Commentary on Deuteronomy, Commentary · Chapter 25
CHAP. XXV.
Verſe 1. IF there be a controverſie between men, and Verſe 1 they come into judgment.] It is evident, by the ſequel, that he ſpeaks of Criminal Cauſes.
That the Judges may judge them.] Who were appointed to be conſtituted and ſettled in all their Gates. See XVI. 18.
Then they ſhall juſtifie the righteous.] Acquit him who is falſly accuſed of doing any wrong.
And condemn the wicked.] To ſuffer ſuch puniſhment as his Crime deſerves.
Ver. 2. And it ſhall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten.] For what Crimes Men were to be beaten, by the Sentence of the lower Courts, as well as by that of the great Sanhedrim, See Selden Lib. 2. de Synedr. Cap. XIII. N. VII, VIII. They were in all, as they reckon, CCVII.
The Judge ſhall cauſe him to lye down.] By his Officers who attended the Court.
Before his face.] In open Court; but he was firſt to be admoniſhed, and the Witneſſes were to be produced againſt him, as in Capital Cauſes. After which the Judge commanded him to lye down before a low Pillar, to which his hands were tied; and he being ſtript down to his waſte, the Executioner ſtood behind him upon a ſtone, where he ſcourged him both on the back and breaſt, with Thongs made of an Oxes hide, before the face of the Judges. For though one Judge be only mentioned, the Execution was done before the whole Bench, after the Sentence was pronounced by one of them.
According to his fault.] For the violation of a negative Precept he might be ſcourged before the Court, conſiſting of three Judges; but not for the violation of an affirmative, which was to be done before the Court of XXIII. as Selden obſerves in the place forenamed, Sect. VI.
By a certain number.] He was condemned to receive more or fewer Stripes, proportionable to his Crime: and all the time the Executioner was ſcourging him, the principal Judge proclaimed thoſe words XXVIII Deut. 58. with a loud voice, If thou obſerveſt not all the words of this Law, &c. then the LORD ſhall make thy Plagues wonderful, &c. adding thoſe XXIX. 9. Keep therefore the words of this Covenant, and do them, &c. Concluding at laſt with thoſe of the Pſalmist, LXXVIII. 38. But he being full of compaſſion forgave their iniquities. Which he was to repeat, if he had finiſhed theſe ſayings, before the full number of Stripes were given. See Selden Lib. II. de Synedr. Cap. XIII. N. VI. which I find in the Title Maccoth, Cap. III. Sect. XIV. And ſee G. Schickard, Miſchpa… Hamelek, Cap. II. p. 57, 58.
Ver. 3. Forty ſtripes he may give him.] Which Verſe 3 was more merciful than the Athenian law mentioned by Aeſchines, which inflicted upon ſome Criminals, foreign, fifty ſtripes by the publick ſcourge. But none among the Jews, were to receive above XL. for any Crime; fewer they might inflict, though not more.
And not exceed.] Of this they were ſo careful, that as one of the three Judges commanded the Executioner to ſtrike, another told the ſtripes, while the third pronounced the Sentences out of Scripture before-mentioned, to admoniſh him, and every one elſe, of the Juſtice of the Puniſhment. So Schickard obſerves out of Maimonides in the place above-named. For the prevention alſo of exceſs in this Puniſhment, they were wont to give but XXXIX Stripes, and no more; though the Offender was ever ſo ſtrong or pertinacious. Thus the Jews generally affirm, and it appears to be true by what S. Paul ſaith of himſelf, 2 Corinth. XI. 24. Of the Jews five times I received forty ſtripes ſave one; which is exactly the phraſe of the Miſchna in Maccoth, Cap. III. Sect. X. Where they interpret forty ſtripes, by the next number to forty; i. e. thirty nine. For which they give a fooliſh reaſon in the Gemara (as Joh. Coch there obſerves) but Maimonides gives a ſober account; that this was ordered, leſt the Executioner, by careleſneſs, might exceed the number of XL. beyond which the Law required them not to go; but it was lawful to fall ſhort of it, and therefore they required him to ſtop at the Thirty ninth ſtroke. Yet if any Man deſerved this Puniſhment twice together, they did ſometime exceed the number of XL. and went ſo far as to Sentence ſuch a Malefactor to receive LXXIX ſtripes; as Mr. Selden obſerves in the ſame place. Where he likewiſe notes, on the other ſide, that if a Man was ſo weak, that he was ready to faint away, before he had received XXXIX, the Judges ordered the Executioner to ſtay his hand.
