XL Exod. 34 35. openly showed it self to them all v. 23. and declared his Grace and Favour towards them by consuming their Sacrifice as an acceptable Oblation to him v. 24. Whereby a particular Honour also was done unto Aaron who was hereby most illustriously owned to be God's High-Priest and all other Persons deterred from pretending to his Office Ver. 7. Verse 7 And Moses said unto Aaron Go unto the Altar and offer thy sin-offering and thy burnt-offering One of them after the other in the order wherein they were directed viz. his Sin-offering first to make his Burnt-offering accepted Make an atonement for thy self and for the people First for himself as the Apostle observes VII Hebr. 27. that then he might be capable to offer for the Sins of the People This was the great imperfection of the Aaronical Priests that they were Sinners like other Men by reason whereof they were bound as for the people so also for themselves to offer for sins V Hebr. 3. And offer the offering of the people and make an atonement for them After he had offered both the Sin-offering v. 8. and the Burnt-offering v. 13. for himself then he was to begin to offer for the People For his own Sins being expiated and his Burnt-offering being accepted he was fit to procure Remission and Acceptance for them Ver. 8. Verse 8 Aaron therefore went unto the Altar That he might be ready to perform his part of the Service which was to sprinkle the Blood after he had first of all offered the Morning Sacrifice See v. 17. And slew the Calf of the sin-offering which was for himself Ordered it to be slain for this was no part of the Priests work as I showed upon the first Chapter v. 5. Ver. 9. Verse 9 And the sons of Aaron brought the blood unto him They received it in Basons as it run from the Calf when it was killed See I. 5. and brought it unto him who stood at the Altar to receive it and do what follows And he dipt his finger in the blood The fore-finger of the right hand which had been sanctified to this Ministry by putting the Blood of the Sacrifice of Consecration upon the thumb of the right hand VIII 23 24. whereby we grasp all things and cannot hold them strongly nor perform any thing well if that be wanting And put it upon the horns of the Altar c. See IV. 25. Ver. 10. Verse 10 But the fat and the kidneys and the caul above the liver See IV. 8 9. He burnt upon the Altar as the LORD commanded Moses Laid or disposed them upon the Altar to be burnt by the heavenly fire v. 24. as most understand it And the LXX justifie this Opinion who though they here translate it He offered it on the Altar yet v. 13. where there is the same phrase they expresly translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he laid the Burnt-offering upon the Altar and again v. 17. in the same manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he laid it upon the Altar besides the burnt-sacrifice of the morning For common fire it is supposed was no longer to be used when Aaron's Sacrifice began as it had been all along before But there is no certainty in this and we may as well take the words in their proper sense that Aaron burnt this and the following Sacrifice as Moses had done before VIII 14 21 28. until the Burnt-offering for the People came to be offered which God consumed by fire from himself and then followed those other Sacrifices mentioned v. 17 18. For all these Sacrifices for Aaron and for the People could not be laid upon the Altar at once but one after another in the order here directed and consequently this Sacrifice here mentioned was actually burnt upon the Altar to make way for those which followed it Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the flesh and the hide he burnt with fire without the camp See VIII 17. Ver. 12. Verse 12 And he slew the burnt-offering and Aaron's sons presented to him the blood c. See I. 5. Ver. 13 14. Verse 13 14. And they presented the burnt-offering unto him with the pieces thereof c. All that is contained in these two Verses is explained in the first Chapter v. 8 9. where the Law about burnt-offerings is delivered Ver. 15. Verse 15 And he brought the peoples sin-offering c. Having offered all that was necessary for himself now he became fit to make Supplication for the People And offered it for sin as the first In the same manner as he offered the foregoing Sin-offering for himself v. 8 c. Ver. 16. Verse 16 And he brought the burnt-offering Here being no express mention of burning it some from thence conclude that this was the Offering which alone was consumed by fire from the LORD See v. 24. And offered it according to the manner Laid it upon the Altar as Moses had directed in the first Chapter of this Book Ver. 17. And he brought the meat-offering c. Which attended upon Burnt-offerings XV Numb 2 3 4 c. Beside the burnt-offering of the morning This shows that Aaron began his Priestly Function with the Morning Sacrifice which preceded all other and was never omitted for the sake of any other Sacrifice that was to follow it and it had always a Meat-offering waiting upon it XXIX Exod. 39 40. Ver. 18 19. Verse 18 19. He slew also the Bullock and the Ram for a sacrifice of peace-offerings These two Verses are explained in the third Chapter which treats of such kind of Offerings Ver. 20. Verse 20 And he put the fat upon the beasts c. That it might by elevation and waving be presented unto the LORD and then burnt upon the Altar See VII 30. Ver. 21. Verse 21 And the breasts and the right shoulder Aaron waved for a wave-offering before the LORD The Fat being burnt upon the Altar as God's portion these were the portion of the Priests who feasted upon God's Meat for they were solemnly presented unto him before they had them See VII 34. Ver. 22. Verse 22 And Aaron lifted up his hands towards the people Imploring the Divine Blessing upon the People which he afterwards pronounced At this day they that are of the Family of Aaron going up the steps which lead to the place where the Book of the Law is kept lift up their hands as high as their heads and pronounce a Blessing in their Synagogues upon the Assembly And they say the ancient Custom was which is still observed not only to lift up and spread their hands but then to joyn them together by the thumbs and the two fore-fingers dividing the other from them in that Figure which is represented by an eminently learned Person J. Wagenseil in his Commentary upon Sota cap. 7. p. 672. and 1132. And blessed them We read of no order for this but natural Reason taught them from the beginning that the Priestly Office consisted in praying
