Commentary on Deuteronomy, Commentary · Chapter 17
Chapter XVII.CHAP. XVII.
Verſe 1 Verſe 1. THou ſhalt not ſacrifice unto the LORD thy God any Bullock, or Sheep, wherein is any blemiſh.] Having warned them, as he had done often, againſt idolatrous Practiſes, he here interpoſes a Caution againſt Prophaneneſs in the Worſhip of the true God: For it was a great diſreſpect to him, to offer him any thing that was not perfect; the Heathens being aſhamed of ſuch Sacrifices.
Wherein is any blemiſh.] Of this ſee XXII Levit. 20, &c.
Or any evil-favouredneſs.] In the Hebrew, any evil thing, or matter. That is, if it had any diſeaſe, or was ſick.
For that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.] This is more than is ſaid in Leviticus, where the words are, for it ſhall not be acceptable for you. For here he expreſſes the greateſt diſdain and abhorrence of ſuch Sacrifices.
Verſe 2 Ver. 2. If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee.] In any Cities or Towns within their Country.
Man or Woman, that hath wrought wickedneſs in the ſight of the LORD thy God.] Now he returns to the buſineſs of Idolatry; which is the wickedneſs here ſaid to be wrought, as appears by the next words.
In tranſgreſſing his Covenant.] For this was the principal part of the Covenant, That they ſhould have no other Gods but him, XX Exod. 22, 33. upon this all depended: ſo that the whole Covenant was void, if they ſerved other gods. Which was ſo foul a ſin, that he would have none ſpared, who were guilty of it. Which is the reaſon, as Maimonides thinks, (More Nevochim P. III. Cap. XXXVII.) why he here ſaith, Man, or Woman; becauſe Men are naturally more tender towards the Female Sex, and inclinable to be favourable to them; againſt which he warns them in caſe of Idolatry, and of prophaning the Sabbath: in which two Caſes only he uſes theſe words.
He had ſhown in the Thirteenth Chapter, what they ſhould do with him that ſeduced others to Idolatry, whether he were a pretended Prophet, or a private Man, v. 1, 9, 10. And then what ſhould be done with a whole City that was ſeduced, v. 12, 13, &c. And now he ſhows how they ſhould proceed againſt any particular Perſon who apoſtatized from God.
Ver. 3. And hath gone and ſerved other gods, and Verſe 3 worſhipped them, either the Sun, or Moon, or any of the Hoſt of Heaven.] The moſt ancient Idolatry (of which Abarbinel makes account there were ten ſorts) was the Worſhip of the Heavenly Bodies, as I have obſerved before, IV. 19. and ſee XXXI Job 26. The forenamed Doctor indeed places firſt the Worſhip of Angels; about which I will not diſpute: but only obſerve, that by condemning thoſe who worſhipped the Hoſt of Heaven, though very glorious Creatures, Moſes ſuggeſts plainly enough how vile they were who worſhipped Images of Wood and Stone.
Which I have not commanded.] This is a way of ſpeaking in this Language, importing the quite contrary, which God had forbidden; and that moſt ſtrictly. See XVII Prov. 21. XXIV. 23. and many other places.
Ver. 4. And it be told thee.] Thou haſt had information Verſe 4 of ſuch wickedneſs.
And thou haſt heard it, and enquired diligently.] Upon information they were to make diligent ſearch, whether the Report were true, or no.
And behold it be true, and the thing certain.] They were not to proceed upon Rumours, nor yet to ſlight them: but endeavour to be ſatisfied, whether or no there was ground for them. And if upon Examination they found there was no doubt of the Truth of the thing, to do as is here directed.
That ſuch abomination is wrought in Iſrael.] So Idolatry is frequently called. See XIII. 14.
Verſe 5 Ver. 5. Then thou ſhalt bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates.] Set them before the Court of Judgment in the City to which they belonged, (See XVI. 18.) For particular Perſons were tried and ſentenced in the lower Courts: but a Tribe or a City accuſed of Idolatry, only by the higheſt Court of all; as Maimonides, and the reſt of the Jewiſh Doctors inform us. See Selden Lib. III. de Synedr. Cap. IV. N. 3. and Cap. V. N. 1.
And ſhalt ſtone them with ſtones that they die.] This was the Puniſhment of a particular Perſon; as a City fall'n to Idolatry was to be killed with the Sword; and a falſe Prophet, who ſeduced others to Idolatry, to be ſtrangled. See XIII. 5.
Verſe 6 Ver. 6. At the mouth of two witneſſes, or three witneſſes, ſhall he that is worthy of death, be put to death.] No Man could be convicted, but by two Witneſſes at leaſt; and thoſe of a competent Age, of good Fame, and not convicted themſelves of having born falſe Witneſs, &c. Many other Qualifications of leſſer moment, the Jews required in a Witneſs; which Mr. Selden reports, and the reaſon of them, Lib. II. de Synedr. Cap. XIII. N. 11.
