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
there But the Expiation of the High-Priest himself who was to make the Expiation of the Sanctuary preceded all the rest as is apparent from v. 11. Ver. 34. Verse 34 And this shall be an everlasting statute The repetition of this the third time See v. 29 31. shows of how great importance it was that this annual Solemnity should be observed Vnto you The High-Priests before-mentioned of whom he speaks in the Plural Number because none of them could continue always as I observed v. 32. but enjoyed the Office successively upon the death of their Predecessors To make an atonement for the Children of Israel for all their sins once a year This is only a repetition of what was said v. 30. that it should be incumbent on the High-Priest by a perpetual Obligation to make an Atonement for the Peoples sins on this day as it was incumbent on the People v. 29. to afflict their Souls upon this day And he did as the LORD commanded Moses The Service of this day was immediately performed by Aaron according to the fore-named order CHAP. XVII Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying After he had ordered the great Anniversary Sacrifice in the foregoing Chapter he gives some Directions about other Sacrifices for which there would be occasion every day Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto Aaron and his Sons and all the Children of Israel Who were all concerned in what follows and therefore this Command is directed to the whole house of Israel v. 3. to whom this was delivered it is likely by their Elders or else Moses himself went from Tribe to Tribe and spake to their several Families And say unto them This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded Enjoyned by a Special Law Ver. 3. Verse 3 Whatsoever man there be of the House of Israel that killeth an Ox or Lamb or Goat viz. For a Sacrifice or Offering as it follows v. 4. these being the only Creatures of the Herd and the Flock that were permitted to be brought to God's Altar There are those indeed who think Moses speaks of killing these Creatures for common use which it was lawful for them to do any where after they came to the Land of Canaan XII Deut. 15. but now they were not to kill them for their food unless they brought them to the door of the Tabernacle and there first sacrificed some part of them to the LORD before they tasted of them themselves By which their sacrificing to Daemons was prevented to which they were prone v. 7. and they also constantly feasted with God while they dwelt in the Wilderness But this is better founded upon XII Deut. 20 21. where it is supposed that they had thus done while they remained in the Wilderness and were so near to the House of God that they might easily bring thither every Beast they killed for ordinary use But they were dispensed withal as to this when they came into Canaan and could not possibly when they had a mind to eat Flesh go so far as to the Tabernacle or Temple which was many Miles from some of them Instead whereof they were bound to come at the three great Festivals and appear before God at his House wheresoever they dwelt In the Camp or that killeth it out of the Camp This seems to show that he doth not speak of killing these Beasts ad usum vescendi as St. Austin's words are for the use of eating for that they did not do out of the Camp but in their Tents but de Sacrificiis he speaks concerning Sacrifices For he prohibits as he goes on private Sacrifices lest every Man should take upon him to be a Priest c. Ver. 4. Verse 4 And bringeth it not unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation to offer an offering unto the LORD In ancient time every Man had performed the Office of a Priest in his own Family But now that liberty is taken away because they had abused it to Idolatry and every Man was bound to bring his Sacrifice to the House of God where none but the Sons of Aaron could officiate and had the most sacred Obligations on them to offer only to the LORD The very Heathens themselves in future times found it necessary to enact the very same as appears by Plato in the latter end of his Tenth Book of Laws where he hath these memorable words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let this be a Law imposed absolutely upon all that no Man whatsoever have a sacred place in private Houses but when he hath a mind to offer Sacrifice let him go to the publick Temples and deliver his Sacrifice to the Priests whether Men or Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose business it is to take care that these things be performed in an holy manner By which it appears that these were two established Principles of Religion in wise Mens minds to Sacrifice publickly and to bring their Sacrifices to the Priests who were to take care to offer them purely Unto which Moses adds one thing more that their publick Sacrifices should be offered only at one place which was a most efficacious preservative from all strange Worship nothing being done but under the Eye of the Ministers of Religion and the Governours of the People Insomuch that St. Chrysostom as our learned Dr. Spencer observes Lib. I. de Rit Leg. Hebr. L. I. cap. 4. sect 1. calls Jerusalem which was afterwards established to be this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a kind of bond or knot whereby the whole Nation were tied fast to the Judaical Religion Before the Tabernacle of the LORD Before the Divine Majesty which dwelt in the Tabernacle round about which they all inhabited and were so near it while they travelled in the Wilderness that as there was no trouble in bringing all their Sacrifices thither so they knew certainly whether to go And thus the Hebrew Doctors observe it was when they came into Canaan where while the Tabernacle was fixed in Shilo none might Sacrifice any where else But when it wandred uncertainly after Shilo was destroyed being sometimes in Mispeh sometimes at Gilgal and at Nob and Gibeon and the House of Obed-Edom they fancy it was lawful to Sacrifice in other places For so we find Samuel did 1. Sam. VII 9. IX 13. where he sacrificed in an high place XI 15. XVI 2. and David 2 Sam. XXIV 18. and Elias 1 Kings XVIII 23. But these may be thought extraordinary acts done by an immediate warrant from God for none of these Persons were Priests but Prophets guided by Divine Inspirations See Dr. Owtram Lib. I. de Sacrific cap. 2. Blood shall be imputed unto that man he hath shed blood He was to be punished as a Murderer that is die for it For to have Blood imputed to a Man in the Hebrew phrase or to be guilty of Blood is to be liable to have his Blood shed or to lose his Life Which as of old it was
therefore saw his Neighbour kill a Beast and neglect to cover its Blood with Dust he was bound to go and do it himself because God speaks here unto the Children of Israel i. e. to all of them v. 12. as R. Levi Barcelonita glosses Praecept CLXXXV And the forenamed MS. mentioned by Wagenseil saith they covered the Blood with this form of Benediction Blessed be the LORD our God the King of the World who hath sanctified us with his Precepts and commanded us to cover Blood Which shows they thought this a Precept of great weight Ver. 14. Verse 14 For it is the life of all flesh c. Whether of Beasts or Fowl before-mentioned and therefore prohibited to be eaten by them as was before observed because it was offered to God and accepted by him for their Life when they had forfeited it by their sins Therefore I said unto the Children of Israel ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh See v. 12. Where the same thing is said but not so fully as here for he only saith in that Verse No soul of you shall eat blood but in this Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh For the life of all flesh is the blood thereof This is so often repeated no less than three times in this Verse the more to deter them from eating Blood which was the Life of the Beast and therefore offered to God as the LORD and Giver of Life and consequently belong'd to no Body else Ver. 15. Verse 15 And every soul that eateth that which dieth of it self And consequently had the Blood remaining in it as all things also which were not rightly killed had the Hebrews think and therefore here forbidden Or that which was torn with Beasts Which was nothing else as Maimonides speaks but the beginning to be a dead Carcase More Nevochim P. III. cap. 48. Whether it be one of your own Country or a stranger By a Stranger is meant one that had embraced the Jewish Religion for other Gentiles might eat such things Nay the Israelites themselves as Maimonides observes when they went to War and entred the Countries of the Gentiles and subdued them might eat that which died of it self or was torn of Beasts nay Swines-flesh and such like Food when they were hungry and could find no other Meat See Schickardi Mishpat Hamelek cap. 5. Theor. 