different from the Oblation of First-fruits mentioned v. 12. For there they are called Resith which signifies the First-fruits at Harvest time but here Bichurim which properly imports the first ripe fruits before the rest were ready And therefore the manner of their Oblation was different from the former which follows in the Conclusion of this Verse And first he describes what he means by the First-fruits which he calls Abib i. e. full Ears of Corn but as yet green and moist which he saith therefore in the next place must be dried by the fire and then bruised and beaten in a Mortar or with a Mill and they were to be brought out of the richest or fattest of their Fields for so the last words seem to signifie Geresh Carmel which we translate Corn beaten out of full Ears for Carmel sometimes signifies a fruitful Field XXXII Isa 15. and therefore may very well be thought in this place to import the largest Ears of tender Corn. And the intention of its Contusion seems to have been that it might be reduced into Flour as it might easily be after it had been dried by the fire And therefore differed from that Meat-offering mentioned v. 1. only in this that the former was Flour of old Corn this of new and that was fine Flour sifted from the Bran this had nothing taken out of it but remained as it came from the Mortar or the Mill. And so the LXX seem to have understood it There are those indeed who think it was only thrashed out of the Husk and so offered and fancy also that from this word Geresh the Goddess called Ceres had her Name among the Gentiles Which last Conceit is the stranger since they endeavour to have it thought that the Jews derived this Custom of offering First-fruits from the Gentiles and not the Gentiles from the Jews Whereas the Gentiles had no such Custom that I can find as this to offer the First-fruits of Green Corn but only the First-fruits of their Harvest which they called Novas fruges of which the Romans thought it unlawful to taste antequam Sacerdotes primitias libassent before the Priests had offered the First-fruits as Pliny tells us Lib. XVIII cap. 2. and Censorinus saith the same cap. 1. de Die Natali Or if they did offer any First-fruits before Corn was ripe they boiled them in a Pot but did not rost them in the fire as is here directed For so Hesychius seems to say that in the Feast called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was in the Month that Answers to our April they offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First-fruits that appeared out of the Ground which they carried about i. e. in Pots as other Authors tell us And Hesychius himself saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified a Pot full of Sacred Decoction Ver. 15. Verse 15 And thou shalt put oil upon it c. See v. 1. And the Priest shall burn the memorial of it part of the beaten corn thereof and part of the oil and all the frankincense All the rest that was not burnt was the Priests portion except the Frankincense which is here ordered to be intirely offered to God See v. 2. and made this and such like Offerings be called an Offering of a sweet savour unto the LORD v. 2.9 12. It is an offering made by fire unto the LORD See upon v. 9. CHAP. III. Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace-offering Having given orders about whole Burnt-offerings in the first Chapter and Meat-offerings which had something of that Nature in them in the second he proceeds to Peace-offerings which in the Hebrew are called Schelamim from the word Schalam either as it signifies Retribution or Peace and Concord They that take it in the first sence think the reason of the name to be from this That God the Offerer and the Priest had each of them their portion assigned to them of this Sacrifice And they that follow the second sence do not much differ when they say That these Sacrifices were Symbols of Friendship between God and the Priests and those that brought them for all these feasted at a Common Table as R. Levi ben Gersom expresses it For part being offered on the Altar and the Priest having taken his share the rest was given to him that offered the Sacrifice So that it was called a Peace-offering saith Abarbanel in his Preface to this Book because it made Peace or rather declared Peace between the Altar the Priest and the Owner But they seem to me to have given the best account of this who because Peace in their Language signifies Prosperity and Happiness think these were called Peace-offerings because they were principally thankful Acknowledgments of Mercies received from God's Bounty For there being three sorts of them mentioned VII 15 16. that of Thanksgiving is the first called Totheh Acknowledgment of some Benefit received The Gentiles called such Sacrifices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears from many places of Dionys Halicarn L. VI. L. VIII where there are these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plutarch calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 particularly in the Life of Agesilaus where he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a perfect Description of such Sacrifices as are here appointed with part of which they entertain'd their Friends They are also called by those Writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially when they had respect to any great Danger they had escaped for which they offered these thankful Acknowledgments The LXX calls such Sacrifices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he offer it of the herd whether it be a male or female A whole Burnt-offering was to be only of a Male for being wholly Gods and offered purely for his Honour it was to be of the very best I. 3. But Peace-offerings being also for the profit of him that offered them who had the greatest share of them it was at his liberty whether he would offer a Male or a Female Directly contrary to the Egyptian Customs if they were the same now that they were in the time of Herodotus who saith expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was not lawful among them to sacrifice Females L. II. cap. 41. He shall offer it without blemish c. See I. 3. Ver. 2. Verse 2 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering The Man who brought the Offering was to lay his hand upon the Head of it as was ordered in the whole Burnt-offering and Sin-offering See Ch. I. v. 4. It might not be done by a Deputy unless he was Heir to one that had vowed this Sacrifice and died before he had performed it in which case the Heir was to do what the Man himself should have done if he had been alive as Maimonides observes In this Sacrifice laying on of hands seems to have been done not only with Prayer to God that he would accept the Oblation which the Jews say always accompanied this
or beneath it was ineffectual Which is very reasonable to believe because there was no natural efficacy in these things to cleanse a Leper but it depended wholly upon the will and pleasure of God which was punctually therefore to be observed that by the exact performance of all these Ceremonial Signs as Pellicanus speaks in the face of the Church all Men might be satisfied that he was perfectly purified and he might be publickly authorized to associate himself with the rest of God's People and be no longer abominated by them for his impurity For the signification of these Ceremonies some think to have been that he was restored to free Communion with God and with Man See XXIX Exod. 20. And Abarbanel looks upon them as a signification also that the Leprosie began in those parts of the Body which are less fleshy and fat and were now therefore particularly declared clean But whatever the intention of them was there was a just and wise reason no doubt for them though at this distance from those Ages Countries and Customs c. we may not be able to discover it Ver. 15. Verse 15 And the Priest shall take some of the log of oil and pour it into the palm of his own left hand Or as Maimonides saith he might pour some of it into the left hand of the other Priest who sprinkled the Blood at the Altar Ver. 16. Verse 16 And the Priest shall dip his right finger in the oil c. The fore-finger of his right hand as the same Hebrew Doctor observes And shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the LORD At every sprinkling he dipt his finger in the Oil and directed it towards the most holy place where God dwelt though if it were not exactly directed to it the same Doctor saith the sprinkling was good Ver. 17. Verse 17 And of the rest of the oil that is in his hand shall the Priest put upon the tip of the right ear c. Then the Priest returned to the Man who was to be cleansed upon the tip of whose Ear and Thumb and Toe he had put the Blood of the Trespass-offering and put some of this Oil upon that Blood Which seems to have been a Token of Forgiveness by the Blood and of Healing by the Oil. Ver. 18. Verse 18 And the remnant of the oil that is in the Priests hand he shall pour upon the head of him that is to be cleansed Which one thing if it were omitted the Leper was not cleansed As for the rest of the Log of Oil which was not all poured into his hand but only some of it v. 15. that was distributed to the Priests as the same Maimonides observes who alone might eat it in the Court of the Tabernacle as they did other holy things But none might taste of it before the sprinkling and other things before-mentioned were performed If any Man did he was beaten as he was who are the holy things before the sprinkling of the Blood For that was a great prophaneness for any Person to take his portion before God had that which belonged unto him And the Priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD This seems to suppose that the Leprosie was inflicted as a Punishment for some Sin which by this Sacrifice was taken away But the word make atonement doth not always signifie the taking away Sin but sometimes meerly making a thing fit for holy uses Thus Moses is said to make an atonement for the Altar XXIX Exod. 36 37. See there and in the same sense may an Atonement be said to be made for the Leper by this Sacrifice which restored him to be made partaker of the holy things offered at the Altar See below v. 53. Ver. 19. Verse 19 And the Priest shall offer the Sin-offering The other He-lamb mentioned v. 10. which was to be offered after the manner of the Sin-offering for such Offences as Abarbanel understands it as he knew he had committed And make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed His atonement was begun by the Trespass-offering v. 18. and was advanced by this Which Abarbanel thinks was added to make Men more cautious how they contracted any sort of Impurity which would put them to great charges before they were purged from it For he could find no other reason he saith for the like Sacrifices which were offered by him that had an Issue or had meddled with a menstruous Woman or been defiled by the dead or tasted swines-flesh or any creeping thing And afterward he shall kill the burnt-offering This being a Present to God himself was not accepted till by the other Offerings for Trespass and Sin the Man was purified And this I take to be properly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gift mentioned by our Saviour VIII Matth. 4. Ver. 20. Verse 20 And the Priest shall offer the burnt-offering and the meat-offering upon the Altar There were so many Offerings made to show the greatness of his Uncleanness and now his perfect Cure We read of no Meat-offering made with the two former Sacrifices but the three tenth deals of fine flour mentioned v. 10. seem to signifie every one of these Sacrifices the Trespass-offering the Sin-offering and the Burnt-offering had its proportion of a tenth deal of Flour offered with it But if we think the whole was appropriated to the Burnt-offering yet it was the same thing to the Leper whose cleansing cost him as dear one way as the other Only by understanding it thus the Priest perhaps had a greater reward for his pains if we suppose he only burnt an handful upon the Altar as the manner was in these Offerings and had all the rest to his own use See Chap. II. v. 2 3. And the Priest shall make an atonement for him and he shall be clean By this his Atonement was compleated and he was made so perfectly clean as to be admitted to be partaker of the Altar when Peace-offerings were sacrificed But this very long Process through so many different Rites and for so many days before Men could be purified from a legal defilement in their Bodies was a plain instruction to all Persons of good sense how much more difficult it would prove to cleanse their Souls from those moral Impurities which they contracted by long habits of sin and what great pains must be taken both by the Sinners themselves and by God's Ministers to root them out and with what repeated Prayers the Mercy of God towards them was to be implored of which they ought not hastily to presume Ver. 21. Verse 21 And if he be poor and cannot get so much The Divine Goodness always made a merciful provision that his Service should not be burdensom to Men and therefore took care the Poor should not be charged with too costly Sacrifices and yet partake of the benefit of them as much as the Rich. See I. 14 17. V. 11 c. He shall take After he
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
Vows i. e. they vowed a Sacrifice to God for they could not Sacrifice on Ship-board when he had brought them to a safe Port. And so Cicero speaks of certain Mariners who being tossed in a Tempest vowed if they gained their Haven Ei Deo qui ibi esset se vitulum immolaturos They would offer a Calf to the God of that place And Homer in like manner brings in the Mother of Telemachus vowing perfect Hecatombs unto all the Gods if she might obtain her desire Odyss XVII v. 59. Or a free-will-offering This also was a Peace-offering for obtaining Blessings not when they were in distress I suppose but in general to procure God's favour to them and theirs In Beeves or Sheep And likewise Goats for all these were allowed in Peace-offerings III. 1 6 12. It shall be perfect to be accepted That was accounted perfect which wanted none of its parts nor had any defect in any of them The Heathen themselves did not think any other would be accepted and therefore made a careful choice of their Sacrifices as appears by those words of Virgil Lib. IV. AEneid v. 57. Mactant lectas de more bidentes Which he calls elsewhere eximij singled out as most excellent Lib. IV. Georg. v. 550. Quatuor eximios praestanti corpore tauros And that they might be such there was probatio victimarum a proof made of Sacrifices as Pliny speaks Lib. VIII cap. 45. where he saith such as were lame or had one leg shorter than the other were rejected Which probation was to be made by those that brought the Sacrifices but if they did not do their duty the Priest upon examination refused to admit them to be offered There shall be no blemish therein This is an explication of what he means by perfect Which Solon who seems to have taken the Rites of Religion from Moses called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the explication of which word Hesychius after several other expressions concludes with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which neither hath any part more or less than it should have Julius Pollux who reports this of Solon hath a great number of other words to express the perfection required in Sacrifices which were to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. I. cap. 1. some of which are of the same signification and serve only to show how compleat their