Commentary on Deuteronomy, Commentary · Chapter 21

Commentary on Deuteronomy · Commentary · Chapter 21

p. 336CHAP. XXI.

Verſe 1 Verſe 1. IF one ſhall be found ſlain, in the Land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to poſſeſs.] This follows very properly after the Law he had delivered, about making War; becauſe then the Bodies of dead Men were moſt frequently found. About which the wiſeſt Law-givers took the greateſt care, that Inquiſition ſhould be made, how and by whom they were ſlain. This appears by Plato, who in his Ninth Book de Legibus, hath a Law ſomething like to this, though far ſhort of the Solemnity that is here required to be uſed; as I ſhall obſerve in the Concluſion of this Statute.

Lying in the field, and it be not known who hath ſlain him.] The Hebrew Doctors here ſtick too much to the letter of theſe words; for they will not have them reach to a dead Body hanging in the Air upon a p. 337Tree; or hid in the Sand or Duſt; or floating upon the Water; which is extream abſurd.

Ver. 2. Then thy Elders and thy Judges ſhall come forth.] The great Sanhedrim were to ſend forth ſome Verſe 2 of their Members (ſo the Jews interpret it) to do what here follows. And indeed it may be thought that none but they could take care of this matter; the doubt being to which of the neighbouring Cities (where the other Judges lived) it belonged. Therefore the Paraphraſe aſcribed to Ʋzielides ſaith, Two of the wiſe Men, or Elders, and three of the Judges, were ſent by the great Sanhedrim about this buſineſs. See Selden Lib. III. de Synedr. Cap. VII. N. 2.

Yet he obſerves in another part of that moſt Learned Work, Lib. II. Cap. VII. N. 3. that there were a ſort of Elders, who were not ordained by laying on of Hands, but only were venerable Perſons for their Age and Prudence; who, ſome think, might ſerve for this Employment. And they called ſuch Elders, Zikne Haſhuk, Elders of the Street, or Vulgar Elders. But none, I think, hath diſcourſed more critically upon theſe words, thy Elders, and thy Judges, than our Mr. Thorndike; who obſerves that there had been Judges conſtituted to determine Cauſes by Jethro's advice, (XVIII Exod.) the greater Cauſes being reſerved for Moſes alone. For whoſe Aſſiſtance God afterward appointed Seventy Elders, (Numb. XI.) who made up the great Court of Judgment in that Nation. Now they of this great Conſiſtory, are called the Elders of Iſrael; but they of other Conſiſtories, or Inferiour Courts, are called barely Elders, or Elders of ſuch a City. See Review of the Rights of the Church, p. 70. where he alledges this very place for it; and by thy Elders underſtands the Elders of Iſrael; the p. 338lower Elders being mentioned in the next Verſe. And ſo thoſe of the great Conſiſtory are commonly called in the Goſpel: And in like manner, the Scribes of the People, and thy Scribes, ſignifie there thoſe of this High Court. Whereas the bare Name of Scribes is extended further, to the inferiour Doctors of the Law. As alſo the Name of Rulers, and that of Rulers of the People, are to be underſtood with the like difference.

And they ſhall meaſure unto the Cities, that are round about him that is ſlain.] That is, if it were dubious what City lay neareſt to the dead Body, as it ſometimes hapned. But commonly, it is probable, at the firſt view they eaſily diſcerned this, and ſo did not trouble themſelves to meaſure. It is a frivolous diſpute in the Miſchnah, from whence they were to meaſure; whether from the Navel, or the Noſe, or the Forehead: which laſt ſeems moſt rational to Maimonides, who calls it the Center of the Body. But they did not (if we believe the Jewiſh Doctors) in their meaſuring, take notice of any City, wherein there was not a Court of XXIII Elders; and Jeruſalem was always excepted. See Selden in the place forenamed, N. III. and L'Empereur upon Bava kama, p. 173. and Wagenſeil upon Sota, p. 899. If the dead Body lay neareſt to the Country of the Gentiles, then they did not meaſure at all; but it was preſumed the Man was killed by them.

Verſe 3 Ver. 3. And it ſhall be that the City which is next to the ſlain Man.] From whence it might be preſumed the Murderer came, or was fled thither, as Abarbinel diſcourſes.

Even the Elders of that City.] Who were different from the Elders before-mentioned, (See the foregoing p. 339Verſe) for they returned to Jeruſalem, when they had ſeen the Body buried, if there was no diſcovery of the Murderer: and then the Senators of the City next to the dead Body, who were XXIII. performed what is here ordered.

Shall take an Heifer.] That was not above two years old: for if it were a day more, they might not uſe it for this purpoſe, as Maimonides and others affirm. Yet the Scripture, in other Caſes, mentions one of three years old, XV Gen. 9. XV Iſa. 5. XLVIII Jer. 5. as Wagenſeil obſerves upon the Miſchna of Sota, Cap. IX. Sect. III. Annot. 2. If two Cities happened to be aequidiſtant from the dead Body, then they joyned together to provide this Heifer.

Which hath not been wrought with.] Never uſed in ploughing the Ground.