But at the mouth of one witneſs he ſhall not be put to death.] Becauſe,Chapter though the Witneſs was never ſo credible, it was poſſible he might be miſtaken. But it was not likely that two or three honeſt Men, agreeing in the ſame Teſtimony, ſhould all be deceived. Yet in pecuniary Matters, the Hebrew Doctors ſay, the Teſtimony of one credible Witneſs, was ſufficient to put a Man to his Oath for his Purgation. And they ſet a Mark of Infamy upon him, who in ſuch Matters as are here ſpoken of, had ſuch a ſingle Witneſs againſt him. See Maccoth Cap. I. Sect. VIII. and J. Coch his Annotations there.
Ver. 7. The hands of the witneſſes ſhall be first upon him, Verſe 7 to put him to death.] This was great reaſon, that they might thereby ſtill confirm the Truth an Certainty of their Teſtimony, by being the firſt Executioners of the Sentence. Which no Men would eaſily venture to be, who were not ſure they had teſtified the Truth.
And afterwards the hands of all the people.] From hence ſome infer, that he was to be put to death at a publick Feaſt.
So ſhalt thou put away the evil from among you.] See XIII. 5.
Ver. 8. If there ariſe a matter too hard for thee in Verſe 8 judgment.] Now he returns to ſpeak of the Courts of Judgment, which he had ordered to be erected in all their Cities, when they came into the Land of Canaan, (XVI. 18.) who might find ſome Cauſes to be ſo difficult that they could not determine them.
Between blood and blood.] The Jews, I think, interpret this abſurdly concerning menſtruous Women, and the Tokens of Virginity, (See Mr. Selden Lib. III. de Synedr. Cap. II.) when there is a plain and obvious meaning of theſe words; that there might be a doubt whether a Man had committed wilful Murder, or only caſual: and conſequently, whether he ſhould have the benefit of the City of Refuge, or be taken from it.
Between plea and plea.] As the former words belong to Criminal Cauſes, ſo theſe to Civil: ſuch as Suits about Debts, or Purchaſes of Lands or Houſes, &c.
Between ſtroke and ſtroke.] It doth not ſeem reaſonable to me, that this ſhould be interpreted of the Leproſie (which is often called a Plague, or Stroke) though the Jews ſo underſtand it; for that was to be judged ſolely by the Prieſts; whereas he ſpeaks alſo of other Judges. Therefore the meaning is, concerning any wound or hurt that was done to a Man in his Body. About which, if the Judges could not agree, but were divided in their Opinions; either about the Fact it ſelf, or about the Puniſhment to be inflicted; an Appeal was to be made to an higher Court.
Being matters of controverſie.] Or Contention and Strife. That is, Diſputes ariſing about them; which could not be determined by the Judges in thoſe Courts below.
Within thy gates.] Where God commanded Judges and Officers to be ſettled, XVI. 18. and therefore here he ſpeaks of the Inferiour Courts of Judgment, that were in the leſſer Cities of their ſeveral Tribes.
Then thou ſhalt ariſe, and get thee up unto the place which the LORD thy God ſhall chuſe.] Where the Supreme Court was ſettled, in the chief City of the Kingdom. While they continued in the Wilderneſs, the Captains of Thouſands, and Hundreds, and Fifties, and Tens (whom Moſes conſtituted by the advice of Jethro) judged the Cauſes of the People under Moſes himſelf; to whom God joyned Seventy Perſons for his Aſſiſtance; all hard Cauſes being brought before him. But this Authority of the Captains laſted no longer than during their Pilgrimage in the Wilderneſs; for when they came to Canaan the Law, as I now obſerved, required Judges and Officers to be ordained in every City. Who, if there fell any difference about the Law, are here ordered to repair to the place where the Sanctuary was, for there the higheſt Court ſat; as the Succeſſors of Moſes and his Conſiſtory of Seventy Elders, (mentioned XI Numb. 16, 24, &c.) who judged all difficult Cauſes while he lived.
Ver. 9. And thou ſhalt come unto the Prieſts the Levites, Verſe 9 and unto the Judge.] Who muſt be ſuppoſed to be reſident in this place, where the Sanctuary was. And theſe words, the Prieſts, the Levites, the Jews underſtand as if he had ſaid, the Prieſts of the Tribe of Levi, or the Sons of Levi: For ſo he ſpeaks in XXI. 5. And Mr. Selden produces a great many other Inſtances of the like Phraſe (Lib. II. de Synedr. Cap. VIII. N. 2, 3.) and ſhows they are ſo deſcribed (as the Jews think) to exclude all others that had been Prieſts, before God took the Sons of Aaron peculiarly to ſerve him in this Office. But the Levites, as well as Prieſts, they unanimouſly agree, were capable to be Members of this great Sanhedrim. Which they all likewiſe ſay, did not conſiſt only of Prieſts and Levites, but of any other Perſons of other Tribes, who were fit to be promoted to this Dignity. Nay, they ſay if there was not one Priest or Levite in the Court, it was a lawful Judicature: For the High-Prieſt himſelf, no more than any Man elſe had a place here, meerly for his Birth, unleſs his Learning in the Law was anſwerable. So Maimonides and others. And thoſe other Members, who were not Prieſts, nor Levites, they think are comprehended under the word Judge; which, though it be in the ſingular number, may be thought to ſignifie more than one, as appears from XIX. 17. where it is ſaid expreſly they ſhall bring the Controverſie there mentioned, before the Prieſts and the Judges. And further, that Judge, after the manner of this Language may ſignifie Judges, Conſtantine L'Empereur gathers from v. 12. where Priest in the ſingular number is uſed for thoſe who are here called Priests in the plural, Annot. in Corn. Bertram. p. 389.