Sacrifices were to be Ver. 22. Verse 22 Blind or broken c. In this and the following Verses he mentions XII blemishes which render any Beast unfit for Sacrifice And the first is blind under which the Hebrews comprehend that which the Latins call Cocles a Beast that hath but one eye Or broken In the Bones of the Thighs or the Legs Or maimed Most take it for that which the Latins call mutilum that which lacketh any part The LXX took it more particularly for that which had its Tongue cut out The Hebrew Doctors for that whose Eye-brows or Lips were slit or cut off Which is nearer to the Hebrew word charuts than the Vulgar which translates it only a Scar. Or having a wen. The Hebrews generally understand by the word jabbeleth that which the Latins call Verruca a Wart or hard Knob rising in the flesh which is better than the Vulgar who translates it papulas which properly signifies Pimples Pushes or Wheals But I think our Translation cannot be mended a Wen being a more manifest deformity and more common in Beasts than the other Or Scurvy This is that which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Itch. Or scabbed Some take this word to signifie the same with the Latin impetigo i. e. a Ring-worm or Tetter which spreads in the skin with a dry Scab though others take it for that which they call Porrigo for which I know no English word unless it be the mangy The Hebrews take it for the Porrigo AEgyptiaca as Bochart observes a Scabby Disease of this kind frequent among the Egyptians Ye shall not offer these unto the LORD Not so much as present them to be offered in Sacrifice Nor make an offering by fire of them upon the Altar unto the LORD Much less burn them upon the Altar for the LORD will not accept such Sacrifices Ver. 23. Verse 23 Either a Bullock or a Lamb that hath any thing superfluous This word we had before which we translate superfluous XXI 18. but it properly signifies the inequality and disproportion that there is between those parts that are pairs as the Eyes or Legs and particularly when one of them exceeds its just bigness ex gr when one Leg is longer than it should be Or lacking in his parts This word signifies just the quite contrary to the other when one part is less and more contracted than it should be one Leg supposed shorter than ordinary So all the Hebrews understand these words particularly Onkelos and Jonathan That mayest thou offer for a free-will-offering A very learned Person of our own takes these words for an Exception to the foregoing general Rule that such defects as these two should not hinder the acceptation of a Beast for a Free-will-offering though not for a Vow And it must be acknowledged that is the most plain and simple sense But the Jews as he observes particularly R. Solomon Jarchi expound them otherwise and will not have this Offering to signifie the Sacrifice of such things at the Altar but the giving them to the Priest for some Sacred use to be sold for instance for the reparation of the Temple for which they were accepted See Dr. Owtram Lib. I. de Sacrificiis cap. 9. n. 2. But for a vow it shall not be accepted Free-will-offerings were much different from Vows there being no obligation upon them to offer the former as there was to offer the latter and a less perfect Creature would be accepted in the one case though not in the other Ver. 24. Verse 24 Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised or crushed or broken or cut That is as the Hebrews interpret it and so do the LXX and the Vulgar any Beast whose Testicles were compressed or bruised c. For these four ways they used to castrate a Lamb for instance and make it a Wether and so they did with Kids and Calves as Bochart observes out of Aristotle and others in his Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 46. Neither shall you make any offering thereof in your land The word Offering is not in the Hebrew and this passage may be thus exactly translated Neither in your Land shall ye make or do So the LXX the sense of which the Vulgar expresses by adding the word this i.e. the fore-named castration either by compression or contusion or any other way For Josephus saith it was unlawful among them to geld any Creature which was prohibited to keep them from doing so with Men which they were taught to be abominable And these words suggested as much being thus translated Neither in your Land shall it be done
the Altar of the burnt-offering Where after the building of the Temple there were two holes one on the West-side of the Altar the other on the South as the Jews tell us in Middoth cap. 3. sect 2. by which it was conveyed into a Canal under Ground through which it ran into the Brook Kidron And there was only this difference they say about these two holes that the Blood of the Sin-offering any part of which was carried into the most holy place was poured out only into that on the West-side of the Foundation of the Altar And if we may believe the Jews the Gardiners bought this Blood of those that were the Treasurers of the Temple to inrich their Ground with it as Constantine l'Empereur there observes And while they were in the Wilderness and all the time they had only a moveable Tabernacle it is most likely there were Receptacles made under Ground with Conveyances to some distant place where it sank into the Earth or was covered with Dust as other Blood is commanded to be XVII 13. For Maimonides thinks the pouring out the Blood so that it might not remain in one place which is constantly and strictly required by the Law was in opposition to an idolatrous Custom of the old Zabij who made a collection of the Blood in a Vessel or in a little Pit about which they sat and ate the Flesh imagining their Gods feasted upon the Blood as I noted before out of Maimonides More Nevoch P. III. cap. 46. Which is at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation For there was the place of it as hath been often observed XL Exod. 6. Ver. 8. Verse 8 And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin-offering c. All that follows in this and the two next Verses v. 9 10. is the same that was ordered to be done about Peace-offerings as appears from v. 10. See therefore the foregoing Chapter v. 3 4 5. Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the skin of the bullock and all his flesh with his head and with his legs and his inwards c. This Sacrifice was so laborious to work in them a greater detestation of sin which was aggravated by the quality of the Person that committed it And Nachmanides hath an observation which in some parts of it at least is very remarkable That all a Man doth being performed in Words in Works or Thoughts God commanded them when they brought an Offering for Sin that they should lay their hand on it which had respect to the Works they had done and make Confession over it which had respect to their Words and burn the Inwards and Kidneys which are the Organs of Thoughts and Desires the Legs also had a respect to a Man's hands and feet by which he doth all his work and the Blood that was sprinkled on the Altar signified his own Blood So that while a Man did all these things he was put in mind how he had sinned against God both in Soul and Body and deserved to have his Blood shed and his Body burnt unless the Mercy of the Creator had accepted a Price of Redemption for him viz. a Sacrifice whose Blood was for his Blood and its Life for his Life and the principal Members of the Sacrifice for the Members of his Body By which it appears that the best sort of Jews had a sense that the Sacrifices for Sin were offered to God in their stead as a Ransom for them And so we Christians are to understand the Sacrifice which Christ made of himself who gave himself a Ransom for us all as the Apostle speaks I Tim. 2. 