â—hen they were all carried Captive they only numbred the rest of every seventh year without any Jubile It shall be a Jubile unto you Whence this year hath the name of Jobel there are so many Opinions that Bochartus himself scarce knew which to follow Josephus saith it signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberty and the LXX and Aquila translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remission having a regard to the thing rather than to the import of the word Jobel which never signifies any thing of that nature D. Kimchi tell us that R. Akiba when he was in Arabia heard them call a Ram by this name of Jobel and thence some fancy this year was so called because it was proclaimed with Trumpets of Rams-horns But what if there were no such Trumpets as Bochart thinks there were not these Horns being not hollow See Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 43. p. 425 c. where several other Opinions are confuted The most probable that I meet withal is that it was called Jobel from the peculiar sound which was made with the Trumpet when this year was proclaimed For the Trumpet blowing for several purposes viz. to call their Assemblies together to give notice of the moving of their Camps to excite Souldiers to fight and to proclaim this year there was a distinct sound for all these ends that People might not be confounded but have a certain notice what the Trumpet sounded for And this sound mentioned before v. 9. was peculiarly called Jobel as Hottinger thinks who considers a great many other Opinions in his Analecta Dissert III. wherein he follows Joh. Forsterus who near an hundred years before observed that Jobel which we commonly translate Trumpet XIX Exod. 13. and other places doth not signifie the Instrument it self but the sound that it made And when it is used absolutely alone it signifies this year which was called Jobel from that sound which was then made as the Feast of Unleavened Bread was called Pesach from the Angel passing over them when he slew the Egyptians The Opinions of the Hebrew Writers about it are collected and largely represented by Josephus de Voisin Lib. I. de Jubilaeo cap. 1. And ye shall return every man unto his possession Unto his Field or his House which his Poverty had forced him to sell but now was restored to him without any price because they were not sold absolutely but only till this year By which means the Estates of the Israelites were so fixed that no Family could ruin it self or grow too rich For this Law provided against such Changes revoking once in fifty years all Alienations and setting every one in the same Condition wherein they were at the first By which means Ambition was retrenched and every Man applied himself with affection to the improvement of his Inheritance knowing it could never go out of his Family And this application was the more diligent because it was a religious duty founded upon this Law of God And ye shall return every man unto his family From which he had been estranged by being sold to another Family either by himself or by his Father or by the Court of Judgment So here are two parts of the liberty fore-named more expresly declared Their Land which was alienated returned to the first Owner and such as were sold for Servants into another Family came home again to their own Family being freed from their Servitude Which was a figure of that acceptable year of the LORD as St. Luke calls it IV. 19. in the Prophet Isaiah's Language wherein our blessed Saviour preached Deliverance to all Mankind The Jews themselves are not so stupid as to thinâ— nothing further was intended but only freedom from bodily Servitude in this year of Jubile for Abarbanel himself in this very Verse indeavours to discover something of a Spiritual Happiness For the former part of the words now mentioned Ye shall return every man to his possession he saith belong to the Body but the latter part And every man unto his family belongs to the Soul and its return to God So several others whom J. de Voisin produces in the forenamed Book cap. 2. And if our Dr. Lightfoot hath made a right Computation the last year of the Life of our Saviour who by his Death wrought an Eternal Redemption and restored us to our heavenly Inheritance fell in the year of Jubile the very last that was ever kept For if we count from the end of the Wars of Canaan which was seven years after they came into it and I do not know why we should not think they began to number then and not seven years after as Maimonides would have it there were just fourteen hundred years to the thirty third of Jesus Christ that is just XXVIII Jubiles And it is the Confession of the old Book called Zohar as he observes That the Divine Glory should be freedom and redemption in a year of Jubile See Harmony of the New Testament sect 59. And Vsserij Chronologia Sacra cap. 13. Ver. 11. Verse 11 A Jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you It is a question whether the year of Jubile was the year following the forty ninth year or the forty ninth year was the Jubile which reckoning the foregoing Jubile for one was the fiftieth year Josephus Scaliger in his fifth Book de Emend Temporum and several other great Men are of this last opinion to avoid a great inconvenience which otherwise would ensue viz. That the forty ninth year being the Sabbatical year in which the Land was to rest if the next year to that had been the Jubile two Sabbatical years would have come immediately one after another for the Land was to rest in the year of Jubile as it here follows One would have expected therefore that in the forty eighth year there should have been a special Promise that the Land should bring forth Fruit for four years and not for three only as the Blessing is promised every sixth year v. 21. Thus Jacobus Capellus reasons in his Historia Sacra Exotica ad A. M. 2549. But others think this Objection not to be so great as to make them depart from the letter of this Law which saith v. 10. Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year and here in this Verse A Jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you Though a very learned Man P. Cunaeus thinks this is of no great moment either way for it is usual in common speech Septimanam octidum appellare and Hospinian in like manner we call a Week octiduum eight days because we reckon utramque Dominicam both the LORD's days And the greatest Writers anciently called an Olympiad which contained but the space of four compleat years by the name of Quinquennium See Lib. I. de Republ. Judaeorum cap. 6. Yet besides the express words of the Law the Consent of the Jews sways very much the other way for they accurately distinguish between the Schemitta or Year of
matter with that which went before it is likely was spoken at the same time And these words signifie that the LORD further spake unto Moses what concerned Trespass-offerings Ver. 2. If a soul sin and commit a trespass The same sort of expression is used in the beginning of this Law concerning the Offerings V. 15. Which some translate prevaricate or act insincerely Against the LORD The Soveraign of the World who was peculiarly affronted by the following Sins especially by swearing falsly which was calling him to bear witness to a lie And lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep Deny the Trust which was committed to him and that when he was brought upon his Oath to deliver the Truth as appears by the next Verse For this is the instance of that sort of Oath which the Jews call The Oath about a thing deposited See V. 1. For there being no witness of what was done between two Friends or Neighbours who trusted one another in such matters but God alone they appealed unto him from whom Nothing could be hid And this Oath the Jews say was governed by another which they call The Oath of Testimony which a Man was not bound to give unless he were adjured to it by the Court of Judgment and so it was in the Oath about the things deposited he was not guilty who was adjured by private Persons and denied it but he that denied it before the Court. So they resolve in Halicah Olam Pars IV. cap. 2. Or in fellowship To carry on a common Trade in joynt-stock or as others understand it in any thing for which he gave his hand unto another for so the Hebrew words are putting of the hand as Contracts were oft-times made Which if a Man afterwards denied he fell under the guilt here mentioned And there is some reason to think that this is much of the same nature with the former because when he speaks of Restitution v. 4. this is not repeated And therefore it seems to be included in that which was deposited with another whether it were Money called here Pikkadon or any other Goods called Tesumah jad They that would see more Opinions about these words putting of the hand may consult Const l'Empereur in his Annotations on Bava kama cap. 9. sect 7. Or in a thing taken away by violence That is by Robbery or Stealth as the word gazel signifies For Theft not being punished among the Jews with death they tendred an Oath to those who were accused or suspected of it to clear themselves from the imputation XXII Exod. 11. Or hath deceived his neighbour Wrong'd him by false Accusation as the Hebrew word Hoschok seems to import Which St. Hierom always translates Calumny as the word Haschak he translates to calumniate It signifies also extortion and Rasi takes it for defrauding an Hireling of his Wages Ver. 3. Verse 3 Or have found that which was lost and lieth concerning it Deny that he found a thing lost which in truth came to his hand And sweareth falsly They put Men to their Oath in this case also when there was a just cause of suspicion as they did in matters of Theft In any of all these In any of these sorts of things as the Hebrew may be translated That a man doth Wherein one Man dealeth with another or which frequently happen as Grotius thinks this phrase signifies in his Annotations upon 1 Corinth X. 13. Sinning therein By these means contracting a guilt Ver. 4. Verse 4 Then it shall be because he hath sinned and is guilty The last words should rather be translated and acknowledges his guilt For so this word Ascham guilty ought to be expounded as I showed IV. 22 23. to make a clear sense of the Law there mentioned And it would otherwise be superfluous here for when a Man had sinned so grievously as the foregoing Verses suppose who could doubt of his guilt The true meaning therefore is when he hath sinned so the first words may be translated by committing any of those things fore-mentioned and acknowledges his guilt he shall restore that which he took away violently c. And this most plainly reconciles the contradiction that otherwise would be between this Law and that in XXII Exod. 1 7 9. Where a Man that stole an Ox is condemned to restore five Oxen and four Sheep for one and if he delivered Money to another to keep and it was stolen the Thief was to pay double whereas here one simple Restitution is exacted with the addition of a fifth part The reason is because in Exodus he speaks of those Thieves who were convicted by Witnesses in a Course of Law and then condemned to make such great Restitution but here of such as touched with a sense of their sin came voluntarily and acknowledged their Theft or other Crime of which no Body convicted them or at least confessed it freely when they were adjured and therefore were condemned to suffer a lesser Punishment and to expiate their Guilt by a Sacrifice See L'Empereur upon Bava kama cap. 7. sect 1. and cap. 9. sect 1 5 7. Where he observes