reasonable to understand this of the Firstling of such an unclean Beast which a Man had redeemed v. 13. but afterward devoted to God which he might do for after the Redemption it was become his own again Then he shall redeem it according to thy estimation At the rate thou shalt set upon it And shall add a fifth part of it thereto As was ordained before in the like case v. 11. Or if it be not redeemed then it shall be sold according to thy estimation Any other Man might buy it at that rate the Priest had set upon it and the Money was applyed to holy uses Ver. 28. Verse 28 Notwithstanding no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the LORD Nothing that was devoted by that sort of Vow which was called Cherem as the word is here in the Hebrew with a Curse as the word implyes upon themselves and others if the thing was not imployed according to their Vow Of all that he hath both of man and beast c. All manner of things which might be sanctified to the LORD by the fore-mentioned simple Vow might be thus devoted and consecrated to him by a Cherem i. e. Beasts and Houses and Lands and even Men themselves as far as they had power over them For that is meant by those words all that a man hath See next Verse Shall be sold or redeemed For this was the peculiar nature of this sort of Vow that the things devoted by it should remain irreversibly and unalterably to the use unto which it was devoted for the Person was accursed that applyed it to any other use than that to which it was consecrated Every devoted thing Of this kind Is most holy to the LORD Other things devoted by a simple Vow were holy v. 9 10 c. but these were most holy so that none might touch them but the Priests and they were so strictly applyed to the Divine Service that they could not be alienated either by Sale or Redemption or Commutation or Donation or any other way See Mede p. 160. Ver. 29. Verse 29 None devoted which shall be devoted of men shall be redeemed but shall surely be put to death Some learned Men have from these words asserted That Parents and Masters among the Jews had such a power over their Children and Servants that they might devote them to Death and so kill them only the Sentence of the Priest was to concur to whom every devoted thing fell as his portion This is maintained by Ludov. Capellus and confuted by Mr. Selden Lib. IV. de Jure Nat. Gent. juxta Disciplin Hebr. cap. 6. where he judiciously observes That this Power would have too much intrenched upon the sixth Commandment if private Men might have at their pleasure thus disposed of their Children and Slaves And in the next Chapter he explains the sense of this Verse and proves indeed that there may be a Cherem minhaadam of men or from among men as well as of beasts but this word hath four several senses among the Hebrews First It signifies the Sacred Gift it self which was devoted to God or to holy Uses and so it signifies in the foregoing v. 28. Secondly It signifies that which was devoted to Perdition and utter Destruction either by the right of War or upon the account of Capital Enmities an Example of which we have in Jericho VI Josh 17. where the whole City was a Cherem devoted to Destruction as a Punishment to their Enemies yet so that the Metals were made a Cherem of the first sort that is Sacred to the LORD and his Holy Uses And thus the great Sanhedrim called in Scripture the whole Congregation might devote those to be a Cherem who going to the Wars did not obey orders and perform the Charge laid upon them An Example of which we have XXI Judg. 5. 1 Sam. XIV 24. I omit the other two for brevities sake of which there are Examples VI. Josh 26. X Ezra 8. XXIII Acts 12 14 21. See Selden Ib. cap. 7. 8. because the Cherem here mentioned by Moses is of this second sort For it is evident that the Cherem of the first sort mentioned v. 28. was of such things over which they had an intire power to dispose of them as they pleased And therefore those words both of Man and Beast the Hebrews understand of their Slaves whether Men or Women who were Canaanites or Gentiles not others who were in their power as much as their Beasts to give away or to sell But to take away their Life or to give them to be slain was not in their power but all the effect of this Cherem was that the whole right which they had to the Service of such Slaves was transferred by him that devoted them to the Service of the
sorts before they were two He shall offer it of his own voluntary will In this Translation we follow the Opinion of the Jews who refer this to the Persons that brought this Offering which they might do when they pleased The like expressions we read XIX 5. XXII 19. But the LXX thought it hath respect to God and so the Phrase may be interpreted he shall bring it for his acceptation i. e. that he may find a favourable acceptance with God At the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation Where the Altar of Burnt-offering was placed XL Exod 6 29. And this was so necessary that it is required upon pain of death to be brought hither and offered in no other place XVII 3 4 c. For which cause it is likely the Door of the Tabernacle is here mentioned rather than the Altar that it might be understood to be unlawful to offer at any other Altar but that which stood at the door of the Tabernacle Before the LORD With their Faces towards that holy place where the Divine Majesty dwelt unto whom the Sacrifice was brought and at the door of the Tabernacle received by the Priest from the hand of the Offerer