Erpenius and many of the Jewish Commentators such as R. Solomon and Aben-Ezra who give the same account of XXI Lev. 10. where the same thing is required of the High-Priest And the time of their letting their Hair grow on such occasions they determine by the Law of the Nazarites who were not to cut their Hair all the time of their Vow of Separation which the Jews say was at least XXX days VI Numb 5. Therefore the Priests were not to let their Hair grow so long if they did they were uncapable of officiating Only they make this difference between the common Priests and the High-Priest that this Law did not bind the Priests at all times but only in their Course of Ministration but the High-Priest whose Presence was always necessary in the Sanctuary might never let his Hair grow but was bound every Week to have it cut even on the Eve of the Sabbath See Selden L. II. de Success in Pontiff cap. 6. But the foundation of all this is not very strong for it relies chiefly on the use of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place of Numbers VI. 5. where it signifies Hair from whence they conclude the Verb here may have the same Notion and signifie the growth of Hair But this is not the usual signification of it in Scripture where it commonly imports the rejection of something as of good Counsel I Prov. 25. of Reproof or Instruction XIII Prov. 18. XV. 32. And being joyned with the Head plainly signifies the uncovering it See V Numb 18. And therefore so the LXX understand it here as if they were forbidden to put off their Bonnets But that they always did as soon as they had performed their Sacred Office in the Sanctuary and therefore it may be meant of making their Heads bare by shaving them or bald by pulling off the Hair as the manner was in Mourning XV Isa 2. XLI Jer. 5. XLVIII 37. and many other places And in this the Priests among the Jews directly opposed those among the Egyptians who shaved their Heads as appears by what Minutius Faelix and Lampridius in the Life of Commodus say concerning the Priests of Isis And Herodotus also in his Euterpe whose words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In other places the Priests of the Gods nourish their hair but in Egypt they are shaved Neither rend your Clothes Which was another Rite of Mourning not only among the Jews but among all People in ancient Times especially in the Eastern Countries as every one knows that hath read any of their Authors See I Job 20. And it was used on many other occasions among the Jews as well as in their Funerals particularly when any Man blasphemed XIV Numb 6. 2 Kings XIX 1. when any ill Tidings came which put them into a Passion 2 Kings V. 7. or any Misfortune befel them XLIV Gen. 13. XI Judg. 35. But was thought so unseemly in a Priest especially when he ministred that the Jews say they whose Garments were rent by accident were as uncapable of ministring as they who rent them themselves in Mourning The reason of this Precept was as R. Levi of Barcelona well observes Praecept CLV that it being not allowed in those Countries for Mourners to come into the Presence of their Kings as appears by the History of Esther much less was it seemly for any that attended upon the Divine Majesty to come into his House in such a Habit. Lest ye die As Nadab and Abihu did For after such a Monition as this they had highly dishonoured God if they had appeared in his Sanctuary in such an indecent manner And wrath come upon the people For want of Priests to make atonement for them when they offended But let your brethren the whole house of Israel bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled He doth not prohibit the rest of the People who were not Priests to mourn for them but rather requires it of them all that they might be sensible of their loss and of the the sin which was the cause of it And it is likely the People bewailed them by rending their Clothes and baring their Heads and putting Ashes upon them or some such Rites then in use among them Ver. 7. Verse 7 And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation For it is supposed the seven days of their Consecration were not yet quite ended VIII 35. or they had begun some other Ministration in the Sanctuary and therefore were not to stir out of the Court of it till it was sanctified And the Hebrews think this Law did not only bind Aaron and his Sons at this time but their Posterity for ever that if they heard of the death of any of their Kindred when they were ministring in the Sanctuary they should not stir from their Duty For that would have been to show a greater affection to a dead Friend than to the living God This appears to be true by the like command to this and in the same words laid particularly upon the High-Priests XXI 12. For the anointing of the LORD is upon you You are devoted and consecrated by a Solemn Unction VIII 10 c. to the Service of God