18. He shall both wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water c. When he had eaten these things unwittingly and came to know it he was thus to purifie himself If he did it knowingly it was an high Crime against an express Law repeated more fully XIV Deut. 21. and punished as some think with Death But I suppose they mean he was obnoxious to the Divine Displeasure and in danger to be cut off by him if he did not offer a Sacrifice to expiate his Offence which seems to be allowed in such Cases as it was for greater Offences VI. 1 2 c. And the Jewish Doctors say he who violated this Law was only to be beaten for cutting off either by the hand of God or the Court of Judgment was not threatned to sins of so light a Nature as this So Maimonides observes in his More Nevoch P. III. cap. 41. Ver. 16. Verse 16 But if he wash them not nor bathe his flesh he shall bear his iniquity Be liable to be punished by God for the neglect of the means of his Purification And if while he continued thus unclean he adventured to eat of the Peace-offerings he was in danger to be cut off from his People VII 20. CHAP. XVIII Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying It is not said when the LORD delivered these Laws to Moses but it is likely after the other and before those that follow Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them They were all concerned in these Laws about Marriage and therefore they are directed to the whole Body of the People who received them I suppose by their Elders and Heads of the Tribes to whom Moses delivered them and charged they should be communicated to every Family and Houshold See XVII 2. I am the LORD your God I have a right to give you Laws being your Soveraign upon more Titles than one to which all Human Customs must yield though long practised and spread every where in the World This reason is mentioned six times in this Chapter and oftner in the next See v. 4. Ver. 3. Verse 3 After the doings of the Land of Egypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do The Manners of these two Countries of Egypt wherein they had dwelt a long time and of Canaan wherein they were going to settle they were in the greatest danger to imitate Especially in taking the liberty of making such Marriages as they saw practised among them against which they are here severely cautioned But though these words seem to have a particular respect to those Marriages yet Maimonides extends them to all their other Practices for which they could see no reason Magick being in much use among them in dressing their Trees and ploughing their Ground and such like common things in which they had a respect also to the disposition of the Stars of Heaven which led them to the Worship of them as he shows at large in his More Nevoch P. III. cap. 37. R. Levi Barcelonita also extends these words to the Customs of all other Nations Praecept CCLXII which he that observed was to be beaten But the Doings or Customs which Moses here speaks of seem to be those that follow v. 6 7 c. as appears from v. 24 c. And the other Customs of those Nations about their Clothes and cutting their Hair which the forenamed Author mentions are forbidden in other places Neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances The Hebrew word Chukkoth which we commonly translate Statutes and here Ordinances seems to import that the incestuous Marriages here mentioned were allowed by the Laws and Constitutions of those Countries which made their Wickedness the more intolerable v. 24. Ver. 4. Verse 4 Ye shall do my Judgments and keep my Ordinances to walk therein Frame your Lives according to the Laws and Rules which I give you to observe and not according to their wicked Practises which were grown into Customs and Precedents The Gemara Babylonica mentioning these words saith it is a Tradition of their Doctors that by Mishpatim which we translate Judgments are to be understood such Natural Laws as all Mankind are bound to observe though there were no written Commands for them such as those against Idolatry and those about uncovering the Nakedness of such near Relations as are here mentioned and Murder c. And by Chukkim Ordinances or Statutes such Laws are meant as depended only on the Pleasure of God and obliged none but
Governours CHAP. XIX Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying The following Precepts which contain in a manner all their Duty seem to have been delivered to Moses immediately after the former being in great part a Repetition of some principal things which had been already commanded Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto all the Congregation of the Children of Israel It is uncertain whether he delivered these Precepts only to their Elders and Heads of their Tribes to be communicated by them to the People or at several times he called every Family of every Tribe and spake these words to them himself And say unto them Ye shall be holy for I the LORD your God am holy This very thing was said to them before with respect to several Meats which are forbidden them XI 44. See there And now is repeated with a peculiar respect as Maimonides thinks More Nevoch P. III. cap. 47. to the filthy Marriages and abominable Idolatries mentioned in the foregoing Chapter as it is repeated again in the next Chapter XX. 7 26. with respect to some other things It being a general reason why they should be separated from all other People by the observation of peculiar Laws which is the meaning of being holy because they were the Worshippers of him whose most excellent Nature transcended all other Beings not only in Purity but in all other Perfections Ver. 3. Verse 3 Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father This Duty is called Honour in the fifth Commandment XX Exod. 12. and the Father there put before the Mother which being here called fear and the Mother put before the Father it shows saith Maimonides that honour and fear are equally due to both without any difference And the proper Expressions of Fear and Reverence are according to those Doctors not to sit in their Seat nor to contradict them in any thing they say much less to cavil against them nor to call them by their proper names but to add the Title of Sir c. as we speak or the like And the Expressions of Honour are not to sit down in their Presence and to provide them with Necessaries if they fall into Poverty c. See Selden Lib. II. de Synedriis oap 13. p. 557 c. and R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept XXVII And keep my Sabbaths Obedience as well as Reverence is included in the word Fear but if Parents commanded them to break the Sabbath-day or to profane any other day consecrated to God's Service they were not to be obeyed I am the LORD your God I rested on the Sabbath-day who am your Soveraign and therefore have power to require you to rest on any other days Particularly on the great Day of Atonement XVI 31. when I am so gracious as to accept of an Expiation for all your sins This is repeated v. 30. and XXIII 3. Ver. 4. Verse 4 Turn ye not unto Idols Not so much as to look upon them no nor to think of them as R. Levi Barcelonita expounds it Praecept CCXXV. much less to enquire after what manner the Gentiles worshipped them which is expresly forbidden XII Deut. 30. for by this means they might be allured to Idolatry The word we here translate Idols is a word of contempt signifying a thing of nought Or as some of the Jews will have it this word Elilim is compounded of the Particle al signifying not and El i. e. God As much as to say which are not gods and therefore called in Scripture Vanities which can do neither good nor hurt Nor make to your selves molten gods This seems to have respect to the Golden Calf which they made to worship and is called a molten Calf XXXII Exod. 4. But all graven Images are no less forbidden for if to look towards an Idol was a sin much more was it to make an Image of any sort to worship it The Jews are something curious in their observations upon this Precept For in the Book Siphra they say that they might not make molten Gods for others much less for themselves Whence that saying He that makes to himself an Idol violates a double Precept first in making it and then in making it to himself See R. Levi before-mentioned Praecept CCXXVI I am the LORD your God The same reason is given in the foregoing Verse for the observation of their Sabbaths and that of the seventh day every Week was ordained in memory of the Creation of the World and consequently intended as a Preservative from Idolatry as I observed upon Exod. XX. 8. which perhaps makes these two Precepts be here put together But it is evident Moses doth not observe the order wherein these Precepts were first delivered but rather inverts it beginning with the fifth Commandment and so going back to the fourth and here to the two first Ver. 5. Verse 5 And if ye offer a Sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the LORD As they were to avoid all Idolatry so they were to be careful to perform the Service due to the true God in a right manner Peace-offerings are only