very judiciously that this Interpretation is confirmed by V Numb 7. where the first words may be translated If they shall confess their sin that they have done c. And this seems to me more reasonable than the account which Maimonides gives of this matter in his More Nevochim P. III. c. 41. where expounding these words which he took violently of an open Robber he gives these Reasons why he was not punished so much as a Thief but restored only the Principal with a fifth part because Rapine happens seldom but Theft often for it cannot be committed so easily as Theft and is done openly and manifestly whereas Theft is committed more secretly so that a Man may be aware he imagines of a Robber and defend his Goods against him better than against a secret Thief Yet this is better than the account of R. Johannes f. Zachei mentioned by J. Coch upon the Gemara of the Sanhedrim cap. 7. p. 271. that a meer Thief fears Man more than God but a Robber fears both alike Ver. 5. Verse 5 Of all that about which he hath sworn falsly he shall even restore it in the principal The same numerical thing which he took away if it still remain in his possession unalter'd or else the just price of it as R. Levi Barzelonita expounds it Praecept CXXV And the Jews pretend to such scrupulosity in this matter that they say a Man who was to have a share in his Father's Estate from whom he had taken something by robbery was to restore it before the Division was made and not by detaining it to make his share greater than it ought to be See Bava kama cap. 9. sect 9. And shall add the fifth part more thereto The Jews have many subtilties about this as may be seen there sect 6 7. The plain sense is that he should
Purification after it might preserve them from the immoderate use of it So those words of his signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaest XX. in Levit. Ver. 19. Verse 19 And if a woman have an issue and her issue in her flesh be blood In the Hebrew the words run much clearer And a woman when she shall have an issue of blood and her issue be in her flesh The latter part of which are added to distinguish this from bleeding at the Nose or from the Haemorroids which did not pollute any body For the word Flesh here signifies as it doth v. 2. She shall be put apart seven days From her Husband and from the Sanctuary to which these sorts of Uncleanness have a peculiar respect as I before noted And Maimonides here not unfitly observes That whereas the Zabij accounted a Man polluted if he did but speak with a menstruous Woman or if the Wind which came from the quarter where she was blew upon him God only required her not to meddle with Holy Things nor to approach to the Sanctuary Otherwise she might eat all manner of common Meat and perform all Domestick Offices for her Husband as formerly only not lie with him while she remained in this condition So he explains this More Nevoch P. III. cap. 47. And whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even If they were grown Persons as Menochius well observes for Infants were excepted from this Pollution by their Age and the Necessities of Nature The same is observed by Maimonides in the Chapter fore-named That the more frequent any of these Uncleannesses were the greater and longer Purifications were required As touching of a dead Body especially of Friends and Neighbours being the most usual it could not be cleansed but by the Ashes of the red Heifer which were not easily had and not till seven days were passed In like manner Fluxes and menstruous Pollutions because they oftner hapned and were more grievous than touching the unclean those therefore that laboured under them had need of seven days Purification but they that touched them of one day only before they became clean Ver. 20. Verse 20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean c. The very same sort of Uncleanness was contracted in this Case as in the foregoing v. 4 c. For if we believe some Authors it might not only be properly called her sickness but such an one as had some infection in it at least something offensive in those hot Countries See Pliny Lib. VII 5. and L. XXVIII 2. Ver. 21. Verse 21 And whosoever toucheth her bed c. This and the two following Verses contain the very same Prohibitions in this Case which were given in the other See v. 5 6 c. Ver. 24. Verse 24 If a man lie with her at all i. e. Unwittingly not knowing in what condition she was for if he did it knowingly both of them were liable to be cut off XX. 18. He shall be unclean seven days As having contracted one of the greatest sorts of Uncleanness v. 19. For though this Flux was natural and beneficial and therefore could have no sort of Uncleanness in it but what was made by this Law yet there was a great reason for the keeping Men from the Company of Women in this condition if Leprosies and such like Diseases were thereby propagated as Theodoret says some think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Especially since they were so libidinous a People as he describes them in words of a very bad signification that it was highly necessary to lay such restraints upon them and to make even involuntary Pollutions very penal that they might learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all wilful Uncleannesses were far more detestable Ver. 25. Verse 25 And if a woman have an issue of blood many days out of the time of her separation c. As before he spoke of the natural Course of the Blood so here of a Disease which Procopius Gazaeus calls malum immedicabile an incurable Evil. So it sometimes proved as appears by the story of the Woman in the Gospel whose case this was IX Matth. 