And which hath not drawn in the yoke.] This may ſeem to be included in the foregoing Expreſſion, as Maimonides obſerves; but it is added, he thinks, to ſignifie that if it had been imployed in any other labour, it became improper for this uſe. Such Heifers were accounted by the Heathen to be moſt acceptable to their gods, as appears by Homer: in whom Diomedes and Neſtor promiſe ſuch an Offering to Pallas. See Bochart. Lib. II. Hieroz. Cap. XXXIII. P. I. out of Iliad K. and Odyſſ. T.

But there was a particular reaſon for ſuch an one in this Caſe, (wherein the Heifer was not to be offered) that it might the better repreſent, as many think, the Perſon that had committed this Murder: who was a Son of Belial, ſubject to no Law; and deſerved to be beheaded as this Heifer was. It is not required that it ſhould be without blemiſh, as thoſe Heifers were to be, that were offered at the Tabernacle: but it ſufficed, p. 340if it had never been accuſtomed to the Yoke. Yet this is not to be taken without all Limitation; for if it wanted any Member, or were diſeaſed, it might not be imployed in this Service; as Wagenſeil obſerves out of Maimonides, in the place forenamed, p. 907.

Verſe 4 Ver. 4. And the Elders of that City ſhall bring down the Heifer.] Their Cities it ſeems were commonly ſeated on Hills, or high Ground.

Into a rough Valley.] The Hebrew word Nachal ſignifies both a Valley, and a Torrent. The LXX. Joſephus and the Vulgar underſtand it as we do; and the following words favour this Interpretation. But the Talmudiſts, and the Rabbins who generally follow them, take it to ſignifie a Torrent: which is the ſenſe of Maimonides himſelf; and the next word Ethan (which we tranſlate rough) they interpret a rapid Torrent. Chaskuni thinks there is ſome reaſon for this, in the ſixth Verſe, where they are required to waſh their hands over the Heifer; in the Water, that is of the Brook. I ſee nothing to hinder the putting both ſenſes together: Torrents being wont to run down violently from the Mountains, through the Valleys which lye beneath them; which is the cauſe that the ſame word ſignifies both.

Which is neither eared.] Or rather, ploughed.

Nor ſown.] Being a ſtony, craggy Ground: repreſenting the horridneſs of the Murder, and the cruelty and hardneſs of the Man's heart who committed it. They that follow the other Interpretation of Nachal, underſtood the foregoing words [Aſcher lo jeabeth bo] which we tranſlate neither eared, as if they ſignified the Torrent did not ſerve to water the neighbouring Ground: and theſe words to be meant of the Soil which lay next to the Torrent, in which nothing p. 341was ſown. And beſides this variety, there are thoſe who take Ethan not to ſignifie either that which is hard, or rapid, but the moſt fertile Ground: So R. Bechai, and lately R. Jac. Abendana in his Marginal Notes upon Michlal Jophi. Where he gives this reaſon for it; That the Inhabitants of each City might be the more careful to prevent ſuch Murders; being in danger otherwiſe to loſe the beſt Ground belonging to their Inheritance, For the Land where the Body was found (if we may believe the Miſchna) was never to be ſown any more. See Sota, Cap. IX. Sect. V.

And ſhall ſtrike off the Heifers neck there in the valley.] Coming behind the Heifer (ſaith that Miſchna) as the Murderer was ſuppoſed to have treacherouſly ſurpriſed the ſlain Man: and ſhould have been thus uſed, if he could have been found.

Ver. 5. And the Prieſts the ſons of Levi.] See Verſe 5 XVII. 9, 18. XVIII. 1.

Shall come near.] To ſee all performed according to the Law; and to pray to God for the Country, in the words preſcribed v. 8.

For them the LORD thy God hath choſen to miniſter unto him, and to bleſs in the Name of the LORD.] See XXVIII Exod. 1, &c. VI Numb. 23, &c.

And by their word ſhall every controverſie, and every ſtroke be tried.] They did not determine all Matters whatſoever; but all of this nature: in which the Law appointed them to take care things were done according to it. As in the killing of the red Heifer; the Examination of the Woman ſuſpected of Adultery by the Water of Jealouſie; the Leproſy, whether in Men, or Houſes, or Garments. Thus the Hebrews explain theſe words. See Selden Lib. II. de Synedr. Cap. VIII. And ſo Bonfrerius here acknowledges, that they did p. 342not come hither as Judges, but as Directors; and that they might purge themſelves, together with the Elders, from all guilt of this Crime.

Verſe 6 Ver. 6. And all the Elders of that City that are next to the ſlain Man.] If there were never ſo many Elders in the City, they were all to clear themſelves, by doing what follows.

Shall waſh their hands over the Heifer, &c.] In the Water of the Brook, which flowed through the Valley; proteſting their Innocence, in the words preſcribed in the next Verſe. So Chaskuni gloſſes, As our hands are clean, ſo are we from the guilt of this blood. See Wagenſeil upon Sota, p. 910. who thinks Pilate had reſpect to this Rite, when he condemned our Saviour (XXVII Matth. 24.) notwithſtanding all that Learned Men have ſaid to the contrary.

Verſe 7 Ver. 7. And they ſhall anſwer and ſay.] Being askt, perhaps, whether they knew any thing of this Murder.