mentioned because they were the most common Sacrifices being of three sorts See VII 11 c. XVII 5. Ye shall offer it at your own will Either of the Herd or of the Flock Male or Female III. 1 6. Or rather as the Vulgar Latin and the LXX understand it they were to offer it so that it might be acceptable to the LORD according to the Rules prescribed in the seventh Chapter Ver. 6. Verse 6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it and on the morrow This shows he speaks particularly of those Peace-offerings which were a Vow or a voluntary Offering VII 16. for Sacrifices of Thanksgiving might not be kept till the morrow but were to be eaten on the same day v. 15. of that Chapter See the reason of this XXIII Exod. 18. the latter end And if ought remain till the third day it shall be burnt with fire See VII 17. Ver. 7. Verse 7 And if it be eaten at all on the third day it is abominable See VII 18. It shall not be accepted See there This seems to justifie the sense which the Vulgar puts upon those words v. 5. which we translate according to thy will Ver. 8. Verse 8 Therefore every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity See VII 18. Because he hath profaned the hallowed things of the LORD By keeping them till they were in danger to stink or to be corrupted That soul shall be cut off from his People By the Judges if the thing was known otherwise by the Hand of God Ver. 9. Verse 9 And when ye reap the harvest of your Land Which was a time of great joy when they offered its likely many Peace-offerings of that sort before-mentioned Thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field But leave a sixtieth part as their wise Men have determined it and that in the extream part of the Field rather than any other place
cap. 4. which is wholly about such things Of thy harvest Of the Corn scattered last Harvest He saith nothing of their Gardens which it is probable every Man had to his own private use and was not bound to lay them open to all Thou shalt not reap That is saith he not the whole Field so as to gather it into Cocks and to tread out the Corn with his Oxen if any did they were scourged with thirty nine stripes but they might cut down a little in common with other Persons and shake it out and eat it as he there determines sect 2. Neither gather the grapes of thy Vine undressed In the Hebrew the words are The Vine of thy Separation for it was separated this year from his dressing And what he gathered in common with others was not to be pressed in a Wine-press but with another Instrument the like he saith of Olives and of Figs and other things which were to be ordered after another manner in this year then in the foregoing sect 23. For it is a year of rest unto the Land This general reason is so oft repeated to make them sensible they were no more to do any thing about their Land this seventh year then they were to labour upon the seventh day But he acknowledges that if a Gentile hired Land in their Country he was not bound to let it rest sect 29. of that Chapter Ver. 6. Verse 6 And the Sabbath of the Land Here the word Sabbath signifies the Fruit that grew in the Sabbatical year as the word Sabbaths is used before XXIII 38. for the Sacrifices upon the Sabbaths Shall be meat for you This explains the prohibition of reaping any Corn this year or gathering any fruit not to be meant absolutely but only that they should not look upon any thing that grew this year as peculiarly theirs because it grew in their ground but let all be common to others as well as themselves For thee and for thy servant and for thy maid c. This and the next Verse show that all the Fruits of the Earth were perfectly in common this year for the very Beasts were not excluded and therefore much less any Man that dwelt among them though he was uncircumcised But it is very plain likewise that the Owner of the Land and his Family were not forbidden to take their share but might gather for their daily use as well as others only not lay up any thing separate for themselves Ver. 7. Verse 7 And for thy Cattle and for the Beast that are in thy Land shall all the increase thereof be meat For his own Cattle and for other Mens which were not to be fed with the Fruits which are proper to Men as Maimonides observes in the same Book cap. 5. sect 5. but if they came of themselves and eat Figs for instance they were not to be hindred But it seems probable that wild Beasts might be driven out of their Vineyards c. in this year as well as others because they made such waste as would have very much damaged the owner for the future As for all other tame Creatures the Jews if we may believe Maimonides cap. 7. were so superstitiously careful they should have an equal share with themselves that when there was no Fruit any longer for the Beasts in the Field they ceased to eat what they had gathered for themselves and if they had any thing of it left threw it out of their Houses Ver. 8. Verse 8 And thou shalt number seven Sabbaths of years unto thee c. Which put together made XLIX years as it follows in the rest of this Verse They began their first Account as Maimonides there observes from the fourteenth year after their entrance into Canaan for they were seven years in conquering the Land and seven more in dividing to every one their portion so that the first Sabbatical year was in the one and twentieth and the first Jubile in the sixty fourth year after they came to the Land of Promise So he cap. 10. where he observes they numbred seventeen Jubiles from that time to their Captivity in Babylon which fell out in the end of a Sabbatical year and the thirty sixth of the Jubile Ver. 9. Verse 9 Then shalt thou cause the Trumpet of the Jubile The word Jobel which we translate Jubile in the next Verse is not in the Hebrew but Teruah which in the Margin we translate loud of sound For the Trumpet was blown after a different manner at this time than upon other occasions that every one might understand the meaning of it To sound In the Hebrew the word is cause it to pass that it might be heard every where throughout the Land So these words may be most litterally translated Thou shalt cause to pass the Trumpet loud of sound On the tenth day of the seventh month in the day of atonement This day was very fitly chosen that this year might begin at the same time that a general Atonement was made for the Sins of the whole Nation For they would be the better disposed to forgive their Brethren their Debts when they craved Pardon for their own Shall ye make the Trumpet sound or pass throughout all your Land This is repeated to make them careful to awaken every one to their duty by the sound of the Trumpet at every door there being an unwillingness in most People to part with their Servants and their Lands c. which they had long enjoyed And therefore every private Man as Maimonides saith was bound to blow with a Trumpet and make this sound nine times that they might fulfil these words of this Precept throughout all your Land By this means as R. Levi Barcelonita notes every one was the better inclined to hearken when he saw it was a duty incumbent on the whole Country which all were to perform Ver. 10. Verse 10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year Distinguish it from all other years by doing what follows Maimonides fancies that these two Precepts of numbering seven Sabbaths of years v. 8. and of sanctifying the fiftieth year were delivered only to the House of Judgment whose business no doubt it peculiarly was to give notice of this year and to cause the Trumpet to be sounded and all the following Precepts to be observed Schemitta ve jobel cap. 10. num 1. And proclaim liberty Unto all Servants who were this year made free Throughout all the Land Even in all the High-ways as Aben-Ezra glosses that every one might have notice Vnto all the Inhabitants thereof That is to all the Children of Israel who were Servants or so poor that they had sold their Estates as it here follows From these words the Jews gather that after the Tribes of Reuben and Gad and half Tribe of Manasseh were carried Captive Jubiles ceased They are the words of Maimonides in the fore-named Treatise for then all the Inhabitants of the Land were not in it And therefore much more
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