6. and our LORD saith the same XX Matth. 28. X Mark 45. Such Sacrifices the Heathens themselves had which they called Lustralia from the word lustrare which signifies to expiate among the Romans and that by paying a price For the ancient Poet Ennius as our excellent Mr. Thorndike hath observed translating into Latin a Greek Tragedy called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being taken out of Homer where he speaks of Priamus ransoming of Hector's Corps from Achilles intituled it Hectoris lustra which shows this is the Latin of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ransom or redemption and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in the New Testament to deliver by paying a ransom See his Epilogue Book II. Chapt. 27. Ver. 12. Verse 12 Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the Camp It was not dissected as the Peace-offerings were because no Body was to partake of any part of it being a Sacrifice for the Priests own sin And therefore it was to be carried though not by himself but some other Person to be burnt without the Camp to express the abominabless of the Sin This Rite and the carrying the Blood within the Tabernacle to be sprinkled before the LORD were used only in these two Cases of the Sin of the High-Priest and of all the People For of other Sin-offerings the Priests might eat VI. 26. but of this being for himself he was not to taste at all because he was in a state of Guilt Into a clean place where the ashes are poured out On the East-part of the Tabernacle there was a place for the Ashes to be thrown into when they were taken from the Altar which afterward were carried into a clean place without the Camp And so they were carried out after the Temple was built at Jerusalem at the East-gate of the City into a Valley which lay between Jerusalem and Mount Olivet And burn him on the wood with fire Not upon an Altar but in a fire made with Wood upon the Ground to show the odiousness of the sin as Maimonides thinks For as the whole Burnt-sacrifices were burnt on the Altar because they were an Offering of sweet smelling savour unto God so this was burnt without the Camp upon the Ground to show that the odour of it was ungrateful and abominable More Nevochim P. III. cap. 46. where he also observes that the burning of the Beast intirely being the destruction of it so that nothing of it remained it signified in like manner the utter deletion of Sin so that it should be remembred no more And the Bullock being burnt without the Camp I take it to denote that the People should not suffer for the sin of the Priest which was abolished together with his Sacrifice The same Maimonides hath another observation upon the Title Zebachim that there were three places constituted for the burning of holy things The first was in the Sanctuary as every one knows the second was in the Mount of the House as they called the place round about the Court of the Sanctuary where if any blemish hapned to a Bullock or a Goat they were brought out of the Sanctuary and burnt in a place called Bira and the third was in this place of the Ashes without the City Where the ashes are poured out there shall he be burnt This is repeated
Trespass-offerings also And indeed it was a Notion among the Heathen themselves that an Offering without Prayer was to no purpose Quippe victimas caedi sine precatione non videtur referre nec Deos ritè consuli as Pliny speaks L. XXVIII Nat. Hist cap. 2. and every one knows that Confession was a part of Prayer See Dr. Owtram de Sacrificiis L. I. cap. 15. n. 9. Ver. 6. Verse 6 And he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the LORD There is a difference between a Sin-offering called Chattah and a Trespass-offering called Ascham as is plain in the latter part of this Chapter compared with this But here in this place they are not distinguished for the name of Trespass-offering is given to that which was really a Sin-offering as appears from the latter end of this Verse and from the two next where this Offering is expresly called a Sin-offering For his sin which he hath sinned In any of the four fore-mentioned Cases either by polluting the Sanctuary or eating holy things or a rash Oath or by refusing to give his Testimony being adjured by the Court of Judgment to do it Thus R. Levi of Barcelona explains this Praecept CXXI A female from the flock a Lamb or a Kid of the Goats for a sin-offering As the Hebrews call the Sin-offering mentioned in the foregoing Chapter v. 27. a fixed Sacrifice so they call this higher or lower being brought according to every Man's Faculty or Ability some more some less as the fore-named Author and many other of their Doctors observe and is plain of it self from the following Verses And the Priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin By sprinkling the Blood and burning the Fat of the Sacrifice as is directed IV. 34 35. Ver. 7. Verse 7 And if he be not able to bring a Lamb. See the mercy of God saith the same R. Levi who was pleased to exact such small Punishments for these Sins because it was very easie for Men to fall into them For we are more prone to offend in word then in deed and without great Caution it was scarce possible not to fall into such Legal Pollutions as required this Expiation Then he shall bring for his trespass which he hath committed two Turtle Doves or two young Pigeons unto the LORD Who though he would not exact an heavy Punishment of them for these Offences yet would not suffer them to escape altogether unpunished that they might not be presumptuous but use due care and caution in their words and actions So the same R. Levi represents the sense of this Law as if the LORD had said I would not have such things done but if any Man by frailty commit them let him repent with all his might and set a guard upon himself and let him offer a Sacrifice which may imprint the remembrance of his Guilt upon his heart and preserve him that he may not hereafter offend The one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering First he was to have his Peace made with God by a Sin-offering and then his Burnt-offering or his Gift might be accepted as Rasi observes and is expresly ordered in the next Verse The Priest shall offer that which is for the Sin-offering first Ver. 8. Verse 8 And wring off his head from his neck c. Or rather nip it off with his Nail as the Jews explain it See I. 15. so as not quite to separate it from the Body For that had been to make the Sacrifice contemptible as R. Levi of Barcelona gives the reason of it Praecept CXXVIII the Bird looking more handsome with its Neck still joyned to the Body than without it And it was fit the Sacrifice of a poor Man should be as decent as possible it being sufficient he thus suffered without increasing his Affliction by the mean and abject form of his Sacrifice Ver. 9. Verse 9 And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the Sin-offering c. Some of the Blood which ran out of it self as the Priest held it by the Neck where he nipt it he was to sprinkle upon