Lest if he ſhould exceed and beat him above theſe, with many ſtripes, then thy brother ſhould ſeem vile unto thee.] Being beaten like a Dog, as we ſpeak; that is, ſo cruelly, that the marks of it remained afterward, to make him contemptible. Which the Law was ſo far from intending, that the Jews ſay, no Man was to be reproached afterward with this whipping, or the Crime for which he was whipped, becauſe he was ſtill a Brother, as the word here is. And therefore he was to be reſtored to the ſame reſpect among them that he had before; nay, to any Office which before he enjoyed; except he was the Preſident of the Sanhedrim, who was never to be reſtored to his power, if he had been ſcourged; nor equally honoured with his inferiour Collegues. So Schickard obſerves out of Maimonides, in the forenamed Book, p. 62.
Verſe 4 Ver. 4. Thou ſhalt not muzzle the Ox when he treadeth out the Corn.] It was the Cuſtom, not only in this Country, but among the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, to uſe Oxen in treading out their Corn; either with their feet barely, or by drawing a Cart, or other Inſtrument over it. And while they were at work, ſome muzzled them; others dawbed their Mouths with Dung; others hung a wooden Inſtrument about their Necks, which hindred them from ſtooping down; or put ſharp pricks in their Mouths; or kept them without drink; or covered their Corn with Skins that they might not be able to come at it. See Bochartus in his Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. Cap. XL. p. 401. Which inhumanity God here forbids, and inſtructs his People by ſhewing Mercy to their Beaſts, to be kind one to another; particularly to their Servants and Labourers: but above all to thoſe who laboured in the Work of the Miniſtry, for the Salvation of Souls; as S. Paul argues 1 Corinth. IX. 9. See Bonfrerius.
Ver. 5. If brethren dwell together.] They are ſaid Verſe 5 to dwell together, not only who were in the ſame Family, but in the ſame Country, XIII Gen. 5, 6.
And one of them die, and have no child.] If he left a Child, though he were a Mamzer, or an Apoſtate, his next Brother was not bound to marry his Wife; but if he left a Child by a Slave, or a Gentile, he was. If he left his Wife with Child, and ſhe miſcarried, he was bound; but if ſhe brought a live Child after ſhe had gone with it nine Months, he was free. And by a Child, is to be underſtood either Son or Daughter. See Selden Lib. de Succeſſionibus ad bona Defuncti, Cap. 14.
The wiſe of the dead ſhall not marry without unto a ſtranger.] This ſhows the end of this Law was to preſerve Inheritances in the Family to which they belong'd.
Her husbands brother ſhall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife.] The Hebrew Doctors underſtand this Obligation to lye upon the Eldeſt Brother that was ſurviving; and only of a Brother that was by the ſame Father. For though they had the ſame Mother, if they had not the ſame Father, no Obligation lay upon him: For Brethren (ſaith Maimonides) by the Mother's ſide are not accounted Brethren, either in the matter of Inheritances, or of marrying a Brother's Wife: but they are as if they were not Brethren; for there is no fraternity which is not from the Father. See Heideggerus Exercit. I. de Oeconom. Patriarch. X. XVI. and Selden Ʋxor. Hebr. p. 80. But the King, they ſay, was excepted from this Law, as Schickard obſerves in his Jus Regium, p. 56.