or a voluntary offering These two other sorts of Peace-offerings were in the nature of Prayers for the obtaining such Blessings as they desired and hoped for And they were either the performance of a Vow which they made to God of offering him such a Sacrifice when they received the benefit which was called Neder or they were freely made before hand in hope God would bestow the benefit which Sacrifice was called Nedebah a voluntary offering Now these were not so holy as the former and therefore might be eaten on the morrow as well as on the same day they were offered So it here follows It shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his Sacrifice Then they were immediately to begin to feast upon the Sacrifice And on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten But if they could not conveniently eat it all the same day or had a mind to lay up some of it till the next they had that liberty allowed them For which Philo gives this reason in the same Book that these being for Mercies not yet received or offered by vertue of an obligation they might take more time to feast upon them with their Friends and be more sparing but the former being a thankful Acknowledgment of Blessings already bestowed their hearts were to be inlarged in greater bounty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they upon whom God readily bestowed his benefits might make a quick and speedy return by doing good to others without delay And what is here said of the Flesh of the Sacrifice the Jews also understand of the Meat-offerings mentioned v. 12 13. None of which were to be kept longer than two days at the most There is no place here assigned where these Sacrifices should be eaten at the Sanctuary as there is for the other VI. 16. 26. and here in this Chapter v. 6. The reason is because there was such a multitude of them that it might have made too great a crowd in the Court of the Israelites if they had been confined to it Where they might eat them if they pleased as I showed before VI. 16. but were not determined to that place but left at liberty to eat them in any part of the City where the Tabernacle and afterward the Temple stood See XII Deut. 6 7. And consequently while they dwelt in the Wilderness they might eat them any where in the Camp which was pitched round about the Tabernacle only it was to be in a clean place where the Priests might eat them as well as the People X. 14. Ver. 17. Verse 17 But the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire If there were such plenty or they and their Friends were too sew or they were so niggardly as not to call Poor enow to eat all in two days time they were to have no further benefit of the Flesh of this Sacrifice but what remained of it on the third day was to be burnt Which was to preserve the dignity of the Sacrifice as the Jews speak in preventing its stinking And there was no nobler way of consuming it than by sire which consumed the Sacrifice on the Altar So R. Levi Barcel observes Praecept CXXXVIII where he also adds that God taught them hereby not to be solicitous for the future nor careful to hoard up more than needed when they saw him command the holy Flesh to be destroyed after the time allotted for its use was past The Heathens themselves thought this a decent Rite for there was a Sacrifice at Rome which they called Protervia as Bochart observes out of Macrobius L. II. Saturnal cap. 2. in which the Custom was ut si quid ex epulis superfuisset igne consumeretur that if any thing of the Feast remained it was consumed in the fire See his Hierozoic P. I. L. II. cap. 50. Ver. 18. Verse 18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offering be eaten at all on the third day it shall not be accepted c. He lost the fruit of his Sacrifice which he had offered to God by this profanation which destroyed the Grace and Favour which it had procured him with God Neither shall it be imputed to him that offered it He shall not be thought to have made any offering at all It shall be an abomination c. And more than that it rendered him abominable being abominable it self and made him liable to be scourged as the Jews here understand the last words of this Verse he shall bear his iniquity Which I think also signifies that he should die under a great guilt till it was purged by a Trespass-offering Ver. 19. Verse 19 And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten That is the Flesh of the Peace-offerings before-mentioned which might happen as they carried it from the Altar to the place where they intended to make a Feast upon it to touch any unclean thing might not be eaten by any body But burnt with fire As that which remained to the third day was v. 17. This made them very careful to preserve it pure And as for the flesh That is all the Flesh which was not defiled by touching any unclean thing All that be clean shall eat thereof Whether the Priest or other Persons For the Priest had the right Shoulder and the Breast as we read expresly v. 33 34. and he that brought the Sacrifice had the rest Of the former the whole Family of the Priest might eat not only his Sons but his Wife and Daughters who were not married or being Widows were come back to their Father again if they had no Children or if those they had were begotten by Priests Yea his Servants born in his House or bought with his Money See XXII 11 12 13. XVIII Numb 11. And of the rest of the Sacrifice he that offered it might eat it with all his Family and his Friends excepting those who had any uncleanness upon them There are frequent mention of these Feasts in the following Books of the Bible As that made by Elkanah 1 Sam. I. 4. and by Samuel when he entertained Saul 1 Sam. IX 13 24. And when the Kingdom was renewed to Saul at Gilgal there was a Publick Feast made on these Offerings with great rejoycing 1 Sam. XI 15. And the like was made for Jesse and his Sons XVI 3 5. And by David when he entertained the People 1 Chron. XVI 3. and by Solomon at the Dedication of the Temple 1 Kings VIII 65. And all the Children of Israel made such a Feast at their return from Babylon VIII Nehem. 19. There are many Examples also of the like Feasts among the Heathens particularly in Homer where Agamemnon Iliad I. offered an Hecatomb and made a Feast upon it And Nestor Odyss III. offered a Sacrifice of LXXXII Oxen and made the like Entertainment Ver. 20. Verse 20 But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of the
a manner such as are wont to live together in the same House for so Fathers Mothers Children Brothers and Sisters do who might easily be tempted to lewdness one with another if even marrying together were not severely forbidden And thus the LXX translate the words of the foregoing Verse none of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as other Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those that are so near of kin that they usually dwell in the same House as Parents and Children Brothers and Sisters and the Brothers and Sisters of our Parents Mahomet as lewd and impudent as he was had not the boldness to controul these Laws but in the fourth Chapter of his Alcoran expresly forbids his Followers to marry their Mothers their Mothers-in-law c. and a great many of the rest which here follow Ver. 8. Verse 8 The nakedness of thy fathers wife shalt thou not uncover That is of a Step-mother Such was the incest of Reuben with Bilhah XXXV Gen. 22. and of Absolom with the Wives of his Father David 2 Sam. XVI 21 22. And of Antiochus Soter with Stratonice who abhorring from such a Conjunction was taught that all things were honest that pleased the King But the thing it self is so hateful that the very naming it is a Condemnation and therefore it is all one with the prime Natural Law which prohibits the Conjunction of Parents and Children For she that is one flesh with my Father as a great Man speaks is as near to me as my Father and that 's as near as my own Mother As near I mean in the estimation of Law though not in the accounts of Nature and therefore though it be a Crime of a less turpitude yet it is equally forbidden and is against the Law of Nature not directly but by interpretation Book II. chap. 2. Ductor Dubitantium Rule 3. n. 29. It is thy fathers nakedness He having known her it was not permitted the Son to have her also Nay the Jews say if the Father had only espoused her it was not lawful for the Son to have her to Wife or if he had divorced her it was not lawful for the Son to have her even after he was dead See R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CXCI. Buxtof de Sponsal p. 16 17. Ver. 9. Verse 9 The nakedness of thy sister As the nearness of flesh mentioned v. 6. above a Man is his Mother and below him is his daughter so on the side of him is his Sister The daughter of thy father Though she were begotten by his Father of another Wife not of his Mother yet he might not marry her Or the daughter of thy mother Born of her by another Husband not by his Father Whether she be born at home or born abroad Be legitimately born in wedlock or illegitimately out of wedlock as the Talmudists expound it See Selden Lib. V. de Jure N. G. cap. 10. p. 591. where he observes that though the Egyptians as Philo and others report with such like Nations thought the Marriage of Brothers and Sisters to be lawful and it was practised also in Greece yet the greatest Men in the Western Countries condemned such Marriages which some of the Greek Philosophers also disallowed and Euripides himself called barbarous even when it was practised Insomuch that in after Ages this wicked Custom was quite abolished and that before Christianity was well settled among them For Sextus Empiricus saith that in his time it was utterly unlawful See there cap. 