But howſoever this be, it ſeems to me that, though the Prieſts and Levites were not the only Perſons of whom this High Court conſiſted (the Members of which might be choſen out of any Tribe, where they could find men qualified) yet they are here firſt mentioned, becauſe they were likely to be the moſt capable Perſons to exerciſe this Authority; eſpecially in the firſt Conſtitution of this Commonwealth, when they were newly entred into Canaan. For all other Perſons were then buſily employed in looking after the Inheritance that was fall'n to them, and ſettling the Affairs of their ſeveral Families; whereby they were rendred leſs able to attend unto this weighty Office. But the Tribe of Levi having no Inheritance among them, (as is often repeated in theſe Books) and no care about Husbandry, and ſuch like Affairs, had a full leiſure both to ſtudy the Laws of God, and to judge according to them; eſpecially being appointed by God to teach Jacob his Judgments, and Iſrael his Law, XXXIII. 10. Beſides, this Court being ſettled at the place of God's Worſhip, where a great many Prieſts and Levites always neceſſarily attended, they were moſt ready, without any inconvenience to themſelves, to execute this Office of Judges, having their Maintenance from the Publick, which no other Perſons had. But otherwiſe, as I ſaid, they had no more right than other Men, to be Members of this Court. Which we cannot certainly ſay conſiſted of Seventy Judges, together with their Naſi, i. e. their Prince, or Preſident; nor that they always ſat at the place here appointed. For there were ſometimes great Troubles in the Land, and they were under the power of their Enemies; which extreamly diſturbed their Government, and made it neceſſary for God to raiſe them up extraordinary Judges; becauſe the power of this Court was broken in pieces. So Mr. Selden himſelf acknowledges, that there were great Intermiſſions of their ſitting, in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, and of Herod the great, Lib. II. de Synedriis, Cap. XIV. N. III. And therefore why not in the times, when they were oppreſſed by the Moabites, Ammonites, Philiſtines, and other cruel Neighbours in the days of the Judges? And thus Grotius, Hermannus Conringius (to name no more) here underſtand the word Judge, who is joyned with the Prieſt and Levites.
And unto the Judge.] The fore-named Authors thus tranſlate this Verſe, Thou ſhalt come unto the Prieſts the Levites, or unto the Judge that ſhall be in thoſe days. Where by Judge they underſtand ſuch as Othniel, Ehud, Gideon, Jephtah, Sampſon, Samuel, and others, whom God raiſed up, when they were oppreſſed by their Enemies, and in great Confuſions, to govern his People: which they did with the higheſt Authority, being equal to Kings, ſave only that they kept not Royal State or Equipage; but are plainly called by that Name, XVII Judg. 6. XIX. 1. XXI. 25. Now though the Prieſts and Levites (i. e. that Court, of which they made a conſiderable part) were the ordinary Supream Judges of Controverſies, yet the JUDGE, when God raiſed one up, was endued with an extraordinary power above theirs; to whom the People therefore reſorted for his deciſion. For juſt as all ordinary Magiſtrates among the Romans gave place to a Dictator, when they had one, ſo all the Hebrew Magiſtrates did to ſuch a JUDGE when God appointed him: who determined all manner of Controverſies, as at other times, the other Judges, whether Prieſts or others, were wont to do. See Herman. Conringius de Republ. Ebraeorum, Sect. XXXIX.
I know but one Objection againſt this, which is, That thoſe extraordinary Judges were not fixed, as far as we can find, in the place where the Sanctuary was; unleſs we may judge of all the reſt by Eli and Samuel who ſeem to have been ſettled there. But we muſt conſider that they were not confined by their Commiſſion, which was not grounded on this Law, to any one certain place; but left at liberty to live where they thought moſt convenient, for the diſcharge of their Truſt, in the Reformation of the People. And the truth of what I ſaid concerning their Supream Power plainly appears in Samuel, who went up and down the Country executing Judgment, when Shilo was deſtroyed, and had no Court, like that which the Jews ſpeak of, to aſſiſt him. But when he needed aſſiſtance, he appointed his Sons to be Judges, 1 Sam. VIII. 1. of whom when the Elders complained, v. 4. becauſe they did not diſcharge their Duty well, it was to himſelf, and not to any other Perſons; and they deſire not a Sanhedrim, but a King to judge them, v. 5. Which Petition we do not find that he communicated to the Sanhedrim, but only unto God: nor is any mention made of them in the choice of a King, or after he was choſen, in the Hiſtory of their Kings, till Jehoſaphat's time, no more than there is in the Book of Joſhua and Judges. Where we read, that when there was no King (that is, Judge) in Iſrael, every Man did what was right in his own eyes: which is a ſign that there wanted ſuch a Court to keep them in order. After the time of Jehoſaphat, who ſettled Judges in every City (as I obſerved XVI. 18.) they continued, it is plain, till the Captivity: but what number there was of them we do not know. After the Captivity Ezra and Nehemiah ſeem to have done all themſelves, (See IX and X Nehem.) which makes it very probable, that, though there were Judges appointed according to the direction of this Law, yet the exerciſe of their Power was often interrupted by the great Changes which were in that Nation; and that there was no ſuch Sanhedrim as the Talmudiſts deſcribe, till the Time of the Maccabees. For the very Name of Sanhedrim plainly ſhews its Original to have been, when the Greek Tongue was common among the Jews; and that was, when the Kings of Syria and Egypt (who were of the Macedonian Race) had the chief power in Paleſtine. See Conringius in the forenamed Book, Sect. XXXVII.