Ver. 4. Verse 4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the Burnt-offering Both his hands as some gather from XVI 21. and as Maimonides saith he was to do it with all his might This was a Rite belonging to Peace-offerings as well as to Burnt-offerings III. 2. and to Sin-offerings also IV. 4. The meaning of which in this sort of Offerings seems to have been that he who brought the Sacrifice renounced all his Interest in it and transferred it wholly to God unto whose Service he intirely devoted it It being like to the old Ceremony among the Romans who laid their hands upon their Servants when they gave them their Liberty and abdicated their own Right in them saying Hunc hominem liberum esse volo I will that this Man be free which was called Manumission In other Offerings it had another meaning as I shall observe in due place and it was imitated by the Gentiles though not without the addition of impious Superstitions For they wreathed back the Head of the Beast upward when they sacrificed to the Gods above and thrust down its Head towards the Ground when they sacrificed to their Infernal Deities as J. Brentius hath observed in his Preface to this Book And it shall be accepted for him to make an atonement for him It shall be so acceptable as to recommend him to the favour of the Divine Majesty For so the Hebrew word Capher seems here to signifie not properly to make an Atonement which was the business of a Sin-offering but to own him to be in a state of Reconciliation with God unto whom he was supposed to give up himself wholly as he did this Beast The Jews indeed who stick to the literal signification of the word fancy that these Burnt-offerings expiated evil Thoughts and Desires but there is no ground for this in Scripture and the most that can be made of it is that God accepted his Prayers which he made in general for the forgiveness of all his sins when he laid his Hand upon the Head of this Sacrifice For it must be here observed that Laying on of Hands was always accompanied with Prayer as appears by Jacob's laying them on the Head of Manasseh and Ephraim XLVIII Gen. 14 16 20. and the High-Priest laying them on the Scape-goat XVIth of this Book 21. Insomuch that laying on of hands signifies sometimes in the New Testament to pray XIX Matth. 15. V Mark 23. and other places But if a Man had committed any sin there are other Sacrifices peculiarly appointed by the Law for their Expiation which he was bound to offer with confession of sin and prayer to God for pardon Ver. 5. Verse 5 And he shall kill the Bullock That is the Man himself who brought it as Rasi interprets it or one of the Levites as others understand it For they killed the Paschal Lamb at that great Passover mentioned 2 Chron. XXX 17. as Bochart observes But he should have added the reason of it which Rasi there gives that a great many of the Congregation having not sanctified themselves as we read in that place therefore the Levites had the charge of the killing of the Passover for every one that was not clean to sanctifie them unto the LORD Otherwise every Man might kill his own Passover XII Exod. 6. as they might do all their other Sacrifices For certain it is this was none of the works of Priests as Maimonides shows in a passage mentioned by Dr. Cudworth in his Book concerning the Lord's Supper p. 27. out of Biath Hammik-dath Where he quotes this very place to prove That the killing of the holy things might lawfully be done by a Stranger yea of the most holy things whether they were the holy things of private Persons or of the whole Congregation The common Objection to this is That none might come into the Court where the Altar was but the Priests To which the Answer is plain That upon this occasion other Persons might come so far within the Court be cause it was indispensably necessary that the Man who brought the Sacrifice should lay his hand upon the Head of it which was to be done at the Altar when it was to be slain Before the LORD See v. 3. And the Priests Aarons sons shall bring the blood Now begins the work of the Priests the receiving of the Blood and that which immediately followed belonging to their Office They received it in a Bason XXIV Exod. 6. as the manner also was among the Heathen which our learned Sheringham observes upon Codex Joma p. 85. out of Homer's Odyss L. III. where Thrasymedes is represented as cutting the Ox asunder with a Cleaver and Perseus as receiving the Blood in a Bason which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A word used in Crete as Eustathius notes for such kind of Vessels which some think was originally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the receiving of the Blood And sprinkle the blood round about upon the Altar c. That this might be done readily one Priest received the Blood and another took it from him and sprinkled it about the Altar or as the Jews understand it on every side of the Altar which they performed by two sprinklings at the opposite Corners of it Which was a Rite also used in Peace-offerings and Trespass-offerings but in Sin-offerings the Blood was poured out at the foot of the Altar See VII 2. Thus the Heathen also themselves took care the Blood of their Sacrifices should not run upon the ground but be received as I said in Vessels prepared for that purpose and then poured upon their Altars and so offered and consecrated to their Gods So Lucian in his Book of Sacrifices represents the Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as pouring the Blood upon the