Our hands have not ſhed this blood, neither have our eyes ſeen it.] That is, they profeſſed ſolemnly they knew not who ſhed it, nor how the Man came to be ſlain. And the Miſchna before-mentioned adds, that they ſaid (for how can any one think that Elders would be Murderers?) This Man did not come into our City that we know of, and diſmiſſed without neceſſary proviſions; nor was ſeen by us, and permitted to go away without company. Which Maimonides expreſſes more largely in his More Nevochim, P. III. Cap. XL. where he repreſents the Wiſdom of this Law, in theſe words: The Elders called God to witneſs, that they had not neglected to ſecure the ways; nor to ſet Watches, to examine diligently thoſe that travelled; ſaying, as our Rabbins expreſs it, This Man was not killed p. 343through any negligence, or forgetfulneſs which we were guilty of, in not obſerving our publick Conſtitutions; nor do we know who killed him. Now by this Inquiſition into the Fact, by this going forth of the Elders, and the ſtriking of the Heifers Head, &c. a great deal of Diſcourſe neceſſarily aroſe about this buſineſs, which made the thing publick; and was a probable means of diſcovering the Murderer, by ſome or other who were there, or ſhould hear of all this. And if any one came and ſaid he knew the Author, then they forbore to behead the Heifer: but the Man being apprehended, if the Houſe of Judgment did not put him to death, the King had power to do it: if he neglected it, the Avenger of Blood might kill him whereſoever he met him. By which it appears that this ſolemn Proceſs here mentioned tended very much to detect the Murderer. Unto which this alſo contributed, that the place where the Heifer's head was ſtruck off, might never be ploughed or ſowed hereafter, (as I noted before) which made the Owners of that Ground employ their utmoſt diligence to find out the Murderer, that their Land might not lye waſte for ever. For they might not ſo much as plant a Tree upon it.

Ver. 8. Be merciful, O LORD, unto thy people Iſrael, Verſe 8 whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Iſraels charge.] The Prieſts alone pronounced theſe words as the Miſchna there ſaith: though Joſephus (who often differs from the Talmudiſts) ſaith, both Prieſts and Elders prayed God to be propitious unto them; and to prevent the like Evil from falling out again in their Region. See Selden Lib. III. de Synedr. Cap. VII. N. V, VI.

p. 344And the blood ſhall be forgiven them.] Theſe are not the words of the Prieſts, ſaith the ſame Miſchna: but the Holy Ghoſt pronounces, that when they obſerved theſe Rites, the guilt ſhould be removed from them. Which in ſome ſort, would have lain upon them, if they had taken no notice of a Murder committed ſo near to their City; nor made inquiſition after it, and expreſſed their abhorrence of it.

Verſe 9 Ver. 9. So ſhalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou ſhalt do that which is right in the ſight of the LORD.] Sincerely proteſting their Innocence, and deteſtation of this Fact. Which was to be done in the day time, and not in the night: and the Body of the Heifer was to be buried; but none of it eaten, or any part of it imployed to other uſe. If the Murderer was found before it's Head was ſtruck off, it was to be let go into the Paſture among other Beaſts: if after, he was to ſuffer Capital Puniſhment; that is, to be cut off by the Sword, as the Miſchna before-mentioned explains it, Cap. IX. Sect. VII.

By all this it appears, that no ancient Law made ſuch proviſion for the diſcovery and expiation of ſecret Murders, as this of Moſes. For the very beſt of them, which is that of Plato, enacts no more than this, That if a Man was found dead, and he that killed him, after a diligent ſearch, could not be heard of, publick Proclamation ſhould be made, that he who was guilty of the Fact, ſhould not come into any holy place, nor any part of the whole Country: for if he were diſcovered and apprehended, he ſhould be put to death, foreign, and be thrown out of the Bounds of the Country, and have no burial, Lib. IX. de Legibus, p. 874.

p. 345Ver. 10. When thou goest to War against thine Enemies.] To a voluntary War againſt any of their neighbouring Nations; not againſt the People of Canaan: none of which were to be ſpared, if they Verſe 10 ſtood out and fought, but deſtroyed by the Divine Precept, which required this War.

And the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thy hands, and thou hast taken them captive.] As the manner was, to make them Slaves to their Conquerors.

Ver. 11. And ſeest among the captives a beautiful woman.] Verſe 11 It was indifferent, whether ſhe was a Virgin, or a Widow, or a Wife, according to the Jewiſh Doctors.