the side of the Altar And then he was to press out the rest of the Blood when as much was ran out as would of it self by that nip at the bottom of the Altar where they were wont to pour out the Blood of the Sin-offering IV. 7 18 25 34. It is a Sin-offering Therefore the Blood was there pressed out whereas in Burnt-offerings of a Bird we read only of pressing or squeezing out the Blood at the side of the Altar I. 15. It is not said what was to be done with the Flesh but it is plain from VI. 26. that the Priest was to have it the Blood only being offered to God Ver. 10. Verse 10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt-offering according to the manner Prescribed in the first Chapter v. 15. And the Priest shall make an atonement for him c. Some gather from hence that the Burnt-offering was also an Expiatory Sacrifice But it is so plainly distinguished from it that these words seem to me to relate only to the foregoing Offering v. 8 9. Though this may be concluded from hence that the Sin-offering was not accepted for his Expiation unless this Burnt-offering followed as a Thankful Acknowledgment made to God for his Goodness Ver. 11. Verse 11 But if he be not able to bring two turtle Doves or two young Pigeons This was still a more merciful Provision for the Poor who were not to be so ambitious of offering a Beast or a Bird as not to content themselves with offering the smallest thing that God would accept So R. Levi of Barcelona observes that God having such Compassion on Mens Poverty it did not become them to strain themselves to offer more than they were able for so they might have been tempted to stealth Yet if after a Man had set aside a little Money to buy this quantity of fine Flour his Estate was bettered he was then bound as Maimonides saith in the Treatise called Schegagoth to add so much to it as would buy the Birds before prescribed And in like manner if he had designed to buy Birds and on a sudden grew richer he was to procure a Lamb or a Kid. On the contrary if a Man had set apart Money to buy a Bullock for his Sin-offering and unexpectedly grew poor he might buy two Turtles or young Pigeons and by them redeem his Money so consecrated c. cap. 10. Then he that hath sinned shall bring for his offering a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour c. Neither more nor less which was but a small quantity See XVI Exod. 36. because God would not have his Creature oppressed as the same Author observes Praecept CXXIX He shall put no oil upon it neither shall he put any frankincense thereon In commiseration of his Poverty God required only a little Flour which every one might easily get to offer without
Bond-woman betrothed to another XIX 20 21. Which are all the Cases belonging to this matter excepting that of the Nazarite defiled by the dead VI Numb 12. and of the Leper XIV 12. who were to be purged with a Sin-offering as well as with a Trespass-offering and therefore not to be considered in this matter See Dr. Owtram L. I. de Sacrificiis cap. 13. n. 8. and Samuel Petitus his Variae Lectiones cap. 22. who hath said the same but not so fully and distinctly If this do not satisfie yet it is plain the Sacrifices which go by this Name of Trespass-offerings and the Rites also about them were so different that they are sufficient to distinguish them from the other For none but Rams and Male-Lambs were admitted for Trespass-offerings which were not used at all in any Sin-offerings And the Blood of the Sin-offerings was put upon the Horns of the Altar as was noted in the foregoing Chapter v. 7 18 25. but that of the Trespass-offerings was sprinkled round about upon the Altar VII 2. Sin-offerings also were offered for the whole Congregation of Israel IV. 13. but Trespass-offerings only for private Persons which made Bonsrerius I suppose after a long discussion of this matter to conclude That the difference betwen Sin and Trespass consisted only in the Sacrifices which were offered for them See him upon the IVth Chapter of this Book v. 1. Ver. 16. Verse 16 And he shall make amends for the harm he hath done in holy things and shall add a fifth part thereunto c. Besides the Compensation mentioned in the foregoing Verse for the damage that was done according to the valuation made by the Priest there was a fifth part more to be added thereunto and given to the Priest who had suffered the damage And the Priest shall make an atonement for him with the Ram of the trespass-offering and it shall be forgiven him The Atonement was not made nor Forgiveness obtained till full Satisfaction for the wrong had been made Ver. 17. Verse 17 And if a soul sin and commit any of these things c. i. e. did eat any of the holy things before-mentioned which God forbad any but the Priests to eat Though he wist it not i. e. Be not certain whether they were holy or no. For the Hebrews generally call this Ascham Talui a dubious Trespass-offering being in a matter about which a Man was in Suspense whether he had offended or not Yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity He shall be obliged to offer this sort of Sacrifice Which was ordained saith R. Levi Barcelon Praecept CXXIII to make Men cautious and fear to sin and to attend diligently in all their Actions that they transgressed not the Laws of God Ver. 18. Verse 18 And he shall bring a Ram without blemish out of the flock with thy estimation c. The Offering before appointed v. 15 c. with this difference only that no fifth part was in this Case to be added because it was not certain whether he had transgressed or no. The Priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not Did not know whether he had offended or not which distinguishes this from the Sin of Ignorance mentioned v. 15. And it shall be forgiven him But if he afterwards came to have a certain knowledge of his Offence he was not excused by this dubious Offering as Rasi observes but was bound also to offer a Sin-offering Ver. 19. Verse 19 It is a trespass-offering In this case a Sacrifice must be offered as well as in a certain Trespass He hath certainly trespassed against the LORD The words in the Hebrew are Ascham ascham lajhova which I think should be translated A Trespass-offering certainly unto the LORD That is in this doubtful case let him take a sure course by offering the Sacrifice here prescribed For though neither this sort of Sacrifices nor Sin-offerings were to be voluntarily which was proper only to whole Burnt-offerings and Peace-offerings yet the very suspicion of a Guilt required a Sacrifice As for all those Offences which might be committed by Men who had no sense nor suspition of them they were expiated by the Sacrifices which were offered for the whole Congregation at certain stated times but no particular Person was to offer either Sin-offering or Trespass-offering of his own accord unless he knew or feared he had contracted some Guilt I cannot think fit to conclude this Chapter without taking notice how Jonathan paraphrases these last words of it who instead of saying he hath trespassed as it is commonly translated against the LORD saith against the Name of the Word of the LORD Which is an observation that might have been made in my Notes upon the two foregoing Books of Moses where many such passages occur which I did not mention And I should not have done it now being unwilling to swell this Commentary with any thing that doth not tend to the