And perform the duty of an husband's brothr to her.] This was a Law before the time of Moſes, among the Patriarchs, as we learn from XXXVIII Gen. 7, 8, &c. And it was ſo well underſtood to be a bounden Duty, that the Hebrew Doctors ſay, it was not neceſſary there ſhould be any ſolemn Marriage celebrated with ſuch a Widow; becauſe, unleſs her Husband's Brother renounced her, ſhe was eſteemed his Wife, Min Haſhamajim, by the Authority of God: and that whether ſhe had been only eſpouſed by the deceaſed Brother, or his compleat Wife. Yet by the Conſtitution of their Elders, he was to contract with her before two Witneſſes, and give her a piece of Money; before which it was not lawful for him to lye with her. There was to be alſo a Sacred Benediction of the Marriage; and her Dowry aſſigned her by an Inſtrument. But if he did lye with her before theſe Solemnities, there was no formal Contract exacted of him afterward; he was only ſcourged for contemning the Conſtitutions of the Elders, and compelled to ſettle a Dowry upon her. See Selden L. I. Ʋxor. Hebr. Cap. XII. where he obſerves, That in caſe a Man left ſeveral Widows, if his Brother either married, or renounced one of them, all the reſt were free from this Law. And if ſeveral Brethren died, and left every one of them a Wife, without Iſſue, the ſurviving Brother might either take, or reject them all; or take one or two, and let the reſt alone, as he pleaſed. And if the eldeſt Brother, that married his Brother's Relict, died alſo without Iſſue, then the next ſurviving Brother was to marry her; and ſo forward, according to the Caſe ſuppoſed in the Goſpel. And yet that Brother only was admitted to this Marriage, who was born before his Brother's death; which they gather from the firſt words of this Verſe, if Brethren dwell together; which cannot be meant of one born after his Brother's death. They might likewiſe have concluded, from this Phraſe, That ſuch of the Brethren as had Wives already, were not bound to take her to Wife, but only he that was unmarried; who might be ſuppoſed to be meant by him that dwelt together with his Brother, and was not yet gone to a Houſe of his own. But I fear I have ſaid too much of a matter now quite antiquated; unleſs it be among ſome of the Indians and Perſians, and among the Tartars that inhabit Iberia and Albania, who ſtill retain this Cuſtom, as Huetius obſerves in his Demonſtratio Evangel. Propoſ. IV. Cap. XI. N. I.
Ver. 6. And it ſhall be that the first-born which ſhe Verſe 6 beareth, ſhall ſucceed in the name of his brother which is dead.] Shall be reputed the Son and Heir of the deceaſed; but there was no neceſſity to give him his Name.
That his name be not put out in Iſrael.] That a Family in Iſrael might not be loſt; for this was a Proviſion for the preſervation of Families. See XXVII Numb. 4. And therefore, if there was no Brother, properly ſo called, to perform this Duty, the next of kin (who is alſo called a Brother, in a large ſenſe) was bound to marry her. See of this word Name, XXVII Numb. 4.
Ver. 7. And if a man like not to take his brother's wife.] Here now was a great mitigation of that ancient Law, which had been before the time of Moſes; Verſe 7 that a Man might refuſe to marry his Brother's Wife, if he did not like her. Which was not permitted before, as appears by the Story of Onan (XXXVIII. Gen.) who married Thamar againſt his mind (as his behaviour towards her demonſtrates) which he needed not to have done, if this permiſſion, which here follows, had been then in uſe.
Then let his brother's wife go up to the gate.] Where the Court of Judgment ſat, as I have often obſerved. See XVI. 18.
Ʋnto the Elders.] A Court conſiſting of three Elders, was ſufficient to judge in this matter. And it was no conſequence whether theſe three were created Elders, according to the Solemn Form among them, by laying on of hands; but it was ſufficient, if they were ſuch as they called Elders of the Street, or common Men. See Lib. I Ʋxor. Hebr. Cap. XV. and Lib. II. de Synedr. Cap. VII. N. III.
And ſay, my husband's brother refuſeth to raiſe up unto his brother a name in Iſrael, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.] She was to put in a Bill of Complaint againſt him, in theſe words.