And hast a deſire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife.] The plain meaning is, fell ſo paſſionately in love with her, as to deſire to marry her; though a Stranger of another Nation and Religion. It is a common Opinion indeed among the Jewiſh Doctors, that a baſer ſort of Paſſion is here indulged; for it was lawful, they imagine, for a Souldier to lie with ſuch a Captive once to ſatisfie his Luſt, (which ſome make to be the meaning of this Expreſſion, hast a deſire to her; or, as it is in the Hebrew, haſt cleaved to her) but not repeat it, unleſs he would take her for his Wife. Which they think was allowed to Military Men, when they were abſent from their Wives, to prevent greater Outrages which were wont to be committed by the Heathen. But the beſt Nations ſeverely prohibited all ſuch Abuſes, as Grotius obſerves, L. III. de Jure Belli & Pacis, Cap. IV. Sect. XIX. 1. And though Schickard in his Miſchpat Hammelech indeavours to make out the Wiſdom of this Law, in permitting a Hebrew Souldier to enjoy a Captive once, p. 346(See p. 130, 131. and Mr. Selden Lib. V. de Jure Nat. & Gent. Cap. XIII.) yet he cannot but acknowledge that ſome of the Jews do not allow of this Interpretation; but are of opinion that he might not touch a Captive till ſhe became a Proſelyte, and he took her for his Wife. Thus R. Bechai, as Grotius obſerves in the place forenamed, Sect. XIX. 2. God would have the Camp of Iſrael holy, and not defiled with fornication, and other abominations, as the Camps of the Gentiles. Unto whom Alexander himſelf gave a better Example; who being extreamly taken with the Beauty of Roxana, did not abuſe her, as a Captive; but vouchſafed to marry her, and make her his Wife. For which he is juſtly commended, both by Arrianus and by Plutarch. And therefore I think it is moſt reaſonable to expound this Law, only of taking ſuch a Captive in Marriage: which Abarbinel alſo ſhows is the moſt ancient Interpretation of it, and hath the beſt Authority on its ſide among the Jews. For though he acknowledges it is the common Opinion of their wiſe Men, that a Souldier might lie with a fair Captive once, whilſt ſhe was a meer Gentile; yet herein they followed the Doctors in the Babylonian Talmud; which is not of ſo great Antiquity as the Hieruſalem Talmud: where R. Johannes (in Maſſecheth Sanhedrim) delivers the quite contrary Doctrine, That it was not lawful for any Iſraelite to lie with ſuch a Woman at all, till the Conditions, mentioned in the following words of this Law, were fulfilled, when he was to make her his Wife. And according to the Judgment of this R. Johannes, Abarbinel explains this Law, in a large Commentary on this place.

Verſe 12 Ver. 12. Then thou ſhalt bring her home to thine houſe.] The forenamed Doctors, who are ſo indulgent to the p. 347Souldiers Luſt, will have this to ſignifie that they were to obſerve the Rules of Modeſty in the Camp; and not openly lie with her like Beaſts, but privately in their Tents. Thus Maimonides himſelf, More Nevochim P. III. Cap. XLI. But it is evident Moſes doth not ſpeak of any thing done in the Camp, but of what was to be done when he returned to his Houſe: where he was to diſpoſe her, in the manner following to be his Wife.

And ſhe ſhall ſhave her head.] Theſe and the following words are variouſly interpreted: ſome taking theſe things to be done to her, with a deſign to abate his Affection to her, that he might not marry her at all: and others to prepare her, and make her fit, for his Bed. For ſhaving her Head (which every one knows was uſed in mourning) deprived her of one of her greateſt Ornaments, and made her leſs amiable, and conſequently might extinguiſh his Affection, which was kindled by her Beauty. So Clemens Alexandrinus underſtands it; See Lib. II. Strom. p. 398, 399. and Lib. III. p. 456. and many of the Hebrews are of the ſame mind, that theſe things were ordered to leſſen his Affection to her, by making her appear leſs lovely in his eyes. See Schickard's Miſchpat Hammelech, Cap. V. Theorem. XVII. p. 134, 135. But there are others who take this to have been a kind of Purification and Cleanſing her from her Gentiliſm; and a Token of her becoming a new Woman, that ſhe might be meet to be made his Wife.

And pair her Nails.] This likewiſe was a piece of Cleanlineſs and Neatneſs. But they who are of the other Opinion tranſlate the words, Let her Nails grow. As our marginal Tranſlation hath it, and the Arabick and Chaldee, and the Hebrew Doctors commonly underſtand p. 348it. Which was intended to make her look ugly, and to ſlack his love to her. At leaſt, it was ſutable to the Condition of a Mourner; as ſhe plainly was, it appears by the next Verſe. The Hebrew words indeed (which are make her Nails) are dubious; from whence aroſe that diſpute we find in the Talmud between R. Eliezer, who expounds it pair her Nails, to make them look handſome, and R. Akiba, who expounds it let them grow. The former reaſons thus; the Hair and the Nails are to be uſed alike: now her Hair is plainly ordered to be cut, and therefore ſo were her Nails to be. But the other Doctor turns it quite contrary; what was ordered about her Hair was to make her abominable, therefore this alſo was intended to make her appear ill-favoured. And indeed the Hebrew word being indifferent to either ſenſe, we muſt judge of the meaning by the circumſtances of the place: and here they ſeem to lead us to R. Akiba's interpretation; which Onkelos, a moſt judicious Paraphraſt, follows: and many Learned Men in later times; particularly Schickard in the Book before-mentioned, p. 134. and Martinus Gierus de luctu Hebraeorum, Cap. XIV. Sect. V.

Verſe 13 Ver. 13. And ſhe ſhall put the raiment of her captivity from off her.] Her fine Clothes, wherein they ſuppoſe her to have been taken captive: Inſtead of which ſhe was to put on ſordid Apparel; which was the Habit of Mourners. This ſtill tended to cool his love; the drift of theſe things being (as the Jews commonly think) to take away from her all that was inviting and tempting, that ſo ſuch Marriage might not be common among them.