And enquire.] They were to lay the Cauſe before this high Court, and deſire their Opinion in it.
And they ſhall ſhow the ſentence of judgment.] They were bound to determine the Controverſie; and whatſoever Sentence they gave, it was to ſtand good till it was reverſed by other Judges of the ſame Authority. For the Jews (who underſtand all this of the great Sanhedrim, and ſcan every Syllable with great nicety) will have the words juſt before [that ſhall be in thoſe days] to ſignifie that every Sentence muſt hold in the time when it is given. So that if this Court determined a Matter, which in after times by other Judges of the ſame Court, ſhould be judged otherways, that ſecond Sentence was to ſtand, being the Opinion of thoſe days. For this Sentence was, in their judgment, the meaning of the Law, by which they were all to be governed; and, if there was no Tradition in the Caſe, they judged themſelves as well as they could.
Verſe 10 Ver. 10. And thou ſhalt do according to the ſentence which they of that place.] That is, the high Court which ſits there; or the Judge who is in thoſe days.
Which the LORD ſhall chuſe.] The Jews, who underſtand this only of the Sanhedrim, ſay it was not lawful for them to judge Cauſes; at leaſt, not thoſe which were Capital in any other place. See Selden Lib. II. de Synedriis, Cap. XV. N. VI, VII, X.
Shall ſhew thee.] Shall pronounce.
And thou ſhalt obſerve to do according to all that they inform thee.] Some phanſie that he ſpeaks to the inferiour Judges, who brought the Cauſe thither to have the Opinion of this higheſt Court; who were then to pronounce Sentence according to it. But as the Perſons concerned in the Controverſie brought it before this Court (when the Inferiour could not determine it) ſo they gave the Sentence, in which he requires the contending Parties to acquieſce, and to do according to their determination. Which did not concern queſtions of Faith, as if Men were to believe whatſoever they ſhould teach them; but ſuch Controverſies as are mentioned v. 8. about Civil or Criminal Matters; which they were finally to determine; ſo that Men ſhould not further controvert the Matter, but reſt in their Deciſions. For in all Governments there muſt be an end of Suits, ſome where or other: and God required all his People to ſubmit to the Sentence of this Court. For ſo the words run in the Hebrew, And thou ſhalt do according to the Sentence which they ſhall ſhew thee, from the place which the LORD thy God ſhall chuſe: That is, from the Supream Court of Judicature, which reſided where God himſelf did. For if Men had been permitted to diſagree to their Sentence, the very end and uſe of this Court had been taken away; as Maimonides ſpeaks in his More Nevochim P. III. Cap. XLI.
Ver. 11. According to the Sentence of the Law which Verſe 11 they ſhall teach thee.] In the Hebrew, according to the Mouth, or the Word of the Law, which they ſhall teach thee: That is, according to the Interpretation which they gave of the Law.
And according to the judgment which they ſhall tell thee.] That is, according the Order or Decree which they made thereupon.
Shalt thou do.] Pay ſuppoſe the Money, which they judged to be due to another Man. For he doth not ſpeak of their doing whatſoever they bad them, (as if they could controll the Commands of God) but of Obeying the Sentence of this Court, about thoſe Matters which were in queſtion between one Man and another, (v. 8.) who were not to be Judges in their own Caſe; but reſt in the Judgment of thoſe whom God had made the Supream Interpreters of his Law.
Thou ſhalt not decline from the Sentence which they ſhall ſhew hee, &c.] They were not to make the leaſt alteration in their Sentence. For though they might think it was wrong, and the Senate perhaps did really err, and be better informed afterwards, (which the Law ſuppoſes, and in that caſe orders an Expiatory Sacrifice, IV Levit. 13.) yet it was not lawful for any Man to act contrary to their preſent Decree; nor to teach the contrary, whatſoever his private Opinion might be.
Verſe 12 Ver. 12. And the man that will do preſumptuonſly, and will not hearken.] This they underſtand not barely of a private Man, that would not ſtand to their Sentence; but of an Elder, or inferiour Judge, who preſumed to contradict it; as Mr. Selden ſhows, L. III. de Synedr. Cap. III.