20. All the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation She was to be in the same condition with the Woman mentioned v. 19. who was put apart seven days i. e. as long as her Uncleanness lasted Which made the case of those that laboured under this Infirmity very lamentable because it continued in some many years Ver. 26. Verse 26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation c. Like the Bed and the Seat of her mentioned v. 20. Ver. 27. Verse 27 And whosoever toucheth these things shall be unclean c. As in the case fore-mentioned v. 21. Ver. 28. Verse 28 But if she be cleansed of her issue Cured of her Disease Then shall she number to her self seven days For a trial whether it was a perfect Cure or no. After that If there were no return of the Flux She shall be clean So as to be restored to common Conversation but not to the Sanctuary till the following Oblations were made Ver. 29. Verse 29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles or two young pigeons c. The same Sacrifices which were prescribed in the case of a Man who was cured of an Issue v. 14. And this relates only to the extraordinary Flux out of or beyond the usual Course of Nature v. 25. for it would have been too burdensom unto some Persons if they had been bound to offer thus once a Month. Ver. 30. Verse 30 And the Priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD c. See v. 15. Ver. 31. Verse 31 Thus shall ye separate the Children of Israel from their uncleanness Take care that they separate themselves by instructing them when they are under any of the fore-named Impurities to observe the Directions now given Thus the LXX and the Vulgar Latin understand these words That they die not in their uncleanness Lest I punish them with death if they approach unto my Sanctuary having any of the fore-mentioned Uncleannesses upon them When they defile my Tabernacle that is among them This shows what is meant by Separation and Putting apart in the foregoing Verses which was principally from the Tabernacle where God dwelt Out of respect to which and to preserve their due regard to it that is to God himself all these Cautions were given as I observed before v. 15. of this Chapter And see Chapt. XII v. 4. what I noted out of Maimonides who discourses excellently on this Subject in his More Nevoch P. III. cap. 47. where he observes That there could not well be a more notable means contrived to maintain an holy fear and reverence of the Divine Majesty upon their Minds than to forbid every Person that was any way
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
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
freedom given her Not intirely but in part redeemed and consequently her Freedom not absolutely granted to her She shall be scourged If she had been perfectly free both he that lay with her and she her self should have been put to death XXII Deut. 23 24. But being not fully free and consequently not fully his Wife who had espoused her it was not reckoned Adultery and therefore punished only with scourging See Selden Lib. V. de Jure N. G. cap. 12. p. 613. And Maimonides I observe thus expounds it of a Woman that was not a meer Servant and yet not compleatly free but between both More Nevoch P. III. cap. 41. But whereas we mention here in the Text the Scourging only of the Woman in the Margin it is rightly noted that the Hebrew words are There shall be scourging viz. of them both as the Vulgar Latine with great reason understands it And the Hebrew word Bikkoreth properly signifies scourging with Thongs made of a Bulls or Oxes Hide as Bochartus observes in his Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 28. cap. 33. n. 8. They shall not be put to death because she was not free Her Master not having set her quite at Liberty her Marriage was not compleat which freed her from suffering Death though some Punishment she deserved because it was begun Ver. 21. Verse 21 And he shall bring his Trespass-offering unto the LORD unto the door c. Which was not enjoyned her because she had not wherewithal to offer for her Expiation all she had being her Masters and not her own A Ram for a Trespass-offering Which was the proper Sacrifice in such a case V. 17 18. Ver. 22. Verse 22 And the Priest shall make an atonement for him with the Ram of the trespass-offering She needed an Atonement as well as he being equally guilty in consenting to the Fact and being espoused to another seems to have had a greater guilt upon her and therefore was left in a lamentable condition without any publick assurance of God's pardon For his sin which he hath done Which had so much guilt in it that besides the punishment he suffered in being Scourged this Satisfaction was to be made to God And the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him By virtue of the Sacrifice which would not have been accepted if she had been perfectly a Free-woman but the sin would have cost his own life and hers also XXII Deut. 23 24. Ver. 23. Verse 23 And when ye shall come into the Land and shall have planted all manner of Trees for food The Precept is so general that the boldness of R. Zerika is unaccountable who would have it understood only of the Vine which if it be not cut its Grapes are not so large nor the Wine so good nor fit to be offered at the Altar c. as his opinion is represented in Pirke Elieser cap. 29. But Moses expresly mentioning all manner of Trees for food there is no colour for this limitation and a very good account may be given of this Prohibition if we have respect only to natural reason For young Trees grow better if they be stript of their Fruit the Juice of which is waterish and unconcocted having neither pleasant smell nor taste as Nachmonides observes and therefore not fit for Food and upon that score not fit to be offered as the First-fruits to God But besides all this Maimonides affirms there was an Idolatrous custom