And ſhall remain in thy houſe.] Not ſtir out of doors, but be retired; as Perſons in a mournful condition are wont to be.

p. 349And bewail her father and mother.] Who perhaps were killed in the War: or, rather, whom ſhe was likely to ſee no more. And this alſo the Jews ſuppoſe might help to abate his Affection to her: Sorrow and Grief very much ſpoiling ones Beauty.

A full month.] So long the Jews were allowed to bewail their dead Relations, or at leaſt thoſe who were eminent: as they did Aaron and Moſes. And here I cannot but obſerve how Philo magnifies this Conſtitution, and plainly ſhows he was of the opinion of R. Johannes before-mentioned; that this Captive might not be touched till all theſe things were performed. foreign (ſaith he, in his Book foreign, p. 545, &c.) Moſes ordered every thing moſt excellently in this Law: First, In not letting the Reins looſe to Mens deſires; but reſtraining them for thirty days. In which time, ſecondly, a trial was made of his love, whether it was a furious, ungovernable Paſſion, or had ſomething of reaſon in it. Which adviſes us to do nothing ſuddenly, but after ſerious and long deliberation. And thirdly, foreign. This was a merciful Law to the Captive; that if ſhe were a Virgin, ſhe might bewail her unhappineſs, in not being diſpoſed of in Marriage by her Parents: If a Widow, that ſhe had loſt her firſt Love, and was now to be married to one, who would be her Lord, as well as her Husband.

And after that.] Upon theſe words R. Johannes grounded his opinion, That till a full Month was ſpent, in the forementioned Ceremonies, he might not lie with her.

Thou ſhalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and ſhe ſhall be thy wife.] If he continued, that is, to love her p. 350at the end of the Month; and ſhe was willing to embrace the Jewiſh Religion, in which, while ſhe remained retired in his Houſe, ſhe was inſtructed. For, the Jewiſh Doctors agree, ſhe was to be baptized, and not meerly made a Proſelyte of the Gate (i. e. renounce Idolatry) otherwiſe he might not marry her. And if ſhe refuſed to embrace their Religion intirely, Maimonides ſaith, they gave her a years time to conſider of it: at the end of which, if ſhe remained ſtill obſtinate, they required her at leaſt to obſerve the Seven Precepts of the Sons of Noah, and ſo to become a Proſelyte of the Gate: otherwiſe ſhe was to be ſlain. But though ſhe was ſo far converted, no Jew might take her to Wife: for ſuch a Marriage, Maimonides ſaith, was counted impious.

Thoſe Hebrew Doctors who think a Souldier might enjoy her once, at the firſt taking her Captive, have added another conceit to this; viz. That there was not only this Months time allowed her to bewail her Parents, but that he was to ſtay two Months more, before he might go in to her, and be her husband, that he might ſee whether ſhe were with Child or no, by his firſt enjoyment of her. For if ſhe were, a great difference was to be made between that Child, and thoſe ſhe might have by him after marriage. Concerning which ſee Selden Lib. V. de Jure Nat. & Gent. Cap. XIII. where he obſerves, they make Tamar, the Daughter of David, an inſtance of this. Whoſe Mother being a Captive, they ſuppoſe he lay with her as ſoon as ſhe was taken, and had this Iſſue by her: but afterward ſhe becoming a Proſelyte, he made her his Wife, and ſhe bare him Abſolom. Whereby it came to paſs, that there was not ſuch a Relation between her and the other Sons of David by other Women; but that p. 351it had been lawful for Amnon to have married her.

But all this is judged by the famous Abarbinel (upon 2 Sam. XIII.) to be very abſurd: and neither believes that David would have committed ſuch a Fact, as to lie with a Woman in her Gentiliſm; nor, if he had, that this Child would have been lookt upon as a Gentile, ſince he afterward married her Mother. And therefore he takes thoſe words of Tamar, v. 13. Speak to the King, and he will not withhold me from thee, to be a meer put off, as we ſpeak, to get rid of his Company: which Amnon underſtood very well, who knowing he could not have her to Wife, proceeded to force her.

Ver. 14. And it ſhall be, if thou have no delight in Verſe 14 her, then thou ſhalt let her go whither ſhe will.] If at the Months end, or before, his Mind was changed, and he did not like to take her for his Wife, then he might neither meddle with her any more (as the Hebrew Doctors underſtand it) nor keep her any longer as a Slave, nor ſell her, or make merchandiſe of her, (as the Text here expreſly orders) but give her liberty to go whither ſhe her ſelf thought good. This he lost, ſay the Jews, by his ſhort pleaſure he took at firſt. For other Captives, whom a Man had made himſelf Maſter of, by the Law of War, he might imploy in his Work as Slaves, or make Money of them; but one whom he had lain with, he was either to marry, or ſet her a liberty. This they ground upon the laſt words of this Verſe; which I ſhall ſhow may have another interpretation. And therefore I ſhall not inſiſt upon their ſenſe (which depends upon the ſame words) who think Moſes ſpeaks of his not likeing her after ſhe was become his Wife, her Humour, Manners, and Converſation being diſagreeable to him: p. 352in which caſe he was to give her a Bill of Divorce, as he might do another Wife, but not keep her as a Slave.