explaining the sense of the Text did not the impious Pamphlets that have lately been spread abroad against the Doctrine of the ever Blessed Trinity made it necessary for me to take this occasion to assert That this Doctrine was not unknown to the ancient Jews as appears even from the frequent mention of the Word of the LORD in the Chaldee Paraphrasts where the Hebrew hath only JEHOVAH or the LORD For which I can see no reason at all if there had not been a Notion among them of more Persons than One who were JEHOVAH It doth not always indeed carry this signification in it but there are very many places where by the WORD of the LORD cannot be meant a word spoken by the LORD or any thing else but a person speaking or acting c. who is the LORD There is a famous instance of it in XXVIII Gen. 20 21. where Jacob's Vow is thus translated by Onkelos Jacob vowed a vow saying if the WORD of the LORD will be with me and keep me c. then shall the WORD of the LORD be my God Where the WORD of the LORD is so plainly made the Object of his Adoration that it evidently shows they had a Notion in those days when Onkelos lived which was about our Saviour's time of more Persons than One who was the LORD The Hierusalem Targum also speaks this so clearly that one cannot but be something amazed to meet with such Expressions in it as those upon III Gen. 22. The WORD of the LORD said Behold Adam whom I have created is my only begotten in this World as I am the only begotten in the Heavens above Which may fairly induce a belief that St. John used the known Language of those times when he declared our blessed Saviour's Godhead under the Name of the WORD who was in the beginning with God and was God I Joh. 1. CHAP. VI. Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying What here follows belonging unto the same
See Selden Lib. VII de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 3. p. 799. Ver. 25. Verse 25 Neither from a strangers hand By bennechar the Son of a Stranger as it is in the Hebrew who is called XXV 47. a Stranger and Sojourner viz. a Gentile that dwelt among them is meant a pious Man of another Nation who had renounced Idolatry and abstained from Blood and observed the rest of the Precepts of the Sons of Noah as they called them but was not Circumcised which would have obliged him to the whole Law of Moses Such Persons being worshippers of the true God were permitted to bring him Sacrifices to be offered at his Altar See Grotius Lib. I. de Jure Belli Pacis cap. 1. sect 16. n. 3. Shall ye offer the bread of your God from any of these Some have taken these words as if no Sacrifice was to be accepted from a Gentile but only Money with which the Priest might buy a Sacrifice and offer it for him But this is confuted by v. 18. and here it is evident he only forbids them to accept of any Sacrifice which had the fore-named blemishes from a Gentile Who might think them not unacceptable because the Gentiles made no scruple to offer such as these last mentioned to their Gods though their Laws in some places were against it The Bread of your God The Hebrews understand hereby to be meant only Burnt-offerings which Maimonides saith were accepted from a Gentile even Burnt-offerings of Birds though he had not yet renounced Idolatry But they were not to accept from him Peace-offerings or Meat-offerings or Sacrifices for Sins of Ignorance IV. 27. or Trespass-offerings mentioned VI. 6. nor was a Burnt-offering to be accepted unless it was a Free-will-offering or a Vow as Mr Selden observes Lib. III. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 4. But if he brought such spontaneous Offerings as had the fore mentioned blemishes the Priest was to reject them though the Gentiles might say they were such as had been accepted by his Gods or else he was to be scourged So this Law is briefly expounded by the Jews when they reckon it up among their Precepts that a defective Sacrifice is not to be accepted no not from the hand of a Gentile as he observes in the same Book cap. 7. where he discourses at large on this Subject And it need not seem strange a Gentile should bring any such Sacrifices when their Laws as I observed before required a choice to be made for they were not so curious in their choice as the Hebrews but as Tertullian upbraids them sacrificed enecta tabidosa scabiosa Apolog. adv Gentes cap. 13. Which the better sort of People perhaps did not offer but the Vulgar did and the Priests made no scruple to accept them Because their corruption is in them and blemishes be in them The word corruption seems particularly to relate unto the fore-mentioned castration for it signifies such a Corruption as is the destruction of any Member See Bochart in his Hierozoicon p. 2. Lib. V. cap. 4. And blemishes relate to other defects which made them unacceptable Twelve of which as I said are here mentioned but the Hebrews look upon them only as Examples and Specimens of other the like defects which they make in all to be fifty as I observed before out of Selden Lib. II. de Success ad Pontific cap. 5. Maimonides gives us a Catalogue of them in his Treatise of Entrance into the Sanctuary cap. 7. but to make up that full number he is constrained to add these three which have no example among the XII here mentioned viz. such as tremble by age or by some disease or are torn by wild Beasts Ver. 26. Verse 26 And the LORD spake unto Moses saying These Laws following being of the same nature were in all likelyhood delivered at the same time with the foregoing Ver. 27. Verse 27 And when a Bullock or Sheep or Goat is brought forth These were the only Beasts that were allowed to be sacrificed v. 19. Then it shall be seven days under the dam and from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted for an offering c. They were not fit for Food when they were not seven days old and therefore not for Sacrifice which was the Bread or Food of God as it is called v. 25. But this hath been sufficiently explained before XXII Exod. 30. I shall only add that I have since observed that P. Cunaeus hath briefly expressed the sense of Maimonides which I there represented Lib. III. de Republ. Hebraeor cap. 5. and that the Gentiles were so far from offering Creatures so young that they thought them fittest for Sacrifice when they were two years old as appears from the words of Virgil before-mentioned Mactant lactas de more bidentes where Servius saith that bidentes were so called because they were biennes two years of age for it was not lawful to Sacrifice those that were younger nor those that were older Ver. 28. Verse 28 And whether it be Cow or Ewe ye shall not kill it and her young both in one day Lest the young one saith Maimonides should happen to be killed before the Dam which would have given the greatest grief to her More Nevoch P. III. cap. 48. Any thing that lookt like Cruelty therefore was by this Law banished from among them for they might not so much as kill both the Young and the Dam on the same day to offer them to God himself of which he is here speaking Ver. 29. Verse 29 And when ye will offer a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving unto the LORD He had mentioned Free-will-offerings and Vows before v. 21. and now briefly touches upon the third sort of Peace-offerings See VII 15 16. Offer it at your own will Male or Female of the Herd or of the Flock III. 1 7 12. Or the meaning may be as hath been often said He shall offer it in such a manner as that it be accepted See I. 3. Ver. 30. Verse 30 On the same day it shall be eaten c. See VII 15. Ver. 31. Verse 31 Therefore shall ye keep my Commandments and do them c. Because he had said before v. 30. and now repeats it again in the conclusion of this Verse I am the LORD To whom they owed obedience especially when he required they should reverently use all holy things Ver. 32. Verse 32 Neither shall ye profane my holy Name This may refer either to what goes before that they should not make him and his Service contemptible by offering such things as were defective c. or be taken as a Precept by it self And then the Name of God was profaned three ways as Mr. Selden observes besides the most grievous of all by Blasphemy Either when a Man for fear of death violated the Divine Law or when he contemptuously and wantonly broke any Precept or when a Man of great note for Knowledge and Piety gave a Scandal to others