Ʋnto the Priest.] It is commonly thought, as I obſerved v. 8. that the Singular Number is here put for the Plural; and that the meaning is, If any Man would not hearken to the higheſt Court of Judgment, which conſiſted commonly of a great many Prieſts, he ſhould die for his Contempt. But they have a great deal of reaſon on their ſide, who inſiſt upon the Letter of this word Priest, and of that which follows, or the Judge (underſtanding both of ſingle Perſons) and take the High-Priest only to be here meant: who ſeems to be deſcribed in the next words, that ſtands to miniſter there before the LORD thy God. For when God did not raiſe up a Judge to govern his People, the High-Prieſt was the Supream Governour under God until the days of David: and ſo they were after the Captivity. Hence it is, as Grotius obſerves (Lib. de Imperio Summarum Poteſtatum circa Sacra, Cap. IX. Sect. 4.) that COHEN is a name common to Prieſts, and Princes: For among a great many Nations anciently he ſhows, the Prieſts had the higheſt power; particularly among the Cappadocians (Strabo, who was of that Country, ſaith) the Sacerdotal Dignity was next to the Regal. But howſoever this word be interpreted, the Crime here mentioned was Contumacy, in not ſubmitting to the Sentence of the higheſt Authority, whether it were veſted in one Perſon, or more: whereby the Government was in danger to be broken; and therefore God orders ſuch a perſon to be put to death.
Or the Judge.] See before v. 9.
Even that man ſhall die.] The Jews, who interpret this, as I ſaid, of a Judge in Inferiour Courts, who preſumed to contradict the Judgment of the Supream Court, have tempered the Severity of this Law, by ſeveral Explications and Exceptions. Which have regard either to the manner of paſſing this Decree by the higheſt Court, which an inferiour diſobeyed; and that was when a Cauſe came before them upon an Appeal, (for it was not ſo Criminal to diſobey every Sentence of the Supream Court, but only ſuch as theſe) or to the place where it was made; which was to be no where elſe, but at God's dwelling place: or to the things about which the Decree was made; which ſome will have to be only weighty Matters: and the act of Contumacy alſo was conſidered; for he was not put to death, they ſay, unleſs in open Court he declared a contrary Sentence. The death he ſuffered was ſtrangling: and he could ſuffer in no other place, but where this High Court ſat. See Selden of all theſe, in the place before-mentioned, N. II, III, IV, V, VI. And it may be further obſerved, that the Prophets themſelves were ſubject to the Power and Juriſdiction of this High Court: by whom they might be ſentenced to Capital Puniſhment, if they taught contrary to the Law of God. But our Mr. Thorndike makes a doubt, whether the Conſtitution which the Jewiſh Writers mention, about a Rebellious Elder (as they call him who taught any thing contrary to the determination of this Supream Court) was ever in force, or no? For it was made, becauſe of the differences between the Schools of Hillel and Sammai, who lived not long before our Saviour's time: when it appears by the Goſpel, that Nation had loſt the Power of Life and Death. See Rights of the Church, Chap. V. p. 256.
And thou ſhalt put away the evil from Iſrael.] This may refer either to the evil Perſon; or to the great ſcandal and dangerous Example he gave, by reſiſting the higheſt Authority, and thereby breaking the Bond of Unity and Peace.
Verſe 13 Ver. 13. And all the People ſhall hear and fear, and do no more preſumptuouſly.] This Puniſhment was intended to ſtrike a terror into all the People, that they ſhould not adventure to oppoſe the Supream Authority. And for this end, the Offender was to be kept in cuſtody, as R. Aquiba underſtood this, till the next great Feaſt (either of the Paſſover, or Pentecost, or Tabernacles) and then executed, when the whole Nation, i. e. all the Males were preſent. This Mr. Selden obſerves (in the forenamed place, N. VII.) is the moſt received Opinion: though R. Jehuda ſaith, they did not make the Sentence ſharper by a long delay, but executed it preſently. And for the further publication of it, they ſent Letters to all the Tribes and Cities of Iſrael, to give notice that ſuch a Man was executed, at ſuch a time, for this Crime. See Selden there, N. VIII.
Verſe 14 Ver. 14. And when thou comest into the Land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and ſhalt poſſeſs it, and ſhalt dwell therein.] When they had conquered the Land of Canaan, and were ſettled in it.
And ſhalt ſay, I will ſet a King over me.] The Jews commonly from this and the next Verſe, fancy that God commanded them to make a King, when they came to the Land of Canaan, and had a quiet poſſeſſion of it: following herein the Gemara of the Sanhedrim, Cap. II. Inſomuch that they have preſumed to make this an affirmative Precept, That a King of the People ſhould be choſen; and quote this place for it. To which ſome Learned Men among Chriſtians have ſeemed to incline; particularly Petrus Cunaeus Lib. de Republ. Hebr. Cap. XIV. and Guil. Schikardus in his Jus Regium Cap. I. Theor. I. But Abarbinel himſelf contradicts this, and ſo doth Joſephus; who obſerves that God intended they ſhould keep their preſent Government; but if they would have a King, he ſhould be one of their Brethren. For thus he interprets this place, Lib. I. Antiq. Cap. VIII. that they ſhould not affect any other Government, but love the preſent, having the Laws for their Master, and living according to them; foreign, for it is ſufficient that God is your Ruler. And then he adds, but if you deſire to have a King, foreign, let him be one of your own Nation, as it here follows in the next Verſe.
Like as all the Nations that are about me.] Such as the Edomites, who had been governed by Kings before the days of Moſes. See XXXVI Gen. 31.
Ver. 15. Thou ſhalt in any wiſe ſet him King over thee.] Inſtall, and receive him into the Throne.