Becauſe thou hast humbled her.] It muſt be acknowledged that this is an uſual Phraſe, for having had Carnal Knowledge of a Woman, as the Scripture modeſtly elſewhere ſpeaks, in the like caſe. It ſignifies ſo in the very next Chapter of this Book, XXII Deut. 29. XIX Judg. 24. XX. 2. and many other places, where it is uſed for Violence offered to a Woman, which was the greateſt Affliction to her; as the Hebrew word properly ſignifies. From which I ſee no reaſon why we ſhould depart in this place; for it was ſufficient Affliction and Humiliation to a Captive Woman (as Carpſovius obſerves in his Annotations upon Schickard's Book, which I have ſo often named) that after ſhe had been brought into a Souldiers Houſe, and kept there a Month, having her Head ſhaved, Garments changed, &c. in hope of Marriage, ſhe was rejected at laſt when it ſhould have been conſummated: And thus Abarbinel here underſtands the word humbled, not of his lying with her; but of all the forementioned Conditions which were impoſed upon her, as a preparation for his Bed; and of her diſappointment after ſhe had ſubmitted to be baptized. And indeed the Hebrew word denotes any ſort of Affliction. See I Exod. 11. LXXXVIII Pſal. 8. LXXXIX. 23. XC. 15. XCIV. 5, &c.

Verſe 15 Ver. 15. If a Man have two Wives, one beloved and another hated.] That is, leſs loved; as the word hated ſometimes ſignifies, XXIX Gen. 31. VI Matth. 24. R. Solomon thinks that this Caſe follows the other, becauſe it might ſo happen, that if a Man ſuffered himſelf to be carried with too violent a paſſion towards p. 353ſuch a Woman, as is before-mentioned, it might turn into hatred, when he found her not to be agreeable to him.

And they have born him Children, both the beloved and the hated.] Towards which it was likely he would be affected very differently, as he was to his Wives.

And if the firſt-born Son be hers that was hated.] As it fell out in the Caſe of Leah and Rachel.

Ver. 16. Then it ſhall be when he makes his Sons to Verſe 16 inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the Son of the beloved first-born, &c.] He ſpeaks of Sons; for Daughters were not to have a double Portion. And he ſpeaks of Sons (as the Jews will have it) born before the death of their Father; to whom he divided his Inheritance. For a poſthumous Son had not a double Portion, as the Gemara upon Bathra ſaith. See Selden de Succeſſionibus, Cap. VII. p. 29.

Ver. 17. But he ſhall acknowledge the Son of the hated Verſe 17 for the firſt-born.] Which had his firſt love; and was to enjoy the effects of it.

By giving him a double portion of all that he hath.] Of all that he was in poſſeſſion of when he died: but not of that which was his in Reverſion after his death; as Mr. Selden ſhows the Opinion of the Jewiſh Lawyers is, Lib. de Succeſſ. Cap. VI. p. 24.

For he is the beginning of his ſtrength.] See XLIX Gen. 1.

The right of the first-born is his.] By a very ancient Cuſtom, antecedent to the Law: which made the firſt-born the Head of the Family, and gave him as much more, as any of his Brethren, of the Eſtate belonging to it, that he might be able to maintain and ſupport the Dignity of it, XXV Gen. 31. But if there p. 354was no Son, and the Inheritance was to be divided among Daughters, the eldeſt Daughter had not a double ſhare of the Eſtate; as Mr. Selden ſhows in the ſame Book, Cap. VIII.

Verſe 18 Ver. 18. If a Man have a ſtubborn and rebellious Son.] By a ſtubborn Son the Jews underſtand, one that will not do as he is bidden: and by a rebellious, one that doth what he is forbidden. And they imagine this Law is annexed to the foregoing, about the marriage of a Souldier to a Captive Woman; becauſe the Iſſue of ſuch Marriages commonly proved refractory, or at leaſt gave their Parents great trouble. So Schickard obſerves out of Tanchuma. And they confirm it by an Example out of Scripture, viz. the two Children of David, Abſolom and Tamar, who were both born of a Captive Woman, made a Proſelyte: the former of which conſpired the Death of his Father; and the other being raviſhed by Amnon, was the occaſion of the Death of ſome of her Brethren. Miſchpat Hammelech, Cap. V. Theorem. XVII.

Which will not obey the voice of his Father, or the voice of his Mother.] Behaved himſelf not only undutifully, but croſly to them: and with ſuch contempt of their Authority, as argued he had not only loſt all filial Affection and Reverence to them; but would, if he could, undo them.

And that when they have chaſtned him, will not hearken unto them.] Is never the better for Admonitions, Reprehenſions, and Corrections, which they were bound to give him.

Verſe 19 Ver. 19. Then ſhall his Father and his Mother lay hold of him.] It is abſurd to ſay, as the Hebrew Doctors do (in their qualifications of this Law) that his Parents were with their own hands to apprehend him, p. 355and bring him before the Court: though it ſeems reaſonable enough, that both Father and Mother ſhould agree in the Complaint againſt him, and deſire Officers might be ſent to lay hold of him. In which one cannot well ſuppoſe that they would conſent to have ſuch a Puniſhment, as follows, inflicted upon him, unleſs he were intolerable.

And bring him unto the Elders of his City.] Who were to examine the proofs, and accordingly to paſs Sentence upon him. Concerning theſe Elders, ſee v. 3, 4.