which must not be omitted out of respect to any Person whatsoever For in this Precept as R. Levi Barcelonita observes Praecept CLVII the Dignity and Majesty of the Divine Worship was consulted which if his Ministers had deserted on such occasions for a moment would have been brought into contempt For it would have been a declaration that there was something in the World more to be regarded than God's Service And therefore the punishment of Death is threatned in the foregoing words to those who were guilty of such an offence And they did according to the word of Moses Staid in the Tabernacle without any of the usual Tokens of Mourning Wherein they performed an eminent piece of Obedience to God whose commandment suppressed those natural Affections which are very hard to be kept in subjection Ver. 8. Verse 8 And the LORD spake unto Aaron saying It may be thought that the LORD was so pleased with his Obedience that he himself now spake unto Aaron whereas hitherto he had spoken to him by Moses Ver. 9. Verse 9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink thou nor thy sons with thee By Wine every one knows is meant that Liquor which is pressed out of Grapes And by Schechar which we translate strong Drink is meant such Liquors as were made in imitation of Wine of Dates or Figs and many other sorts of Fruits also that which was made of Honey which we call Mede and Metheglin There are many sorts of such Liquors mentioned by Pliny in his Natural History Lib. XIV cap. 16. which he calls Vina factitia When ye go into the Tabernacle of the Congregation To perform your Ministry At other times they might drink Wine and if we may believe the Jews they did not
And he shall take the cedar-wood and the hysop c. This whole Verse is explained before v. 6. which differs not from this in any thing but only that the living Bird is there mentioned in the first place and here in the last and in this Verse is more distinctly declared that all these things should be dipped in the blood of the slain Bird and in the running water Ver. 52. Verse 52 And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird c. There is nothing to be observed here more than before but only this That the House is said to be cleansed by the living Bird as well as by the blood of that which was slain its flying away being a declaration the House was free for any Man's Habitation Thus the Scape-goat which was let run into the Wilderness took away the Sins of the People as well as the Goat offered at the Altar See XVI 5. Ver. 53. Verse 53 And he shall let go the living bird out of the City into the open field This justifies what the Jewish Doctors say upon v. 7. See there And make an atonement for the house An Atonement was made for the House no otherways than for the Altar See upon v. 18. by cleansing it so as to make it fit for any Man to dwell in it And it shall be clean The Owner who was commanded to forsake the House v. 36. or any one else might return to it and inhabit it as before it was suspected to have the Plague in it Ver. 54. Verse 54 This is the law for all manner plague and leprosie and scall The Rule whereby to judge and to cleanse all Leprosies in the Bodies of Men and that Leprosie in the Head or the Beard called a Scall XIII 30 31 32 to v. 38. Ver. 55 56. Verse 55 56 And for the Leprosie of a garment and of an house and for a rising c. The foregoing Verse and these two are a recapitulation of the Laws delivered in the XIIIth Chapter and in this Ver. 57. Verse 57 To teach when it is unclean and when it is clean To guide the Priest in judgment when to pronounce a Man a Garment or an House infected with the Leprosie or when to declare them free from it This is the Law of Leprosie Here is a Conclusion of what belongs to this Matter Which prophane Minds who love to disparage the Holy Scripture and admire no ancient Authors but such as Homer Virgil and Plautus to use the words of Pellicanus upon v. 39. may deride as unworthy to be made a part of a Divine Law But Men better disposed may discern herein the great goodness of God to the Israelites whom he had adopted for his peculiar People in taking care to give them Precepts about all manner of things which were many ways profitable both for the regulating their Manners and preserving their Health and accustoming them to an exact Obedience to him in every thing And who doth not see that by these external Rites and Ceremonies he admonishes us to keep pure Consciences void of Offence both towards God and Men in a strict observance of all the Rules of our most holy Religion CHAP. XV. Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron saying For Aaron was particularly concerned to see these Laws observed as well as the foregoing Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them Moses it is likely first delivered these Laws to them in the presence of Aaron who afterward instructed and exhorted them to the observance of them When any man hath a running issue He speaks of that Disease which Physicians call a Gonorrhaea which commonly proceeded from an ill course of Life and had in those Countries a great virulency in it If it proceeded meerly from some strain in the back by carrying too great a Burden or by violent leaping and several other natural Causes which Maimonides enumerates in his Mechuss Kapparah cap. 2. the Man was not defiled with it nor concerned in this Law And therefore the Causes from whence it proceeded were diligently to be considered as Maimonides there admonishes which might be discerned by such effects as made it a very nasty and offensive Disease in those hot Countries as it is sometimes here in these colder Climates Out of his flesh The word Flesh signifies the Secret Parts as it doth VI. 10. XVII Gen. 13. XVI Ezek 26. and other places Because of his issue he is unclean Upon that account alone he was to be kept from the Sanctuary and separated from Company See v. 31. Ver. 3. Verse 3 And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue The Rule whereby to judge of it Whether the flesh run with his issue or his flesh be stopped from his issue it is his uncleanness Whether there were a continued distillation of the corrupt Matter or it was so coagulated as to stop in the passage either way it made the Man unclean Be stopped from his issue Rather with his issue as the Hebrew words will bear Ver. 4. Verse 4 Every bed whereon he lyeth that bath the issue is unclean and every thing whereon he sitteth c. This and the following Verses unto v. 13. are a demonstration that this Disease made a Man legally Unclean to a very high degree being so offensive that not only every thing he touched became unclean but whosoever touched such things was made unclean also There is little in them that needs any Explication the only difficulty was to know whether a Man laboured under this Disease Which was not wholly left unto his Conscience to determine but his Countenance discovered it the continual Flux making a great alteration in the whole habit of his Body For virulent Gonorrhaea's sometimes last several years as Th. Bartholinus saith he knew one that had it ten years and was reduced to skin and bone being frequently accompanied with Inflamations and Ulcers in the neighbouring parts from which the filthy Humor flows Bartholin Histor Artatom Cent. II. Hist XXXVI Ver. 5. Verse 5 And whosoever toucheth his bed Upon which he hath lain Shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the even Which was the Law in other Cases when Men bad touched an unclean thing XI 28. Ver. 6. Verse 6 And he that sitteth on any thing whereon he sat that hath the issue Though he did but just sit down and did it ignorantly presently rising up a-again as soon as he knew his Error he became defiled and might not go to the Sanctuary till he was purified by washing his Clothes and himself in water Ver. 7. Verse 7 And he that toucheth the flesh of him that hath the issue That is any part of his Body Ver. 8. Verse 8 And if he that hath the issue spit upon him that is clean c. By the same reason if he blowed his Nose upon him it defiled him Then he shall wash his
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
them carried the two rows of Bread six Cakes apiece and the other two carried each of them a golden Dish in which the Frankincense was set upon the Bread See Dr. Lightfoot of the Temple Service Chap. 14. sect 5. Being taken from the Children of Israel At whose charge they were provided though prepared by the Levites See X Nehem. 32 33. By an everlasting Covenant By vertue of that Command which they had all agreed to observe which required the Shew-bread to be set before the LORD alway XXIV Exod. 3. XXV 30. Ver. 9. Verse 9 And it shall be Aaron 's and his sons Who as God's Servants eat of the Bread which came from his Table And they shall eat it in the holy place For the most holy things could be eaten no where else See VI. 26 29. For it is most holy unto him See Chap. II. of this Book v. 3. Of the offerings of the LORD made by fire It need not seem strange that this Bread which was not burnt upon the Altar as Meat-offerings were should be reckoned among the Offerings made by fire for as the Altar where those Meat-offerings were burnt is called God's Table I Mal. 12. so this Table where the Shew-bread stood was really God's Altar Insomuch that the Bread which was set upon it before him was lookt upon as offered upon him and the Frankincense set upon the Bread as a part of it being really burnt it may be called an Offering made by fire Thus the Gentiles also as an excellent Person of our own hath observed thought Tables rightly dedicated unto their Gods to supply the place of Altars So Macrobius saith Lib. III. Saturnal cap. 11. it evidently appeared by Papyrian's Law That arae vicem praestare posse