Verſe 8 Ver. 8. Then the Elders of his City ſhall call him, and ſpeake to him, &c.] He being ſummoned to appear before them, together with the Woman (who they ſay was to be faſting) and two Witneſſes at the leaſt, ſhe opened the whole matter. And then the queſtion being askt, Whether it were three Months ſince her Husband's death? (which were to be allowed, to ſee whether ſhe proved with Child, or no) and whether this Man was next of kin? And a ſatisfactory anſwer being returned, the Judges laid the Law before them, and admoniſhed them ſeriouſly, to conſider, on each ſide, their Age, or any Diſparity or Incommodity that might be in their Marriage, and accordingly to reſolve. And then they ask't the Man, in expreſs words, Whether he would marry her, and raiſe up Seed to his Brother. If he ſtood to his firſt Reſolution, as it here follows, and ſaid, I like not to take her; then the Woman read the words foregoing, v. 7. My husband's brother refuſeth to raiſe up unto his brother a name in Iſrael, &c. and then proceeded to do, as follows, v. 9. See Selden in the Book fore-named, Cap. XIV.
Ver. 9. Then ſhall his brother's wife come unto him, in the Verſe 9 preſence of the Elders, and looſe his ſhoe from off his foot.] From his right foot, as the Hebrew Doctors ſay; which was done, I ſuppoſe, as a Mark of Infamy, for his want of Natural Affection; which made him unworthy to be reckoned among Free-men, but rather deſerve to be thruſt down into the Condition of Slaves, who were wont to go barefoot.
And ſpit in his face.] In contempt of him, who had deſpiſed her. The Hebrew Doctors indeed expound this, only of her ſpitting upon the Earth, directly before his face; ſo that the Spittle might be ſeen by the Judges. And they give this a reaſon, why the King was not ſubject to this Law of marrying his Brother's Wife (and they might add the High-Prieſt, XXI Lev. 13, 14.) becauſe it would have been below his dignity to have had his Shoe pulled off, (if he had not liked the Woman) or to have had her ſpit before him, as Bartenora's words are. Which would have been a better reaſon, if they had ſaid, It had been very unbecoming for her to have ſpit in the King's Face. See Selden Lib. I. Ʋxor. Hebr. Cap. X. and Hackspan Lib. I. Miſcellan. Cap. VII. N. VIII. where he obſerves the King was bound to all the DCXIII Precepts, but only this of marrying his Brother's Wife.
And ſhall anſwer.] To his peremptory refuſal of her.
And ſay, ſo ſhall it be done unto that man, that will not build up his brother's houſe.] She was immediately to read theſe words of the Law. And then the Judges gave her a Writing ſignifying his renunciation of her, in the manner now related, that ſo it might be free for any other Man to marry her. See the form of it in Selden, Lib. I. Ʋxor. Hebr. Cap. XIV. where he hath obſerved certain Niceties, about the kind of the Shoe that was to be pulled off; but gives no account why this Ceremony was uſed.
Verſe 10 Ver. 10. And his name ſhall be called in Iſrael, the houſe of him that hath his ſhoe looſed.] As ſoon as ſhe had looſed his Shoe, both the Judges, and all the Byſtanders round about, cried aloud three times, The Shoe is pulled off, the Shoe is pulled off, the Shoe is pulled off: and thereupon his Family had this Name, as a diſgrace for not doing the Duty of a Brother. Some will have this pulling off the Shoe to have been only a mark, that he parted with his right to her; but theſe words ſhow that it was in the nature of a Brand upon him and his Poſterity. And ſo Joſephus ſaith, Lib. IV. Archaeolog. Cap. VIII. that he went out of the Court with a Mark of Ignominy. Which doth not relate meerly to her ſpitting in his face; for Maimonides ſaith expreſly (in his More Nevochim P. III. Cap. XLIX.) that this Action (viz. of pulling off the Shoe, as well as the other) was a foul and ignominious thing in thoſe days; intended to move Men to perform the Duty of a Husband's Brother, that they might avoid ſuch Reproach. J. Wagenſeil hath given us the exact form of the Shoe, which was uſed on ſuch occaſions, in his Annotations upon Sota, p. 664. and ſee 1212. where he commends Leo Modena his account of this whole Buſineſs. Which differs not at all from that which I have given; only I obſerve that he ſaith, when the Woman taketh off the Shoe fom the Man's foot, ſhe lifts it up on high, and throweth it againſt the ground; which I take to be a Note of Indignation and Contempt. And he ſaith alſo, it was anciently accounted a more laudable thing to take her, than to releaſe her; and imputes it to the Corruption of Men's Manners, and the Hardneſs of their Hearts, that now they look only after worldly ends, either of Riches, or Beauty: which makes very few in theſe days (eſpecially among the Dutch and Italian Jews) to marry their Brother's Widow. See his Hiſtory of the Rites and Cuſtoms of the Jews, Part IV. Chap. VII.