And unto the gate of his place.] Where the Court of Judgment was wont to ſit. See XVI. 18. The Paternal Power among the ancient Romans was ſo great, that they might put their Children to death, as they did their Slaves, without any Proceſs before a Magiſtrate. And this ſome have taken to be a Natural Right; and imagined God would not have commanded Abraham to kill his Son, but that it was a part of his inherent Power. However this be, they were not thought fit to be long intruſted with it; for God here orders by Moſes, that it ſhould be committed to the publick Judges, as the moſt diſintereſted Perſons.

Ver. 20. And they ſhall ſay unto the Elders of his City.] Verſe 20 This ſeems to intimate, the Authority of Parents was ſtill ſo preſerved, that their Teſtimony alone was ſufficient to convict a rebellious Son, without any further proof. The Hebrew Doctors indeed are of another mind; as I ſhall ſhow in the Explication of what follows.

This our Son is ſtubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice.] This is to be underſtood, ſay they, of a Son that was no leſs then Thirteen years old and a day: and ſo might be preſumed to know his Duty, and to be capable of being governed by Counſel and p. 356good Advice. And this is reaſonable enough. But what they ſay concerning the time when he became his own Man, is monſtrouſly abſurd. See Selden Lib. II. de Synedr. Cap. XIII. p. 559, 560. What they ſay of a Daughter, not to be comprehended under this Law, may be admitted; becauſe ſhe was not capable to do ſo much Miſchief in a Family, as a rebellious Son.

He is a glutton and a drunkard.] Theſe Sins are no where made capital by the Law of Moſes, but when they were accompanied with rebellious Diſobedience to Parents. Who were to bring Witneſſes, as the Hebrew Doctors ſay, that this Son had ſtoln ſome of their Goods, and ſold them, that he might ſpend the Money in theſe Vices: under which others are comprehended, which uſually attend them. And that he had done this, after he had been admoniſhed and chaſtiſed: ſo that he was not to be puniſhed, as this Law at laſt preſcribes, till he was grown incorrigible. For, they ſay, the Court was firſt to order him to be whipt; and not to proceed further till, upon a new Complaint, it was proved that he had run into the ſame riotous Courſes, ſince that puniſhment. Then, upon this ſecond Teſtimony (as they call it) the Court gave Sentence againſt him, that he ſhould be ſtoned to death; unleſs the Parents, before the Sentence was pronounced, ſaid they gave him their Pardon. There are a great many little Niceties about the quantity of Meat and Wine that he eat and drank, and other Matters; with which I do not think fit to trouble the Reader.

Verſe 21 Ver. 21. And all the Men of his City ſhall ſtone him with ſtones that he die.] This is ſuch a ſevere Sentence, that it inclines me to think, the Parents lookt upon p. 357ſuch a Son as ſo debaucht, that he would not only ſpend all their Eſtate, if he had it, but was inclined to kill them, that he might get it into his own hands. For the Sentence of Death is denounced, elſewhere, againſt one that ſtruck his Father or Mother, XXI Exod. 15. or that curſed them, v. 17. It is not ſaid indeed he ſhould be ſtoned, but put to death; which they interpret of ſtrangling; this puniſhment of ſtoning, being appointed for Idolaters and Blaſphemers of God. Next to whom Parents are to be reverenced; being in God's place, with reſpect to their Children. See upon the fifth Commandment. And therefore other Nations were very ſevere in their puniſhment of ſuch Children as are here deſcribed; and particularly the Romans, after the power was taken from Parents to ſell them▪ or put them to death, and the Cenſure of them committed to the Magiſtrates. See Hen. Stephen in his Fontes & Rivi Juris Civilis, p. 18. And among the Athenians, Lyſias ſaith (in his Oration againſt Agoratus) he that beats his Parents, or did not maintain them, and provide an habitation for them, when they were in want, foreign, deſerved to be put to death. The Law indeed did not inflict that puniſhment, but only ſaid foreign, let him be infamous. That is, as they expound it, he might not come into the Publick Aſſemblies, nor enter into their Temples, nor wear a Crown in their Publick Feſtivals: and if any ſuch Perſons preſumed ſo to do, they were brought before the Magiſtrates, who ſet a Fine upon their Heads, and committed them to Priſon, till they paid it. See Sam. Petitus in his Commentary upon the Attick Laws, Lib. II. Tit. IV. p. 163. No wonder therefore Moſes ordained this puniſhment, when a Son was come to ſuch a degree of profligate p. 358wickedneſs, that he indeavoured to undo his Parents. Which ſome States have thought fit to follow, in theſe latter Ages. For David Chytraeus ſaith, he himſelf ſaw an Example of this Severity at Zurich, in the year One thouſand five hundred and fifty; where a diſobedient Son was beheaded, who had curſed his Mother, and beaten her.

So ſhalt thou put evil away from among you, and all Iſrael ſhall hear, and fear.] See concerning this before upon XIX. 20.