among the Zabij to which this Law of Moses may reasonably be thought to be opposed For they imagined all Trees would be blasted or their Fruit fall off whose First-fruit was not part of it offered in their Idol Temples and the other part eaten there as their Children they thought would not thrive unless some of them passed through the fire And therefore God commanded his People to forbear to eat the Fruit of any Tree till the fourth year and not doubt of the fruitfulness of their Plantations though they did not Consecrate the Fruit of the years foregoing after the manner that the Gentiles did More Nevoch P. III. cap. 37. where he observes some Trees brought forth Fruit in one year some not till the second and others not till the third according to the different ways wherein they were planted Ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised That is as unclean and therefore to be cast away as the Foreskin was Three years it shall be as uncircumcised to you it shall not be eaten of And therefore they pluckt off the Buds when they put forth that they might not grow into Fruit or if any by chance did they threw it away as unfit for food But this is meant only of such Fruit-trees as they planted after they came to Canaan not of such as they found already planted there And it was the same thing whether he planted them himself or bought an Orchard or Vineyard c. of another Israelite or had it left him as an Inheritance or bestowed on him as a Gift the three first years the Fruit was not to be used Ver. 24. Verse 24 But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the LORD withal It was to be offered as the First-fruit to God and eaten by the Priests which as Maimonides saith in the Book forenamed cap. 49. was to excite them to Liberality and give a check to their Appetites as well as to Covetousness Yet there are those who say this Fruit of the fourth year was to be eaten by the Owners before the LORD at Jerusalem when his dwelling was settled there as they eat the second Tythe So R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CCXX shows at large And they observe many Benefits which the Israelites received by this means not only in exciting their Thankfulness to God but their Love to that Holy Place unto which some of their Family might conceive such an affection as to settle there and learn the Law Ver. 25. Verse 25 In the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof that it may yield unto you the increase thereof He would not have them think that they should lose any thing by staying till the fifth year for the Fruit of their Trees but promises them here that by forbearing so long their Trees should be the more exceeding fruitful I am the LORD Who bestowed this Land upon them to hold of him by what Tenure he pleased by whose Blessing they might expect to receive the Increase thereof abundantly without the help of such wicked Arts as Maimonides says the Zabij used Who letting certain things lie till they were putrified and when the Sun was in such or such a degree sprinkling them about the Trees which they had planted with certain Magical Ceremonies they fancied Flowers and Fruits would be produced sooner than they could have been without these practises Ver. 26. Verse 26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood This is an admonition as R. Levi Barcelonita fancies Praecept
to be burnt XXI 9. and the Adulterer to be strangled as the Jews understand it If a man lay with a Virgin espoused to another man but not yet married they were both to be stoned by the express words of the Law XXII Deut. 23. But Adultery with a married Woman if we may credit the Jewish Doctors was punished with strangling See Selden Lib. III. Vxor Hebr. cap. 2. For when we meet with this phrase they shall surely die it is always meant of Death by the Sentence of the House of Judgment as they speak and if the Law add no more they resolve it to be by strangling If these words be added their blood shall be upon them then they say they were to be stoned This I observed before and shall add now that strangling as they describe it was not such a punishment as our hanging men by the neck but the Criminal being stuck up to the knees in dung they tied a Napkin about his Neck and drawing it hard at both ends choaked him There was such a thing as hanging men on a Gallows as we speak but it was after they were dead and only such as had been stoned and not all them neither but such alone as had been stoned for Blasphemy or Adultery See Joh. Carpzovius upon Schickard's Jus Regium cap. 4. Theorem XIV The greatest thing that can be objected against this account of the punishment of Adultery is that which St. John tells us the Jews said concerning the Woman taken in the very act of it Moses in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned VIII Joh. 5. But it may be answered that this Woman was espoused only and not yet married and so by the Law as I observed before was to be stoned XXII Deut. 23 24. If this seem absurd that the Adultery of one espoused should be accounted a greater Crime than of one married for stoning was an heavier punishment than strangling it ought to be considered that the love of those who were newly espoused was commonly more fervent than theirs who were married especially among the Jews who for light causes were wont to be divorced from their Wives And therefore no wonder if the Adultery of the former was judged a greater Crime than of the latter Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the man that lieth with his fathers wife c. This was condemned before as an heinous sin XVIII 8. and now the penalty of Death is inflicted upon the Offenders Their blood shall be upon them All the Hebrew Doctors agree that wheresoever we meet with this phrase it is meant