11. p. 603 605 c. Where he shows the Romans always abhorred such Marriages nay it was late before the Persians took up this abominable Custom after the example of Cambyses who being in love with his own Sister as Herodotus relates in his Thalia cap. XXXI and having a Mind to marry her which was never practised before in that Country he commanded the Royal Judges as he calls them who were the Interpreters of the Laws to advise whether he might lawfully do it or no. Who to please him and yet not seem to give an illegal opinion answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That they could find no law which permitted a Brother to marry his Sister but there was a Law that the Persian King might do even what he would See Grotius Lib. II. de Jure Belli Pacis cap. 5. sect 13. Even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover It shall be unlawful to thee to marry any of the forenamed Sisters For though the Marriage of Brother and Sister was necessary in the beginning when God created but one Man and one Woman by whose Children the World was peopled yet when it was so there was great reason that it should be made utterly unlawful as many have demonstrated Particularly Bishop Taylor in his Ductor Dubitantium Book II. chap. 2. Rule 3. n. 24 25 c. For now it is next to an unnatural mixture as he speaks it hath something of confusion in it and blending the very first parting 's of Nature which makes it intollerably scandalous and universally forbidden for if it were not the mischief would be horrible and infinite Ver. 10. Verse 10 The nakedness of thy sons daughter or of thy daughters daughter even their nakedness thou shalt not discover This Law concerns a Man's Grand-daughters by his Son or his Daughter whether legitimately or spuriously begotten as R. Levi Barcelonita expounds it Praecept CXCIII Who adds in the next Precept but one this is another Prohibition Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter which saith he is not expresly mentioned in this Law because it was not necessary For a Man's Grand-children either by Sons or Daughters which are more remote being forbidden there was no need to say it was unlawful for him to marry his own Daughter For theirs is thy own nakedness They have their original from thy Nakedness For which reason some of the Jews extended this to those Descendants which were still further off as an Hedge to this Law So R. Levi calls it in the place forenamed The ancient Romans also as our Mr. Selden shows were very strict in restraining the Marriage of Men with their Nieces either by their Brothers or Sisters and with others mentioned in the following Laws of Moses Lib. V. de Jure Nat. Gentium c cap. 11. p. 605. c. Ver. 11. Verse 11 The nakedness of thy fathers wives daughter begotten of thy father she is thy sister thou shalt not uncover her nakedness This Prohibition seeming to be the same with that v. 9. some of the Hebrews have expounded this concerning the Daughter of a Mother-in-law begotten by another Father For the words may be thus translated as Mr. Selden observes the order of them will bear Lib. I. de Vxore Hebr. cap. 4. The nakedness of the Daughter of thy Father's Wife for she that is born of thy Father is thy Sister thou shalt not discover And with
their Children as it is explained XVIII Deut. 10. This was a Spiritual Adultery and therefore here mentioned Pass through the fire to Molech It is certain that Molech was particularly worshipped by the Children of Ammon at least in future Ages 1 Kings XI 7. but seems to have been the Name of many of the Heathen Gods and the same with Baal both of them signifying Dominion This appears by comparing XIX Jer. 5. with XXXII 35. But more especially it signifies the Sun the Prince of the Heavenly Bodies See Vossius de Orig. Progr Idolol Lib. II. cap. 5. as the Queen of Heaven was the Moon VII Jer. 18. Now it is evident by several passages in Scripture that the ancient Pagans whom the Israelites were prone to imitate not only made their Children pass through the fire but also offered them in Sacrifice unto Molech The former I take to be forbidden in this Law the latter in XX. 3. where giving their Children to Molech is prohibited under a severe Penalty of being put to death for that Crime whereas there is no Penalty annexed here to their making them pass through the fire Which I take therefore to have been a less Crime than the other though an idolatrous Rite practised by those who abhorred the cruelty of offering the very Life of their dear Children to Molech Instead of which this Rite was devised of making them pass through the fire for though the word fire be not here in the Hebrew Text yet it is understood by all and expressed XVIII Deut. 10. by way of Purification and Lustration as they called it and by this means to dedicate them to the Worship and Service of Molech And therefore being a Rite of Initiation whereby Parents consecrated their Sons and Daughters to their Deities we never find it mentioned in Scripture but only concerning Children not concerning Men and Women whom the Israelites are forbidden to dedicate in this manner which was in truth to alienate them from the LORD God of Israel Now that this was practised among the ancient Pagans as a Rite of Initiation appears particularly in the Mysteries of Mithra See Suidas upon that word and continued long among the Persians if we may believe Benjamin Tudelensis in his Itinearium p. 214. See G. Schickardi TARICH p. 126 c. And this very phrase make to pass unto for the word fire as I said is not here mentioned signifies as much as ad partes ejus transire to be addicted to any one like that phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come unto God XI Hebr. 6. And so this Hebrew Phrase is used XIII Exod. 12. and may very well be thus understood here for devoting or making over their Children unto Molech For the Heathen thought their Children unclean and obnoxious to the Anger of their Gods and consequently in danger to be taken away from them if they were not thus expiated as Maimonides tells us More Nevoch P. III. cap. 37. And on the contrary they fancied as R. Levi Barcelonita observes Praecept CCVIII that if only one of their Children were thus consecrated to Molech all the rest were blessed and should be prosperous For he very nicely takes notice that the Israelites are forbidden to make any of their seed to pass through the fire It not being the manner he saith to make them all pass But the idolatrous Priests to make the People more willing to this Service cunningly perswaded them that if any one Child was offered to Molech it procured a Blessing upon all and if there was only one Child in a Family they laid no Obligation on the Parents to do this The manner of doing it at this distance of time cannot certainly be known Some say their Parents carried them through two fires upon their shoulders Others that they were led between them by their Priests and so R. Levi in the place before-named The Father delivered the Child to the Priest in the name of the Idol just as it is said concerning Legal Sacrifices XV. 14. he shall give them to the Priest Others think that the Priest or some Body else waved the Child about in the very flame while Men and Women danced round the fire nay leaped through the flame And Joh. Coch observes upon the Title Sanhedrim cap. 7. n. 7. that some are of the opinion the Children thus dedicated did not walk but dance through the fire which being an emblem and representative of the Sun plainly signified such Children were consecrated to that Deity And this comes nearer to the Hebrew phrase as we translate it that they did not pass between fires but through the fire But which way soever it was done whether they waved the Child through the very fire and presented it to Molech before whom the fire was kindled or led it between two fires when they had so done the Priest restored the Child to the Father again And in some such way Ahaz made his Son to pass through the fire according to the abomination of the Heathen 2 Kings XVI 3. which cannot be meant of his burning him for Hezekiah his Son outlived him and succeeded in his Throne See Theodoret in IV King Quaest 47. Maimon de Idol c. 6. sect 14. n. 4 5 6 7. and Vossius his Notes with Simeon de Muis in CVI Psal 37. Neither shalt thou prophane the name of thy God By offering their Children to Molech they in effect rejected and disowned as I before observed the LORD God of Israel which was to pollute his Name by giving that honour which was due to him alone unto another God For he gave them Children who were therefore to be devoted to none but him I am the LORD The only Soveraign of the World who will severely punish the Transgressors of this Law Ver. 22. Verse 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with woman-kind it is an abomination A detestable wickedness condemned by all Nations though practised by some lewd Persons among them Insomuch that the Apostles of Christ make mention of it with the greatest abhorrence I Rom. 27. 1 Corinth VI. 9. 1 Tim. I. 10. For not only several of the Roman Emperors were infamous upon this account but some also of the Greek Philosophers This Prohibition is repeated according to Maimonides in XXIII Deut. 17. whom our Translation follows there shall not be a Sodomite of the Sons of Israel But Onkelos interprets that place otherwise Ver. 23. Verse 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast c. i. e. Of any kind whatsoever Some are apt to say What need was there of such Prohibitions when it is so monstrously unnatural to mix with Creatures of a different Species from us as all Beasts are But such Persons do not understand that this was not only practised in Egypt against whose doings he cautions them v. 3. but was also made a piece of Religion Women devoted to the Worship there used most filthily submitting to the Lust of their sacred Goats So Strabo tells