Whom the LORD thy God ſhall chooſe.] They could not elect whom they pleaſed, but the firſt King, at leaſt, was to be appointed oy God himſelf, who was their Supream Governour. So the People underſtood it, when they deſired Samuel, who was their chief Ruler under God, to make them a King, (1 Sam. VIII. 5.) but durſt not to preſume to ſet one up of themſelves. And to confirm them in this Opinion Samuel ſaith to Saul, 1 Sam. X. 1. The LORD hath anointed thee to be Captain over his Inheritance: and ſaith to all the People, v. 24. See ye him whom the LORD hath choſen. And accordingly when the lot was to be caſt, to ſhow who was to be their King, Samuel bids all the Tribes preſent themſelves before the LORD, v. 19. And when it fell upon Saul, and they could not find him, they enquired of the LORD, and the LORD anſwered where he was, v. 22. In like manner when Saul was rejected, the LORD himſelf appointed David to be anointed their King: and ſettled that Authority in his Family. And to determine which of his Sons ſhould have it, God himſelf appointed his immediate Succeſſor, viz. Solomon. For ſo David declares to all the Princes and the great Men, whom he aſſembled before his death; Of all my Sons, the LORD hath choſen Solomon to ſit upon the Throne of the Kingdom of the LORD God of Iſrael, 1 Chron. XXVIII. 5. And again XXIX. 1. David ſaid unto all the Congregation, Solomon my ſon, whom alone God hath choſen, is yet young, &c. But though it was thus in the beginning of this Kingdom; yet God intended at length to make it hereditary, as appears from v. 20. of this Chapter.
One from amongst thy Brethren ſhalt thou ſet over thee.] i. e. Saith the Tradition mentioned by the Jews out of Toſiphta, the moſt ſelect and choice Perſon that could be found, not one of mean Extraction or Employment. This they fancy is meant by from among thy brethren.
Thou mayeſt not ſet a ſtranger over thee, which is not thy brother.] This the Jews extend to all Offices whatſoever, as Maimonides reports their ſenſe. See Selden Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. & Gent. Cap. XX. p. 647. And by thy brother ſome of them underſtand one that was an Iſraelite, both by Father and Mother: though others think it ſufficient, if a King was an Iſraelite by the Mother's ſide. See there Cap. XXII. Which in his Book de Succeſſion▪ ad Pontificat. Lib. II. he ſhows was ſufficient for any Dignity among the Iſraelites, but only the Prieſthood. See alſo Lib. III. de Synedr. Cap. IX. N. VI. where he obſerves the Talmudiſts ſay the great Sanhedrim was to ſee, that no King but one thus qualified was ſet over the People. Which, when there was ſuch a Court, may be allowed to be true; though all the Power which they aſcribe to their Sanhedrim over their Kings, is by no means to be admitted; but is an apparent figment: For it is manifeſt out of the Bible, that their Kings had that very Power which they aſcribe to the Sanhedrim. Particularly, it is notorious that Solomon, by his own Power, put Abiather out of the Office of High-Prieſt, 1. Kings II. 6, 26. which Judgment the Talmudiſts ſay belonged only to the great Sanhedrim. In like manner other Kings judged Prophets; which they appropriate to the ſame Court.
Ver. 16. But he ſhall not multiply Horſes to himſelf.] Verſe 16 There is no certain number determined, but the Jews well reſolve that he was not to keep them for meer pomp and ſtate; but only ſo many as were for uſe and ſervice. To draw his Chariot, for inſtance, and for the guard of his Perſon. But he was to take care that he did not burden his People by too many under this, or any other pretence: And therefore not to keep up a Body of Horſe for War. For among the Jews their Armies conſiſted altogether of Footmen: there being no breed of Horſes in that Country; and their People, who were all Husbandmen and Shepherds, being accuſtomed to labour, and to run as ſwiftly as a Horſe, 2 Sam. II. 18. XVIII. 19, 22, &c. Certain it is, that in the days of David they had no Horſe-men in their Army; for when Abſolom loſt the Battle and fled, it was upon a Mule, that he indeavoured to make his Eſcape. And though Solomon was ſo prodigiouſly rich, that he was able to maintain Forty thouſand Stalls of Horſes for his Chariots, and Twelve thouſand Horſe-men, (1 Kings IV. 26.) yet ſucceeding Kings could not keep up ſuch an Expence: but, when they had occaſion, ſent for Succours from Egypt, which commonly conſiſted of Horſe-men. Now one of the Reaſons the Jews give why their King was not to multiply Horſes, is, leſt he ſhould be puffed up with pride; for an Horſe being a ſtately Creature, his Rider is often ſwoln with an high conceit of himſelf, as more than one of the Heathen have obſerved. See Bochart. in his Hierozoicon, Lib. II. Cap. IX. Nachmanides gives another good Reaſon, Leſt he ſhould confide and truſt in the power of his Horſe-men, more than in God. See Schikard in his Miſchpat Hammelech, Cap. III. Theorem X. But the chief Reaſon is given by Moſes himſelf, in the next words; Leſt they ſhould be tempted to go to Egypt; with which Country it was dangerous to have familiarity.