Ver. 11. When men ſtrive together, one with another.] Verſe 11 Fall out (as we ſpeak) and fight, either with their Fiſts, or Sticks, or other Weapons.
And the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that ſmiteth him.] Who had wounded him, and was likely, I ſuppoſe, to be too hard for him.
And putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the ſecrets.] As a ſure means to make him let go his hold of her Husband, that he might preſerve himſelf.
Ver. 12. Then thou ſhalt cut off her hand.] This Verſe 12 was to be done by the Sentence of the Court, as a puniſhment for her Impudence; and for the hurt which perhaps the Man might have received hereby in thoſe Parts, whereby Mankind is propagated.
Thine eye ſhall not pity her.] The word her, not being in the Hebrew Text, ſeveral of the Jews (and Grotius ſeems to approve their Opinion) interpret this Law quite otherwiſe: As if the Woman might both take hold of his Secrets for the delivery of her Huſband, and alſo cut off the other Man's hand; and they ſhould not pity him who ſuffered thus, nor puniſh the Woman, who might do any thing of this nature, to preſerve one ſo dear to her as her Husband: But this is a very forced Interpretation. Maimonides is a little more reaſonable, in his Expoſition of theſe words, which he will have to ſignifie, that they ſhould lay a Fine or a Mulct upon her, for her Immodeſty: which is ſutable to their interpretation of that Law XXI Exod. 24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, &c. See L'Empereur on Bava kama, p. 198. But it is an intollerable preſumption in Maimonides to ſay, That if any one interpret this of a proper Abſciſſion of the Womans hand, though he pretend to be a Prophet, and ſay, the LORD hath ſaid unto me theſe words, Thou ſhalt cut off her hand, are to be underſtood as the words ſound (i. e. literally as we ſpeak) and do a Miracle to confirm it, he is to be lookt upon as a lying Prophet, and may be put to death, becauſe it is contrary to the conſtant Tradition of their Elders. So he writes in Seder Zeraim, tranſlated by our famous Mr. Pocock, p. 15. & p. 38. Upon which Principle they killed our Bleſſed Saviour.
Verſe 13 Ver. 13. Thou ſhalt not have in thy bag divers weights.] In the Hebrew the words are, a ſtone and a ſtone: for their weights then were made of Stone, as are ours now commonly of Lead or Braſs.
A great and a ſmall.] To buy in Commodities with the great, and ſell them out again by the ſmall: which was then, and is now an uſual way of cheating.
Ver. 14. Thou ſhalt not have in thine houſe divers meaſures, Verſe 14 &c.] In the Hebrew, an Ephah and an Ephah: for this was the moſt known Meaſure among them, by which all the reſt of their Meaſures were made. See XVI Exod. 36. From hence it was that Lucius Ampelius thought Moch…s, that is Moſes (who by ancient Writers is called Moſchos) was the Inventor of Weights and Meaſures; becauſe he took ſuch pious care there ſhould be no deceit in them; as the moſt Learned Huetius obſerves in his Demonſtr. Evangel. Prop. IV. Cap. VIII. N. 16.