such a part of their Family that they left them to their Children who succeeded them And therefore they also were allowed to eat of the Meat of the Priest Ver. 12. Verse 12 If a Priests daughter also be married unto a stranger Unto one that is not of the Family of the Priests She may not eat of an offering of the holy things She lost her right to eat of those holy things which she did partake of while she remained a part of her Father's Family For that intitled Persons to this Priviledge insomuch that a Priest taking a Wife out of another Family she might eat of them because she was one with him and therefore had more right than a Servant But for the same reason a Priest's Daughter married to a Stranger might not eat of them because she was gone out of his into another Family Ver. 13. Verse 13 But if the Priests daughter be a widow or divorced and have no child If she had any Children they and she made another Family and they being begotten by a Father who was not a Priest had no right to eat of the Priest's meat But if she was left without Children then she was accounted still one of her Father's Family provided she returned as it follows to live with him And is returned to her fathers house as in her youth To be a part of his Family as she was before she married X. 14. She shall eat of her fathers meat Have the same priviledge she had when she was a Virgin But there shall no stranger eat thereof This seems as I said particularly to relate unto her Children if she had any who being begotten by one of another Family were lookt upon as Strangers See v. 10. Ver. 14. Verse 14 And if a man Who hath no right to them Eat of the holy thing unwittingly Not knowing it to be an holy thing Then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it Besides his Sacrifice which he was bound to offer for his Trespass See V. 15. And shall give it unto the Priest with the holy thing He could not give the Priest the holy thing which he had eaten but the meaning is that he should make satisfaction to the Priest for the Damage done to him by paying him the true worth of the thing and the fifth part more of its value See V. 16. Ver. 15. Verse 15 And they shall not profane the holy things of the Children of Israel which they offer unto the LORD This seems to refer to the Persons before-named none of which should presume to profane Sacred things by eating them when they did not belong to them The Priests seem also to be concerned in it who were not to suffer them to eat such holy things as it follows in the next Verse Or if it intirely relate to the Priests the meaning is they should not profane holy things by eating them in their uncleanness v. 9. And one reason was because the Children of Israel whose Offerings these were might be discouraged from bringing them to the LORD when they saw them so prophaned Ver. 16. Verse 16 Or suffer them i.e. The People To bear the iniquity of trespass c. To fall under the punishment which God will inflict for their Trespass in eating things which do not appertain to them The Marginal Translation refers this also wholly to the Priests in this manner Or lade themselves with the iniquity of Trespass in their eating holy things viz. in their Uncleanness and with such Persons it may be added as ought not to eat of them For I the LORD do sanctifie them These words seem to justifie this last Interpretation See v. 9. Ver. 17. Verse 17 And the LORD spake unto Moses saying The following Laws no doubt were delivered at the same time with the former because they still concern the same matter Ver. 18. Verse 18 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons and unto all the Children of Israel For they were all concerned in the perfection of the Sacrifices as they were in the perfection of the Priests that offered them See XXI 24. And say unto them whosoever he be The Hebrew Doctors say that the phrase isch isch Man Man i. e. any Man is here used as it was XVIII 6. to show that Gentiles are comprehended under this Law as well as Jews as Mr. Selden observes out of the Gemara Babylon Tit. Cholin See Lib. III. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 4. p. 289. Of the house of Israel or of the strangers in Israel They understand by strangers in Israel such as they called Proselytes of the Gate who were not Circumcised but had renounced Idolatry and joyned themselves to the God of Israel R. Levi ben Gersom takes perfect Proselytes to be here meant whom they called Proselytes of Righteousness yet not excluding the other That will offer his oblation for all his vows and for all his free-will-offerings See VII 16. Which they will offer unto the LORD for a Burnt-offering If a Gentile brought a Peace-offering to the LORD it was offered as a Burnt-offering and no Meat-offering was permitted to be offered with it as Maimonides observes See Selden in the place before-named and v. 25. of this Chapter And Dr. Lightfoot gives a large account of it in his Temple Service chap. 8. sect 4. Ver. 19. Verse 19 Ye shall offer at your own will So these words are commonly understood that the Sacrifices both of Jew and Gentile should be spontaneous as well as without blemish though they will bear another sense as I observed Chap. I. v. 3. A male without blemish of the beeves and of the sheep and of the goats See Chap. I. v. 3 10. All Burnt-offerings were to be Males though Peace-offerings might be Females III. 1 6. and so might Sin-offerings also IV. 32. but all without blemish For as God accepted only some kind of Creatures viz. Beeves Sheep and Goats and no other of the Herd so he would have a choice to be made out of them of the very best as had been often before directed Ver. 20. Verse 20 But whatsoever hath a blemish that shall ye not offer This general Rule is here repeated because he is going to specifie what Creatures they should account blemished For it shall not be acceptable for you This seems to justifie the Exposition which I said might be given of that phrase in the foregoing Verse at your own will or for your acceptation See upon I. 3. Ver. 21. Verse 21 And whosoever offereth a Sacrifice of Peace-offerings unto the LORD Which were either to obtain blessings or to give thanks for them when they were obtained To accomplish his vow It was usual to make such Vows for procuring from God what they desired when they undertook a Journey or went to Sea or were sick or in any danger c. An example of which we have in I Jonah 16. where we read the Mariners in a Storm offered a Sacrifice to the LORD and made
a plain Law that whosoever cursed his Father or Mother should die XXI Exod. 17. from whence they might justly infer he was to be so punished who cursed his heavenly Father there being also another Law against those that reviled the Judges and Rulers XXII Exod. 28. And therefore I take it they only doubted what kind of death he should die about which Moses consulted the Divine Majesty Ver. 13. Verse 13 And the LORD spake unto Moses saying It 's likely Moses went into the Sanctuary to enquire of God who from the Mercy-seat pronounced the following Sentence against him and also made a perpetual Law about this Case with some others Ver. 14. Verse 14 Bring forth him that cursed without the Camp This is the Sentence pronounced by the mouth of God from whom they expected it And first he orders the Criminal to be carried forth out of the Camp as an unclean V Numb 2 3. nay an accursed thing VII Josh 24. And let all that heard him Next he orders the Witnesses to be produced who heard him speak the blasphemous words Lay their hands upon his head This was a peculiar thing in this Case Hands being laid upon no Man's head condemned by the Sanhedrim but only upon a Blasphemer By which Ceremony they solemnly declared that they had given a true testimony against him and thought him worthy of the Death he was condemned to suffer And perhaps prayed God that all the punishment of this Sin might fall upon this Man and not upon them nor the rest of the People And so the Jews tell us their manner was to say Let thy blood be upon thy own head which thou hast brought on thy self by thy own guilt And let all the Congregation stone him This was the last part of the Sentence that when they that heard him Curse had taken off their hands all the Congregation should stone him Which is the same Punishment the Law inflicted on him that cursed his Father or his Mother XX. 9. See there Ver. 15. Verse 15 And thou shalt speak unto the Children of Israel saying Upon this occasion a new Law is made in express terms against Blasphemy Whosoever curseth his God Some of the Hebrews understand this of a Gentile who lived among them and was not yet solemnly made a Proselyte of the Gate that if he cursed the God which was worshipped in his Country he should die for it See Selden Lib. II. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. ult And Procopius Gazaeus extends the words to such Persons as cursed the God they worshipped though he were a false God Which is according to the common Rule of the Talmudists that where we find these words isch isch man man which we well translate whosoever they comprehend Gentiles as well as Jews But no doubt this Law particularly concerned the People of Israel whom God intended by this Law to preserve from such horrid impiety as is here mentioned Shall bear his sin Be stoned See XX. 9. If the word curseth be understood in the proper sense Procopius well observes that nothing could be more sensless than this Sin and upon that account deserved stoning for he that curseth his God upon what God will he call to confirm his curse But the Hebrew words seems to import only speaking contemptuously of God Ver. 16. Verse 16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death c. It is uncertain whether this be an higher degree of the Sin mentioned in the foregoing Verse or only a repetition of the same Law with a more express declaration of the punishment he should bear for his sin The Jews unreasonably understand it of him alone that expressed the Name i. e. the most holy Name of God as they say in Sanhedrim cap. 7. num 5. where Joh. Ã Coch observes out of the Hierusalem Targum on XXXII Deut. that it is thus explained Wo unto those that in their Execrations use the holy Name which is not lawful for the highest Angel to express But this is a piece of their Superstition the meaning undoubtedly is That if any Man reproached the most High he should die for it but the meer pronouncing his holy Name could be no Crime when Men might swear by it though not take it in vain VI Deut. 13. XX Exod. 7. All the Congregation shall certainly stone him As they were ordered to do with the present Offender v. 14. As well the stranger as he that is born in the Land c. By Stranger may be meant a Proselyte like the Egyptian whose Offence was the occasion of this Law But the Jews extend it to Samaritans and Gentiles only they say such were to be punished by the Sword and not by Stoning Ver. 17. Verse 17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death This Law was given before XXI Exod 12. And it is not easie to give an account why it is here repeated after the Case of a Blasphemer Perhaps it was upon the occasion of the last words in the foregoing Verse As well the stranger as he that is born in the land when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD shall be put to death For after the following Laws they are repeated again as a general Rule v. 22. that no Man might think it hard a Stranger should be punished for Blasphemy as much as an Israelite when in other Cases the same Judgment passed upon them both Procopius Gazaeus thinks a Murderer is joyned with a Blasphemer because they have the same mind and intention the one desiring to destroy God if it were possible as the other doth his Neighbour Therefore the Law puts them together just as on the contrary when it commands the love of God it couples with it the love of our Neighbour So he Ver. 18. Verse 18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good beast for beast It was not incongruous as the same Procopius speaks to annex unto the Law against Murder a Law against other Injuries And concerning this see XXI Exod. 33 34. For the Hebrew word Behemah here used signifies such domesticktame Beasts as are there mentioned Ver. 19 20. Verse 19 20. If a man cause a blemish in his neighbour as he hath done so shall it be done to him c. This Law concerns only free Persons not their Slaves and hath been explained XXI Exod. 24 25. Ver. 21. Verse 21 And he that killeth a beast he shall restore it and he that killeth a man he shall be put to death This is a short repetition of the two first Laws here mentioned v. 17 18. to make them the more regarded Ver. 22. Verse 22 Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the stranger as for one of your own Country In these and in all other Cases as well as Blasphemy v. 16. you and the Stranger shall be judged by one and the same Law For I am the LORD your God Who will neither favour
this Verse was added to prevent such Oppressions as St. Hierom mentions who says some would lend a Neighbour ten Bushels of Corn suppose in Winter to receive fifteen Bushels for it the next Harvest Ver. 38. Verse 38 I am the LORD your God which brought you forth out of the Land of Egypt Who have obliged you with far greater Blessings then I command you to bestow upon others To give you the Land of Canaan Under such Covenants as have been mentioned And to be your God To preserve you in the possession of it in Peace and Plenty if you keep these Covenants v. 18 19. Ver. 39. Verse 39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor and be sold unto thee Some were sold by the Court of Judgment when they had committed Theft and were not able to make Satisfaction of whom the Hebrews interpret that place XXI Exod. 2 c. Others were sold by their Parents v. 7 8. of that Chapter But others sold themselves being reduced to great Poverty notwithstanding the Alms that had been bestowed upon them and the Money or Goods that had been freely lent them And of such the Hebrew Doctors understand these words and say it was not lawful for a Man to sell himself till his Poverty was extream and he had nothing at all left but must preserve his Life by the price which was given for him Thus Maimonides in these words A man might not sell himself to lay up the Money which was given for him nor to buy Goods nor to pay his Debts but meerly that he might get Bread to eat Neither was it lawful for him to sell himself as long as he had so much as a Garment left See Selden Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 7. where he observes that the Court of Judgment might not sell a Thief of their Nation to any but to an Hebrew not to a Proselyte of either sort much less to a meer Gentile But if an Hebrew sold himself to a Proselyte or to a Gentile which he was admonished not to do the Bargain was good but he was to be redeemed by his Kindred or by the People as it here follows v. 48 49. Which other People imitated who derived their Laws from Moses particularly the ancient Indians as Huetius observes out of Diodorus whose Philosophers commanded that none of their Nation should submit themselves to Servitude Demonstr Evang. Propos IV. cap. 6. Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant As a Slave which they bought of other Nations or took in their Wars over whom they had an absolute Dominion as they had over their Goods or Cattle and might bequeath them and their Children to their Sons and Posterity for ever v. 45 46. or sell them and their Children at their pleasure Ver. 40. Verse 40 But as an hired Servant and as a sojourner They were to treat him gently as they did those who let out their Service for Wages for a certain time and then were at their own disposal again Shall he be with thee Some of the Jews have carried this very far in Speculation For thus they gloss upon this place in Jalkut Let him be with thee in Meat and Drink so that thou do not eat bread of fine flour and he of bran nor thou drink old Winâ— and he new nor thou lie on a soft Bed and he upon Straw But it is not likely that this was their practice And shall serve thee unto the year of Jubile Beyond which time it was not lawful to keep him in Service for in the very beginning of this year all such Servants were immediately dismissed Which made the year of Jubile such a time of joy that for nine days together before it began these Servants kept a kind of Saturnalia in prospect of their approaching Happiness For as Maimonides saith in the latter end of the tenth Chapter of Schemitta ve Jobel from the beginning of the year until the Day of Atonement Servants were neither dismissed nor yet served their Masters but they did eat and drink and made merry wearing Garlands on their heads And when the Day of Atonement came the Sanhedrim commanding the Trumpet to be sounded all Servants immediately went whether they pleased as Lands were restored to their first Owners Ver. 41. Verse 41 And then shall he depart from thee His Master to whom he was sold might keep him till the Jubile Whereas he that was sold by the Court of Judgment might go