mensam dicatam a Table consecrated might serve instead of an Altar Of which he gives an instance in the Temple of Juno Populonia and then proceeds to give a reason for it because Altars and Tables eodem die quo aedes ipsae dedicari solent were wont to be dedicated on the same day with the Temples themselves From whence it was that a Table hoc ritu dedicata dedicated in this manner was of the same use in the Temple with an Altar See Dr. Owtram de Sacrificiis Lib. I. cap. 8. n. 7. By a perpetual statute As long as these Sacrifices lasted Ver. 10. Verse 10 And the son of an Israelitish woman whose father was an Egyptian went out among the Children of Israel In the Hebrew the words run thus And there went out the son of an Israelitish woman and he was the son of an Egyptian man in the midst of or among the Children of Israel Which last words signifie that though his Father was an Egyptian by birth yet he was become a Proselyte by Religion And was one of those it is probable who went along with the Israelites when God brought them out of Egypt XII Exod. 38. So R. Solomon Jarchi interprets this phrase Among the Children of Israel Hence saith he we learn that he was a Proselyte of Righteousness And Aben-Ezra to the same purpose He was received into the number of the Jews See a great many more in Mr. Selden Lib. II. de Synedriis cap. 1. numb 2. where he observes That it is the common Opinion of the Jews this Man was the Son of him whom Moses kill'd in Egypt II Exod. 12. And this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the Camp When God was delivering the foregoing Laws unto Moses this Case seems to have hapned And the Jews say the Controversie between these two was this The former looking upon himself as having a good right to it by his Mother came and endeavoured to set up a Tent among the Children of Dan in that place where their Tribe had pitched their Tents which was opposed by one of that Tribe who told him the right of his Mother would do him no service unless his Father had been an Israelite for the Law was II Numb 2. that every Man of the Children of Israel should pitch by his own Standard with the Ensign of their Father's House Which Law though given afterward yet they suppose was the Rule before by which this Man was condemned by those that heard the Cause to be in the wrong Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the Israelitish womans son blasphemed the Name of the LORD and cursed Sentence being given against him he uttered blasphemous words against God himself perhaps renounced the LORD and also cursed those Judges that had condemned him The Jews commonly think that this Blasphemy was his pronouncing the peculiar Name of God which he heard at Mount Sinai when the Law was given But this is a meer fancy for there were some reproachful words utter'd against God as well as against the Judges as appears from v. 15. And they themselves acknowledge that a Proselyte was guilty of death whether he cursed by the proper Name of God or any other as Mr. Selden shows Lib. II. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 12. Pellicanus thinks it probable that this Man mockt at the foregoing Laws which were delivered about the Worship of God and contemned God himself when he was told by whose Authority they were enacted And they brought him unto Moses If the occasion of their strife was such as the Jews imagine then Mr. Selden thinks it highly probable that the Cause had been heard and judged by some of the lesser Courts established by Jethro's advice XVIII Exod. 21 22. where the Blasphemy had been so plainly proved that he was convicted of it but they doubting about the Punishment of so high a Crime referred the consideration of that to Moses as the Supream Judge And his mothers name was Shelomith the daughter of Dibri of the Tribe of Dan. I see no reason of mentioning the name of the Woman from whom he was descended but that all might be satisfied of the Truth of this History Ver. 12. Verse 12 And they put him inward Committed him to Prison that he might be secured till his Punishment was declared That the mind of the LORD might be shewed them In the Hebrew the words are That it might be expounded to them viz. by Moses according to the mouth of the LORD that is as the LORD should declare to him And so Onkelos renders them Till the matter was expounded to them according to the sentance of the word of the LORD For it is noted here by a famous Commentator among the Jews as Mr. Selden observes in the place before mentioned Lib. II. de Synedr c. 1. that God was consulted about this matter because they did not know whether he was to die for this crime or whether his judgment was to be expected from the hand of Heaven or otherwise Whence Jarchi says they did not know whether he was guilty of death or not And so Theodoret Q. XXXIII in Lev. There was no Law as yet about this matter But there was