Ver. 15. But thou ſhalt have a perfect and juſt weight, Verſe 15 and a perfect and just meaſure.] Neither too ſcanty, nor too large. See XIX Levit. 35, 36. where all theſe three Verſes are ſufficiently explained.
That thy days may be long in the Land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.] Juſtice, as well as Charity, was neceſſary to prolong their happineſs in the Land of Promiſe, XVI. 20.
Ver. 16. For all that do ſuch things, and all that do Verſe 16 unrighteouſly.] All that any way wrong their Neighbours.
Are an abomination to the LORD thy God.] This is an Expreſſion commonly uſed, to declare God's hatred of all idolatrous practices. See XVIII. 9, 12.
Ver. 17. Remember what Amalek did unto thee by Verſe 17 the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt.] The Jews have framed three Precepts out of this and the two following Verſes. One is, that they ſhould remember what Amalek did unto them. Which Maimonides, according to their Oral Tradition, refers to the Mouth, that they ſhould always be talking of what Amalek did to them. The ſecond, Not to forget it; which he refers to their Heart: that they ſhould never let ſlip out of their mind the hatred Amalek had to them. And the third, that they ſhould blot out their remembrance from under Heaven; i. e. utterly deſtroy them, and leave none of them remaining. But none of the Jews hath explained this better than Abarbinel; who, inquiring why ſuch Severity was expreſſed againſt the Amalekites, when the Edomites, who were of the ſame Race were dealt withal very favourably, (as we read before XXIII. 8.) obſerves four Reaſons given here by Moſes himſelf, why they ſhould remember, when they were ſettled in the Land of Canaan, and able to effect it, to exterminate this Nation: For that is the ſingle Precept he gives them in charge; only he bids them not forget what Amalek had done to deſerve that heavy Sentence long ago paſſed upon them, and remaining on Record (XVII Exod. 14, 15, 16.) confirmed with a Solemn Oath; though they were not able to execute it till they were ſettled in the Land of Promiſe. The firſt of theſe Reaſons is, Becauſe, whereas Men undertake War againſt others, either to defend their own Country, or to ſubdue their Enemies Country, the Amalekites came forth againſt the Iſraelites without any ſuch Cauſe: for the Iſraelites did not paſs by their Country, and conſequently gave them no apprehenſion of an Invaſion; nor had the Iſraelites then poſſeſſion of any Land of their own, which might tempt the Amalekites to covet it, and drive them out of it. But they undertook this War, with a petulant Malice, only to bring them into ſlavery again. Which is the thing here intimated in this Verſe, Remember what Amalek did to thee, &c. Unto which he ſhould have added, that their barbarity was much aggravated, by their aſſaulting them, when they were newly delivered from grievous Oppreſſions, and were unaccuſtomed to War, and without any provocation.
Ver. 18. How he met thee by the way.] This the Verſe 18 ſame Abarbinel takes to be the ſecond Cauſe of God's high diſpleaſure againſt Amalek; that, whereas it is the Cuſtom of all Countries, before they begin a War, to denounce it by Heralds, ſhowing the grounds of it; they roſe up againſt the Iſraelites unexpectedly, which was a piece of the baſeſt Treachery. Which he thinks is intimated in theſe words, He met thee by the way: that is, on a ſudden, by ſurprize, without any Notice by a Declaration of War. He might have added, that they did this when the Iſraelites were in a Journey, and had travelled a great way, and in a Wilderneſs, where they ſtood in need of Refreſhment; but were very unfit for fighting. Then, ſaith one of their Rabbins in Pirke Elieſer, Cap. XLIV. They came like a Bear in their way, to devour the Mother with the Children.