Nor cauſe the People to return to Egypt, to the end that he ſhould multiply Horſes.] Send his People thither to buy Horſes for him: it being a Country which abounded with them, as Judaea did with Aſſes. For when Sheſhak King of Egypt (whom the Greek Writers call Seſoſtris) came againſt Jeruſalem, there were Threeſcore thouſand Horſe-men in his Army, 2 Chron. XII. 3. Which ſhows how they abounded with Horſes in that Country in thoſe days; though in after times they did not care to breed them. They might indeed have had Horſes out of other Countries, as well as Egypt; but not ſo eaſily, nor ſo good. Which made Solomon ſend thither, and Pharaoh ſet a great price upon them: becauſe he knew their value, and that they could not furniſh themſelves ſo eaſily with them elſewhere, 1 Kings X. 28, 29.
Foraſmuch as the LORD hath ſaid unto you, ye ſhall henceforth return no more that way.] Or the firſt words may be rendred, Foraſmuch as the LORD ſaith unto you, &c. as he did now by him; that they ſhould not maintain Traffick with the Egyptians; at leſt while they continued Idolaters. We read indeed that many Jews went thither, and Ʋrijah the Prophet fled thither, XXVI Jerem. 21. of which the Jews give this account. First, Some ſay this was but a temporary Conſtitution, which was not to laſt always. Secondly, They diſtinguiſh about the way of returning thither: conceiving that they might not go thither out of the Land of Iſrael; but they might out of another Country whither they were driven. Maimonides thinks they might go thither as Merchants; but not fix their dwelling there. But the true meaning is, that they might not voluntarily go thither upon any account; at leaſt while they remained, as I ſaid, ſo corrupted in their Religion and Manners, as they were at this preſent. For there is an expreſs Law, XVIII Levit. 3. According to the works of the Egyptians ye ſhall not do. See Schickardus in the forenamed place, p. 78. Whence thoſe words of the Prophet Iſaiah, where, when he ſaith the Land of Iſrael was full of Horſes, he adds, their Land alſo is full of Idols, II Iſaiah 7, 8. For by multiplying the one they multiplied the other. And therefore though David did reſerve ſome Chariots and Horſe-men, which he took in his Conqueſts, for his own uſe, yet no great number, 2 Sam. VIII. 4. But ſtill great Men rode upon Mules (2 Sam. XVIII. 9. 1 Kings I. 33, 38, 41.) as they had done in the days of the Judges, V. 10. X. 4. XII. 14.
Verſe 17 Ver. 17. Neither ſhall he multiply Wives to himſelf.] This is not a Prohibition to take more Wives than one; but not to have an exceſſive number, after the manner of the Eaſtern Kings, whom Solomon ſeems to have imitated. I ſee no ground for what the Jews ſay, that he might have Eighteen. See Schickard in the Book above-named, Cap. III. Theor. IX. Selden's Ʋxor. Hebr. Lib. I. Cap. VIII. Buxtorf. de Sponſal. Pars I. Sect. 40. For the proof which R. Solomon and Bechin give of it is very weak; which is, that David having already ſix Wives, (2 Sam. V. 13.) the Prophet tells him, if he had not offended God, he would moreover have given him ſuch and ſuch things; i. e. ſay they, twice as many Wives. 2 Sam. XII. 8. Much leſs is there any ground for what they ſay, that if he took more than this number, he was to be ſcourged by the Authority of the Sanhedrim: as he was, they pretend, for the breach of any of theſe Precepts here mentioned. See Selden Lib. II. de Synedr. Cap. IX. N. V. Which Grotius indeed endeavours to ſoften, by affirming that theſe Laſhes were no diſgrace to him, becauſe he received them voluntarily, in Token of his Repentance; and therefore was not ſcourged by the common Executioner, but by ſuch a Perſon as he himſelf choſe to give this Correction: and he received alſo ſuch a number of Stripes as he himſelf pleaſed, and no more, Lib. I. de Jure Belli & Pacis, Cap. III. Sect. XX. But this is directly againſt Maimonides, who ſaith in downright words, that the Sanhedrim appointed this Chaſtiſement, as Selden obſerves in another place, Lib. III. de Synedr. Cap. IX. N. V. And there is no Example in the whole Book of God, of any ſuch Juriſdiction which the Sanhedrim had over their Kings: but all this may well be lookt upon as a meer invention of the Jewiſh Doctors, to magnifie the Power of their great Council.
That his heart turn not away.] From all ſerious Buſineſs and Employment, whilſt he was careſſing and ſtudying to pleaſe a multitude of Women. Some underſtand it, leſt they turned his heart away from God, and the Duties of Piety: of which there was great danger, if he married Worſhippers of ſtrange gods as Solomon did. Otherwiſe, I ſhould think it might be interpreted, of turning his Thoughts from minding his People, and their good and welfare, which muſt needs ſuffer much, when they were burdened with a great company of Wives, who were to be richly maintained and provided for.