of stoning as I before observed Ver. 12. Verse 12 If a man lie with his daughter-in-law both of them shall surely be put to death This was forbidden XVIII 15. and the same penalty is here enacted as against the former Crime They have wrought confusion By perverting the order which God hath appointed and making great disturbance in the Family c. It is the same word that is used for a more foul sin XVIII 23. and therefore shows this to be an abominable mixture Ver. 13. Verse 13 If a man also lie with mankind c. This also was condemned before XVIII 22. but the penalty not declared till now They shall surely be put to death c. By stoning unless one of them was under a force and then that Law took place which we find XXII Deut. 25 26. Ver. 14. Verse 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother it is wickedness See XVIII 17. They shall be burnt with fire Which was an higher punishment than stoning as that was higher than strangling R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CCXXIV. describes the manner of it to have been thus They set the Malefactor in dung up to the knees and then tied a Cloath about his Neck which was drawn by the two Witnesses till they made his Mouth gape into which they poured hot melted Lead down his Throat which burnt his bowels And thus the rest of the Talmudists expound it But I see no good Authority they have for it the word for burning being the same that is used when mention is made of burning with Fire and Faggots as we speak And R. Elieser ben Zadock saith he saw a Priest's Daughter thus burnt for Fornication But the Doctors commonly say the Judges were ignorant of the Law or that they were Sadducees who then had got into the Seat of Judgment who followed the very Letter of the Scripture Both he and they That is both the Mother and Daughter if the Mother were consenting to it Otherwise only the Woman that offended From whence the Karaites formed this Rule after the same manner that men were obliged by a Precept in Scripture the Women were obliged also Selden Lib. Uxor Hebr. cap. 5. That there be no wickedness among you That others may be deterred from the commission of such enormous Crimes For the Hebrew word imports more than ordinary wickedness See XVIII 17. Ver. 15. Verse 15 And if a man lie with a beast he shall surely be put to death See XVIII 23. This Death was by stoning as appears from the next Verse And ye shall slay the beast Just as they were to destroy not only the Inhabitants of an Apostate City but their Cattel also c. XIII Deut. 15 16. to terrifie others from committing the like sin And as the Talmudists observe that there might be no Memorial left of so foul a Crime by Mens pointing at the Beast and saying There goes the Beast that such a Man lay with They might have added to prevent monstrous Births See Selden Lib. I. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 4. Maimonides gives a good reason why a Beast that killed a Man should be slain as a punishment to the Owner for looking no better after it but his application of it to this matter seems impertinent More Nevoch P. III. cap. 40. Bochartus his Gloss is far better The Beast was killed as an Instrument in the Crime just as a Forger of Deeds is hanged with his Pen and Counterfeit Seals and a Conjurer with his Magical Books and Characters And this also is useful for an Example though not to other Beasts yet to Men whose concern it is to consider that if Beasts were not spared who were not capable of sinning what would become of them who committed such Crimes against the known Law of God and the impressions of Nature it self Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. 2. cap. 16. Ver. 16. Verse 16 Their blood shall be upon them This relates to the Man and the Woman mentioned in these two Verses who committed this foul Crime for a Beast is not capable of punishment But as the Canon Law speaks Pecora inde credendum est jussa interfici quia tali flagitio contaminata refricant facti memoriam it is to be believed that the Beasts which were polluted with such a flagitious wickedness were therefore commanded to be slain because they rub'd up the memory of
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
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
of whom it was bought c. Not unto him who bought the Field and then vowed it to God but unto the Hereditary Owner which is the meaning of the next words Even unto him to whom the possession of the Land did belong Ver. 25. Verse 25 All thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary c. Full weight according to the Standard kept in the Sanctuary See XXX Exod 13. and XIX of this Book v. 36. Ver. 26. Verse 26 Only the firstling of the Beasts which shall be the LORD's firstling no man shall sanctifie it By vowing it to be a whole Burnt-offering or a Peace-offering unto the LORD as Maimonides expounds it The reason was because no Man could lawfully vow that which was not his own as the Firstlings were not they being the LORD 's already as it follows in the end of this Verse The same Reason held as Maimonides likewise observes in all things belonging to God as Tenths Yet they devised ingeniously enough as he speaks a way to give these Firstlings to God by a new Obligation and yet not offend as they imagined against this Law For they interpret these words of Firstlings already brought forth No Man might sanctifie such but while they were in the Womb they might saying I vow that Lamb suppose which my Ewe goes with to be a whole Burnt-offering to God if it be a male But they could not vow it for a Peace-offering because no Man could alter any thing for his own profit Whether it be ox or sheep Under these two are comprehended all other kind of Creatures whose Firstlings belonged to God It is the LORD's