his Temple Service Chap. XIV sect 2. Dr. Owtram de Sacrificiis Lib. I. cap. 8. n. 6. And J. Wagenseil upon Sota cap. 2. Annot. 11. Ver. 11. Verse 11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD They did not offer the Corn green in the Ears as I observed in the foregoing Verse but parcht dried ground and searsed and then they waved a Tenth-deal of the Flour which came from the Sheaf as a present to the LORD of the whole Earth To be accepted for you To procure God's Blessing upon the rest of the Harvest and that they might have liberty to use the Corn it produced which it was not lawful for them to do till the First-fruits were given to God On the morrow after the Sabbath the Priest shall wave it We are not to understand by the Sabbath the Seventh days Rest which was the Opinion of the Sadducees as R. Levi ben Gersom tells upon the fifth of Joshua but the day here mentioned v. 7. which was a kind of Sabbath because no Servile work might be done therein And therefore this morrow after the Sabbath was the sixteenth day of Nisan or the next day to the first of Unleavened Bread So the LXX translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the morrow after the first and Josephus more plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. on the second day of Vnleavened Bread which is the sixteenth day of the Month c. Lib. III. Antiq. cap. 10. This was the first of the fifty days which they reckoned till Pentecost v. 15. and was the day on which Manna ceased when they came into Canaan because then they eat of the Fruits of that Country V Josh 10 11 12. And indeed it was not lawful for them as I said before to eat of the Fruits of the Earth till after the Passover because then the Sheaf of the First fruits was waved which consecrated the rest of the Corn. And so God continued Manna to them till they had other Food to eat Ver. 12. Verse 12 And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he-lamb without blemish c. Though this day was not so holy as the first day of Unleavened Bread yet it was a part of the Festival and was called Moed katon a lesser Solemnity as all the rest of the days were between the first and the seventh And therefore a special Offering is here ordered upon this day besides the daily Burnt-Sacrifice and besides the Sacrifice which was appointed v. 8. to be offered upon every one of the seven days Ver. 13. Verse 13 And the Meat-offering thereof shall be two Tenth-deals of fine flour c. I observed before upon the second Chapter v. 1. that all sorts of Bread might be offered to God as being a very ancient Sacrifice and commonly used at every Table for which reason Wine also is here ordered but it was to be simple Wine not mixed as was the Heathenish Custom Salt also was added II. 13. as common at all Tables but no Honey nor Leaven which Mens Superstition had introduced and therefore expresly forbidden in that place v. 11. as it did also Milk and Herbs and Leaves of Trees not a word of which is to be found in the Law of Moses But here it is observable that he commands two Tenth-deals of fine Flour to be offered whereas one Tenth was the common Meat-offering XXIX Exod. 40. Because as one of them was a necessary attendant on the Lamb mentioned before v. 12. so the other was in honour of the day which was a lesser kind of Festival And the Drink-offering thereof shall be of wine the fourth part of a hin Here is not a double proportion of Wine ordered but the usual quantity because perhaps this was a Thanksgiving only for their Corn not for their Vintage which came afterwards Ver. 14. Verse 14 And ye shall eat neither bread nor parched corn nor green ears until the self same day that ye have brought an offering to your God It was not lawful for them to reap and therefore not to eat any of the Fruits of the Earth till the forenamed First-fruits were offered as an acknowledgment to the Donor of them For nothing was more just and equal all Men thought than to give some part to him who gave to them all they had and in the first place to give him his due before they took any thing to themselves The Romans in this expressed the sense of all Mankind who as Pliny tells us Lib. XVIII cap. 2. Ne gustabant quidem novas fruges aut vina antequam Sacerdotes primitias tibassent did not so much as taste of their Corn or Wine till the Priests had offered the First-fruits It shall be a statute for ever c. As long as their Polity lasted In all your dwellings Throughout the whole Land of Canaan Ver. 15. Verse 15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath From the sixteenth day of Nisan or the second day of Unleavened Bread which was the morrow after the Sabbath v. 11. From the day that ye brought the sheaf of the Wave-offering This is added only as a fuller description of the time from which they were to count Seven Sabbaths shall be compleat Seven whole Weeks reckoning that day from which the account begun for the first day of the first of those Weeks which made XLIX days in all Maimonides thinks it was for the honour of this great Day of Pentecost that they were to count the days till it came just like a Man saith he who expects his best Friend is wont to tell the days and hours till he arrive More Nevoch P. III. c. 43. And therefore the present Jews begin this Supputation with a solemn Prayer saying Blessed art thou O LORD our God the LORD of the World who hast sanctified us with thy Precepts and commandest us to number the days of Harvest and this is the first day And thus they go on to pray till the seventh day when they add Now there is one Week and so they proceed in the same Prayers to the Evening of Pentecost Which Feast they not being able now to keep as the Law appoints they pray to God every day after they have done counting that he would restore Jerusalem and the Temple and then they promise to do all that is here prescribed And this counting in some places is performed publickly in their Synagogues yet so that every Master of a Family is bound every Night to do it at home See Buxtorf Synag Judaica cap. 20. Ver. 16. Verse 16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath shall ye number fifty days The next day after the seventh Sabbath or Week made just fifty days from which this Feast was called Pentecost and in the Old Testament the Feast of Weeks because it began the next day after the seven Weeks before-mentioned XXXIV Exod. 22. And ye shall offer a new Meat-offering to the LORD Viz.