And ſmote the hindermost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary.] This he makes the third Cauſe; that they did not offer them a pitcht Battle, but only fell upon their Rear (as we ſpeak) and there cut off ſuch as lagg'd behind through feebleneſs and wearineſs; being unable to march ſo faſt as the reſt of their Brethren. This is a very ſober ſenſe, ſutable to the uſe of the word in X Joſh. 19. But what ſome of the Jews ſay, that the Amalekites cut off the Privy Members of certain of the Tribe of Dan in deriſion of Circumciſion, is diſowned by others of them, as having no foundation. See Schickard in his Jus Regium, p. 112, 113. Where Carpzovius obſerves, this was only a fancy of their Midraſchim, or Preachers, wherewith they entertained the People in their Sermons, on occaſion of the ambiguity of the word we tranſlate cut off the hindermost. Which R. Zacharias much better interprets in Pirke Elieſer, Cap. XLIV. where he makes it to ſignifie all that were behind the Cloud (which protected thoſe who were under it) as thoſe were who went out of the Camp by reaſon of ſome Uncleanneſs, to waſh themſelves. But this is no more than an ingenious Conceit; for the Laws about Cleanſing were not then delivered,
And feared not God.] This he makes the fourth Cauſe; that though they feared Iſrael, whom they durſt not look in the Face, but cut them off behind; yet they feared not God who had done ſuch wonderful things for them in Egypt, and brought them thence with a mighty hand, and overthrown Pharaoh in the Red-ſea. Which might have made them underſtand, that he ſets up Kings, and pulls down Kings, as Daniel ſpeaks, 2.21. But inſtead of conſidering this, they would have prophaned the Glory of the LORD (as he ſpeaks) by inſlaving thoſe whom he had but newly delivered, and continued under the protection of a glorious Cloud. Unto all which may be added, that they were originally derived from the ſame Stock with the Iſraelites, viz. from Iſaac.
Verſe 19 Ver. 19. Therefore it ſhall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine Enemies round aabout, in the Land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.] God did not require them to put this Command in Execution, immediately after they were poſſeſſed of the Land of Canaan: but after they were well ſettled there. So that there were ſome Ages paſſed before they went about it, and then God himſelf put them in mind of it; or rather ſtrictly enjoyned it to be performed by Saul their firſt King: and we do not find them blamed for not doing it in the time of the Judges, 1 Sam. XV. 1, 2, 3.
Thou ſhalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.] So God commandeth Saul in the place now mentioned, Ʋtterly deſtroy all they have, and ſpare them not; but ſlay both men and women, &c. For by the ſame Juſtice that one Perſon is cut off, a whole Family, or a whole Nation may be utterly deſtroyed: that other Families or Nations, ſeeing or hearing God's Judgments upon them, may be moved to flee from that wickedneſs, for which they are puniſhed. They are the words of Maimonides P. III. More Nevochim, Cap. XLI.
If we could believe all that the Talmudiſts ſay, we might think there were ſome among the Jews who indeavoured to mollifie the Severity of this Precept. For they tell a ſtory in Bava-bathra of Joab his Maſter, who taught him to read it thus, Blot out Zachar the Male of Amalek, not Zecher the Remembrance. But at the ſame time they tell us Joab thought to have killed him, for leading him into an Error.
Thou ſhalt not forget it.] This is not a diſtinct Precept, but only a Repetition of the foregoing; to imprint it more on their minds and hearts. And accordingly the Jews pretend to have had their hearts ſo ſet upon it, that when the Officers were about to proclaim freedom from War to thoſe Perſons mentioned XX. 5, 6, &c. they always excepted the War againſt the Seven Nations and Amalek, in which every Body was bound to aſſiſt.
Chapter XXVI.I ſhall end this matter with an Obſervation of Abarbinel, that in this Paragraph about Amalek, the Injunction which God gave to Moſes, XVII Exod. 14. was fulfilled by him, Write this for a memorial in a book. No other Book, ſaith he, is hereby meant, but the Book of the Law; which when Moſes wrote, he was bound to mention this Precept about Amalek; which he doth in this place. And if we ſuppoſe that he immediately wrote a diſtinct Hiſtory of this matter, yet he inſerted it afterwards into the Pentateuch; both here, and in the Book of EXODƲS.