III Numb 13. VIII 17. For this reason no Man was to presume to vow such things it being a kind of mockery to make a present of that to another which was his own before See Mr. Mede concerning this Verse p. 512. Ver. 27. Verse 27 And if it be of an unclean beast Most understand this of the Firstling of an unclean Beast Against which there is this Objection That such things were before ordered to be redeemed not with Money but with a Lamb XIII Exod. 13. Therefore it seems more reasonable to understand this of the Firstling of such an unclean Beast which a Man had redeemed v. 13. but afterward devoted to God which he might do for after the Redemption it was become his own again Then he shall redeem it according to thy estimation At the rate thou shalt set upon it And shall add a fifth part of it thereto As was ordained before in the like case v. 11. Or if it be not redeemed then it shall be sold according to thy estimation Any other Man might buy it at that rate the Priest had set upon it and the Money was applyed to holy uses Ver. 28. Verse 28 Notwithstanding no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the LORD Nothing that was devoted by that sort of Vow which was called Cherem as the word is here in the Hebrew with a Curse as the word implyes upon themselves and others if the thing was not imployed according to their Vow Of all that he hath both of man and beast c. All manner of things which might be sanctified to the LORD by the fore-mentioned simple Vow might be thus devoted and consecrated to him by a Cherem i. e. Beasts and Houses and Lands and even Men themselves as far as they had power over them For that is meant by those words all that a man hath See next Verse Shall be sold or redeemed For this was the peculiar nature of this sort of Vow that the things devoted by it should remain irreversibly and unalterably to the use unto which it was devoted for the Person was accursed that applyed it to any other use than that to which it was consecrated Every devoted thing Of this kind Is most holy to the LORD Other things devoted by a simple Vow were holy v. 9 10 c. but these were most holy so that none might touch them but the Priests and they were so strictly applyed to the Divine Service that they could not be alienated either by Sale or Redemption or Commutation or Donation or any other way See Mede p. 160. Ver. 29. Verse 29 None devoted which shall be devoted of men shall be redeemed but shall surely be put to death Some learned Men have from these words asserted That Parents and Masters among the Jews had such a power over their Children and Servants that they might devote them to Death and so kill them only the Sentence of the Priest was to concur to whom every devoted thing fell as his portion This is maintained by Ludov. Capellus and confuted by Mr. Selden Lib. IV. de Jure Nat. Gent. juxta Disciplin Hebr. cap. 6. where he judiciously observes That this Power would have too much intrenched upon the sixth Commandment if private Men might have at their pleasure thus disposed of their Children and Slaves And in the next Chapter he explains the sense of this Verse and proves indeed that there may be a Cherem minhaadam of men or from among men as well as of beasts but this word hath four several senses among the Hebrews First It signifies the Sacred Gift it self which was devoted to God or to holy Uses and so it signifies in the foregoing v. 28. Secondly It signifies that which was devoted to Perdition and utter Destruction either by the right of War or upon the account of Capital Enmities an Example of which we have in Jericho VI Josh 17. where the whole City was a Cherem devoted to Destruction as a Punishment to their Enemies yet so that the Metals were made a Cherem of the first sort that is Sacred to the LORD and his Holy Uses And thus the great Sanhedrim called in Scripture the whole Congregation might devote those to be a Cherem who going to the Wars did not obey orders and perform the Charge laid upon them An Example of which we have XXI Judg. 5. 1 Sam. XIV 24. I omit the other two for brevities sake of which there are Examples VI. Josh 26. X Ezra 8. XXIII Acts 12 14 21. See Selden Ib. cap. 7. 8. because the Cherem here mentioned by Moses is of this second sort For it is evident that the Cherem of the first sort mentioned v. 28. was of such things over which they had an intire power to dispose of them as they pleased And therefore those words both of Man and Beast the Hebrews understand of their Slaves whether Men or Women who were Canaanites or Gentiles not others who were in their power as much as their Beasts to give away or to sell But to take away their Life or to give them to be slain was not in their power but all the effect of this Cherem was that the whole right which they had to the Service of such Slaves was transferred by him that devoted them to the Service of the
which forbids them to covet their neighbours wife which did not give them leave sure to covet the Wife of a Gentile provided they did not covet the Wife of an Israelite A Neighbour therefore is every other Man as in XXII Deut. 26. and more plainly in XI Exod. 2. where the Egyptians are called their Neighbour And therefore D. Kimchi saith very honestly upon the XVth Psal 3. A Neighbour is every one with whom we have any dealing or conversation Which justifies our blessed Saviour in making this Command of Loving their Neighbours as themselves to reach all Men with whom they had to do X Luke 27 28 c. I am the LORD Unto whom you are all equally subject and upon that account ought to love one another See v. 34. Ver. 19. Verse 19 Ye shall keep my statutes This may be thought to be premised to what follows lest such Commands as are contained in this Verse seeming small should be neglected by them Thou