Neither ſhall he greatly multiply to himſelf ſilver and gold.] No more, ſaith the Sanhedrim (Cap. II.) than would pay Stipends to his Servants, &c. Others of them ſcan the words more nicely, and obſerve That first, he is forbidden to multiply Gold and Silver greatly: That is, to content himſelf with moderate Riches, and not ſet himſelf to heap up Treaſure; which could not be done commonly without great Oppreſſion of his Subjects. And ſecondly, he is forbidden to multiply them to himſelf: But for the Publick Benefit he might lay up Money in the Treaſury at the Temple; though in his own Coffers, for his private Intereſt, he might not. See Schickard in his Miſchpat Hammelech, Cap. III. Theorem XI. where he produces their Anſwer to this Queſtion, How ſhould the King be able to manage a War, or do any other great thing, if he did not furniſh himſelf with good ſtore of Gold and Silver? He might, ſay they, fill the Publick Exchequer, though not his own private Bags. And that for two Reaſons: First, Leſt he ſhould wax proud and haughty, when his Purſe ſwelled. And ſecondly, Leſt he ſhould be tempted to ſqueeze his Subjects, and exact more from them than they were able to bear; as Solomon ſeems to have done, whoſe Treaſurer the People ſtoned, 1 Kings XII. 18.
Verſe 18 Ver. 18. And it ſhall be, when he ſitteth on the Throne of the Kingdom, that he ſhall write him a Copy of this Law in a Book.] Not only of this Book of Deuteronomy, but of the whole Law; and that with his own hand, as a means to fix it more in his mind. Inſomuch that though a Copy was left him by his Father, he was notwithſtanding to tranſcribe one himſelf, as the Jews ſay in the Gemara Sanhedrim, Cap. II. Sect. XIII. All this is very agreeable to theſe words: but whether he was bound, if he had not written a Copy before he was King (as every private Iſraelite they ſay was bound to do) to write two, when he ſate on the Throne, may be doubted: for it cannot without violence be drawn from theſe words; and their authority is not ſufficient to warrant it. They give indeed a plauſible reaſon for it; That the one he was to carry about with him whitherſoever he went, and to read in the other at home: but why one Copy might not ſerve for both theſe purpoſes, I do not ſee.
Out of that which is before the Prieſts the Levites.] He was not to write one word of it out of his memory meerly, or any private Man's Copy; but out of the Book which was in the Sanctuary; where the original and uncorrupted Copy was in the Cuſtody of God's Miniſters. There are a great many Rules the Jews give, about the right writing of this Copy. Which may be ſeen in Guil. Schickardi Miſchpat Hammelech Cap. II. Theorem V.
Ver. 19. And it ſhall be with him.] Whereſoever Verſe 19 he was, either in the Camp, or at home, or in any other place: provided it was pure, and free from filth, as the Jews limit it. See there Theor. VI.
And he ſhall read therein all the days of his life.] Diligently ſtudy it; not ſpending his time, as Maimonides gloſſes, in drinking and making merry; but in learning the Law of God. See there p. 53. From the neglect of this Precept, their Kings became ſo ignorant of the Laws of God, and of their Obligation to obſerve them, that in the days of the good King Joſiah, he was ſtrangely ſtartled at what he heard read out of this Book of the Law; when it was found in the Temple, where it had long lain without any knowledge of it.
That he may learn to fear the LORD his God.] Be preſerved in the true Religion.
To keep all the words of this Law, and theſe Statutes to do them.] Be acquainted with his whole Duty, and perform it conſtantly. See I Joſhua 8.
Ver. 20. That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren.] Verſe 20 Not imagining himſelf to be above all Laws, nor ſlighting his Subjects, as unworthy of his notice; but taking a due care to promote their happineſs. For as the Scriptures, ſaith Maimonides, provided the King ſhould have great honour done him, obliging all to reverence him, ſo it commands him to be lowly in heart, and not to carry himſelf inſolently. Let him be gracious, and full of clemency to little and great; ſo ſhall he go out and come in with the love and good wiſhes of them all. Unto which Nachmanides adds this pious Reflection, If the Scripture deters Kings from pride and haughtineſs of heart; how unbecoming is it in other Men, who are far inferiour to them? &c.
And that he turn not aſide from the commandment to the right hand, or the left.] Neither by changing the Laws, on pretence of making better; nor by abrogating them, on pretence of their inconveniency. But where the Divine Law was not clear, or where nothing was there defined, he might by his Authority make new Conſtitutions, as David and Solomon did, as well in Sacred as in Civil Matters.
To the end that he may prolong his days in his Kingdom; he, and his Children, in the midst of Iſrael.] This ſhows that God intended to eſtabliſh a ſucceſſive Right in that Family, to which he choſe to give the Kingdom, if they continued in a conſtant Obſervation of his Laws. And indeed, there is no way to eſtabliſh and perpetuate a Family in the Throne, like the due obſervation of Laws, though they be but Humane, not Divine Laws. For as Ariſtotle truly ſaid, He that commands the Law ſhould govern all, (i. e. all things be ordered according to Law) foreign, ſeems to command that God ſhould rule, and the Laws. But he that bids a Man to rule without Laws (according to his own will) foreign foreign, ſets up a Beaſt to govern. Chapter XVIII.And above all things, he ought to endeavour to win the love of his Subjects, by Humility and Clemency; as the ſame Ariſtotle taught Alexander, if we may believe R. Jedaja in his Book called Mib…har Happeninim: where he reports a Letter of his to that great Prince, adviſing him to gain the Affection of his People by a gentle Government; which is far better than to rule Tyrannically by Force and Violence. For to what purpoſe is it to have poſſeſſion of their Bodies, when the true poſſeſſion is to be Maſter of their Hearts? Get poſſeſſion of their Hearts by Clemency, and that will draw their Bodies along with them.