free if he pleased in the seventh year of Release XXI Exod. v. 2. Both he and his Children with him He that bought a Servant of the Court of Judgment was bound to maintain his Wife and Children if he had any with Meat Drink and Clothes and yet they were not bound to serve him much less did they remain Servants when their Fathers or Mothers Servitude was at an end as Mr. Selden observes in the fore-named place and therefore it was much more reasonable in this case that he and his Children should go out together And shall return unto his whole family From which he was gone while he remained a Servant And unto the possession of his fathers shall he return If any was befaln him since his Servitude Ver. 42. Verse 42 For they are my servants which I brought forth out of the Land of Egypt A good reason why they should not be treated like Slaves because they were all redeemed by God out of the slavery of Egypt into a state of perfect liberty They shall not be sold as bond-men Not publickly and in the common place of Sale or in the street but privately and in a way of honour as the Jewish phrase is So Maimonides alledged by Mr. Selden in the fore-named place p. 705. But the plainest sense is they should not be used like Slaves while they continued in Servitude for though they had the use of them in all bodily Employments yet their Bodies or Persons were not theirs and therefore they might not use them as they pleased So it follows in the next Verse Ver. 43. Verse 43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour As Pharaoh did over all the Israelites I Exod. 13 14. or as the Israelites were wont to do over their Servants of other Nations but gently use their Service in such Imployments as would not be unworthy of them if they were Freemen But shalt fear thy God Remembring that they were all Slaves in Egypt and delivered by his wonderful goodness which was thankfully and reverently to be acknowledged Ver. 44. Verse 44 Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have shalt be of the heathen If they would have any Slaves they were to be such of other Nations as were sold to them or were taken by them in their Wars Whence the very name of Mancipia came as the Roman Lawyers tell us quasi manu capti and the name of Servus also which signifies one who was saved when he
flee when there were none as it goes before they could not stand before them when they appeared Ver. 38. Verse 38 And ye shall perish among the Heathen Die with Grief or by Diseases Poverty Oppression and hard Usage And the Land of your Enemies shall eat you up Insomuch that the ten Tribes never returned to their own Land but either perished by Hunger and bad Accommodations or were swallowed up as we say into the Body of another Nation Ver. 39. Verse 39 And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquities in their enemies Land With grief and sorrow and sad reflections upon the Miseries into which their sins and the sins of their Fathers had thrown them Insomuch that Death was more acceptable to them than Life VIII Jerem. 3. And also in the iniquities of their Fathers shall they pine away with them Especially those of Manasseh King of Judah whose wickedness was so great that the zealous Reformation which his Grandchild made could not turn away the fierceness of God's great wrath against them 2 Kings XXIII 26 27. Ver. 40. Verse 40 If they shall confess their iniquity c. Though Moses had been above three times as long in recounting the Plagues which he either foresaw or feared would come upon them for their sins than in the Blessings which he promised should follow their Obedience yet he plainly shows that the Blessings would have far excelled the Curses had not their Disobedience hindered For after all these dreadful Calamities were come upon them he concludes with a most gracious promise that God would restore them to their own Land from whence they were expelled if they truly repented of those sins which were the cause of it That he means by confessing their iniquities and the iniquities of their Fathers c. acknowledging them with such unfeigned sorrow as wrought Repentance without which he gave them no hope of Deliverance And it is well observed by a great Divine of our own That if without confession of their fathers iniquities they could not be absolved from their own their fathers iniquity not repented of was their own and so was the punishment due unto it And that they have walked contrary to me Both they and their fore-fathers whose ways had been so contrary to God's Laws that if they sincerely confessed it God expected they should take the quite contrary course and observe those Precepts carefully which their Fathers had violated Ver. 41. Verse 41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them and have brought them into the Land of their Enemies Be sensible that all the Miseries they have endured came not by chance but the just Punishment I sent upon them for their sins particularly that it was by my order that they were carried captive into a strange Land If then their uncircumcised heart be humbled By an uncircumcised heart seems to be meant an heathenish temper of mind insensible of God which made them stubborn and refractory and therefore this Phrase is the same with an hard heart For which there was no cure but such remarkable Judgments as evidently carried in them the marks of a Divine Hand Which when they saw and submitted to it he gives them hope of deliverance And they accept of the punishment of their iniquity Patiently bear it as their just desert and acknowledge they do not deserve to be delivered from it Ver. 42. Verse 42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob and also my covenant with Isaac and also my covenant with Abraham See III Exod. 6. He promises to restore them to their own Land according to the Covenant made with their Fore-fathers that he would give it them for an everlasting Possession For to remember a Covenant or Promise in Scripture Language is to perform it and make it good Accordingly we find the forenamed Confession made by Daniel Chap. IX and he makes it in the name of all the People among whom no doubt there were many that heartily joyned with him and then followed their wonderful Restoration in the Reign of Cyrus of which we read I Esra c. And I will remember the Land Re-people it with its former Inhabitants c. See 2 Chron. 36. v. 22 23. where this immediately follows the Relation he had made of the Land being laid desolate Ver. 43. Verse 43 The Land also shall be left of them and shall enjoy her Sabbaths c. This Verse is very obscure unless we take it to speak of a new Expulsion out of their Land after their Reduction to it And then the next words And they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity Must be interpreted after they had accepted or though they had accepted c. This made their sin the more provoking that they offended God again when he had so graciously forgiven them and delivered them from a dismal Captivity Because even because they despised my Judgments and because their soul abhorred my Statutes Returned to the very same wicked disposition for which they had been formerly expelled v. 15. This was fulfilled by degrees by the Successors of Alexander and at last by the Romans Ver. 44. Verse 44 And yet for all that when they be in the Land of their Enemies He would not have them utterly despair of Mercy even after a new Banishment which hath now continued many Ages For this Promise is not yet fulfilled as Dr. Jackson observes Book I. on the Creed Chap. 31. sect 9. I will not cast them away neither will I abhor them to destroy them utterly As we see at this very day they are not destroyed utterly but remain a great Body in several Countries after above six hundred years Expulsion from their own Land And to break my covenant with them Never more to own them for my People For I am the LORD their God I still continue to have a peculiar right to their Obedience as they have to my kindness if they will return to their duty Ver. 45. Verse 45 And I will for their sakes remember the Covenant of their Ancestors c. The meaning cannot be that God would be so gracious for their sakes who were so very wicked but as the words in the Hebrew are he would for them i. e. for their good and advantage remember the Covenant of their Ancestors whom he had brought forth out of the Land of Egypt That is once more deliver them from their miserable Condition and restore them to his Favour that he may be their God And that great Man now mentioned on the foregoing Verse observes That the continuation of their Plagues seems so much interrupted and the Plagues themselves so much mitigated in the last Age since the Gospel hath been again revealed as if their Misery were almost expired and the Day of their Redemption drawing nigh But then they must first confess their Iniquity and the Iniquity of their Fathers as Moses speaks before v. 40. with their Trespass which they trespassed in
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