shalt not let thy Cattel or rather make them gender with a divers kind As Horses with Asses Goats with Sheep c. whose mixture one with another they were by no means to procure But if they did of themselves come together it was lawful to use such Heterogeneous Creatures as were so produced For they did not abhor the use of Mules which were either begot by accident among them or brought from other Countries to them The reason the Jews commonly give for this Precept is because God having made all things perfect in their kind it was a presumptuous attempt to go about to mend his Creation and add to his Works By this means also Men were deterred from unnatural Mixtures which they saw to be abominable in Brutes So R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CCXLIX and Philo whose words are very ingenious Lib. de Creatione Princip Things of the sâ—me kind were made for Society one with another but things heterogeneous as we call them were not intended to be mixed and associated and therefore he who attempts to mingle them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wickedly destroys the Law of Nature To the same purpose Josephus See Selden Lib. VII de Jure N. G. sec Hebr. cap. 3. p. 798. Maimonides also himself gives this reason of this Precept More Nevoch P. III. cap. 49. where he saith No Creature hath a desire commonly to mix with a Creature of another kind and therefore Men ought not to promote such a desire But after all there might possibly be a respect in this Precept to some Idolatrous Customs which Moses intended to prevent or abolish for there is good ground to think the following Precepts in this Verse were so intended and in after times some Gentiles did procure such Mixture of Creatures as are here forbidden Mules for instance in honour of their Gods See our learned Dr. Spencer Lib. II. de Leg. Hebr. Ritualibus cap. 20. where he indeavours to prove that by Cattel in this place are peculiarly meant Oxen and Asses which were used in Husbandry and are of such different Natures that none would ever have thought to procure their Conjunction unless he had been moved to it by the Devil Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed The reasons of this according to the Jews are the same with the former and R. Levi extends it to Trees which he saith they were not to ingraft of different kinds one upon another But it concerns they say only such Seeds and Plants as are for Mens food not those which are for Medecine Praecept CCL But Maimonides found a particular reason for this Precept from the Idolatrous Customs of the old Zabij Who not only sowed different Seeds and grafted Trees of a divers kind upon one another in such or such Aspect of the Planets and with a certain form of words and fumigations but also with abominable filthiness at the very moment of the Incision Which he proves out of a Book concerning the incision of an Olive into a Citron and doubts not that God forbad his People to sow with mingled seed that he might root out that detestable Idolatry and those preternatural Lusts which abounded in those days More Nevoch P. III. cap. 37. Neither shall a Garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee In the Hebrew the words are A Garment of mixtures of Schaatnez shall not come upon thee But that they might certainly know what Schaatnez was it is explained in XXII Deut. 11. to signifie as we translate it a Garment of Woollen and Linen mixed together The Jews have taken abundance of pains to find out the original of this word which Bochartus derives from the Arabick word Saat which signifies to mingle and nez which signifies to weave Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 45. But Joh. Braunius I think hath demonstrated that it doth not import the weaving of any different things together but only of Linen and Woollen and that by Woollen is to be understood only what is made of the Wooll of Sheep not of Camels or Goats which they called by the same name Lib. I. de Vestitu Sacerd. Hebr. cap. 4. n. 2 3 6. Where he observes out of Maimonides in his Halach Kelaim that if a Man saw an Israelite wear such a Garment it was lawful for him to fall upon him openly and tear his Garment in pieces although he were his Master who taught him Wisdom And the reasons for this abhorrence are commonly such as are given of the former Precepts to preserve them from the horrid Confusion which was among the Gentiles by incestuous and unnatural Mixtures But Maimonides takes it to have been principally intended as a Preservative against Idolatry The Priests of the Gentiles in those times wearing such mixed Garments of the product of Plants and Animals with a Ring on their finger made of some Metal as he says he found in their Books More Nevoch P. III. cap. 37. By which mixture it is likely they hoped to have the beneficial influence of some lucky Conjunction of the Planets or Stars to bring a Blessing upon their Sheep and their Flax. Ver. 20. Verse 20 Whosoever lieth carnally with a Woman that is a bondmaid betrothed to an husband The Jews had some Servants that were Gentiles who if they embraced the Jewish Religion were baptized sometimes with the reservation of their Servitude and sometimes with the full grant of Liberty But some there were in a middle Condition partly free and partly servile viz. when part of their Redemption-money had been paid and part was still behind Now as while a Woman was a perfect Slave no Israelite might marry her so when she was partly free though he might Espouse her and the Espousals were valid yet they could not be of full force till her liberty was perfected And of such a Maiden the Hebrew Doctors understand Moses to speak in this place that was in part free but not wholly as the next words interpret it And not at all redeemed nor