Verſe 22 Ver. 22. If a man have committed a ſin worthy of death, and he be put to death.] There were ſeveral ſorts of Capital Puniſhments, viz. Strangling, Burning, Cutting off by the Sword, and Stoning. Now the Hebrew Doctors limit this unto ſuch Offenders, as were ſtoned; of which Puniſhment he ſpeaks in the foregoing Verſe. But there being Eighteen ſorts of Offenders, who were to be Sentenced to this Death, they put a further limitation upon theſe words; their Tradition being, as they tell us, the Sin worthy of death (or Stoning) is only Idolatry, or Blaſphemy. So we read in the Sanhedrim, Cap. VI. Sect. IV. All that were ſtoned were alſo hanged, according to the opinion of R. Eliezer: but the wiſe Men ſay none were hanged but the Idolater and Blaſphemer. And they add there, that only Men, not Women, were thus uſed: for which I can ſee no reaſon, but their ſticking to the meer Letter of theſe words; as if the word Man did not comprehend both ſenſes.

But if we examine the Scripture, we ſhall find this not to be true (that no Men were hanged, but they that were ſtoned) for the King of Ai was hanged, VIII Joſh. 29. and five Kings more, X. 26. and they were not hanged becauſe they were Blaſphemers or p. 359Idolaters, (for then all the reſt of the Canaanites ſhould have been ſo treated) but becauſe they were ſuch Enemies of God, as had rebelliouſly withſtood the gracious Summons of Surrender. And there are other Examples alſo, which confute this; as the two Traitors that murdered Isboſheth, 2 Sam. IV. 12. and the five Sons of Saul, 2 Sam. XXI. 9. It is more probable therefore, that all thoſe whom the Judges thought to be ſuch great Offenders, that it was fit to make them very publick Examples, were hanged up, after they had ſuffered the puniſhment of Death, to which they were ſentenced. This ſeems to be denoted in the word Chatta; which ſignifies ſometimes a very great Crime, as appears from XII Hoſea 8. where he ſpeaks of iniquity, which is ſin. Not as if all iniquity were not ſin; but ſome acts of iniquity were not ſo heinous, as to be called by that name.

And thou hang him.] After he had been put to death, as appears by the foregoing words, which ſpeak of his being put to death before this Suſpenſion. Which ſhows that this Puniſhment was not the ſame with the Roman Crucifixion (as Baronius, Sigonius, Lipſius and others have miſtaken) for they hanged Men alive upon the Gibbet; whereby they expired before they were taken down: But this was only hanging up their Bodies after they were dead, and expoſing them to open ſhame for a time.

On a Tree.] On a piece of Timber (ſaith the Sanhedrim) ſtruck into the Ground; out of which came a Beam, whereunto his Hands were tied, as they tell us in the place before-mentioned. And ſo Schickard in his Miſchpat Hammelech, Cap. IV. Theor▪ XIV. So that his Body hung in ſuch a poſture as crucified Men did.

p. 360Ver. 23. His body ſhall not remain all night upon the Tree, but thou ſhalt in any wiſe bury him that day.] This is excellently interpreted by Joſephus, Lib. IV. Archaeol. Verſe 23 Cap. VIII. foreign. Having remained the whole day a Spectacle unto all, he was to be buried at night: for as ſoon as the Sun went down, the Body alſo was taken down. Examples of which we have in the Book of Joſhua, VIII. 29. X. 26, 27. In which he is far more ſincere then their Rabbins, who ſay the Law was ſatiſfied if they hanged up the Body juſt before the ſetting of the Sun, and preſently after took it down again. Which Expoſition ſeems to have been contrived in favour of their Country-men: for only Iſraelites, they confeſs, were to be thus expoſed, not Proſelytes of the Gate, as Mr. Selden obſerves, Lib. II. de Jure Nat. & Gent. &c. Cap. XII▪

For he that is hanged is accurſed of God.] The Jews interpret this Clauſe, as if the meaning were, he was hanged, becauſe he blaſphemed God. So Onkelos himſelf, and the Samaritan Verſions, with thoſe of the Spaniſh and Mauritanian Jews, as Selden obſerves, L. II. de Synedr. Cap. XIII. N. IV. And Hottinger in his Smegma Orientale, p. 96, 97. But though this be a common Opinion among the Hebrew Doctors, yet the LXX. have taken the ſenſe right, foreign, Curſed of God is every one that is hanged on a Tree. And ſo S. Paul III Galat. with very little difference. For they obſerved, what thoſe Doctors did not, that Moſes doth not here give a reaſon, why the Man was hanged up, but why he was to be taken down from the Gallows. Now what Conſequence is there in this, Let him be taken down and buried, becauſe he curſed God? Every p. 361one ſees, that (though the word curſed ſhould be taken in an active ſenſe) this is not a right interpretation of theſe words. For though it had been good ſenſe to have ſaid, Let him be hanged, becauſe he curſed God; yet not let him be taken down for that reaſon. Now ſuch Perſons are ſaid here to be accurſed of God, not becauſe they were hanged up, but becauſe of their Sin which deſerved they ſhould be thus expoſed. So S. Hierom upon III Galatians, Non ideo maledictus quia pendet, ſed ideo pendet quia maledictus. He was not accurſed becauſe he was hanged, but he was therefore hanged, becauſe he was accurſed: Hanging up being a Token that the Man had committed a horrid Crime, whereby he had incurred the high diſpleaſure of Almighty God. So that every one who ſaw him hang on that faſhion, were to think with themſelves, This Man was under the Curſe of God, becauſe of his Sin. And unleſs he had undergone this Curſe, he could not have been buried, and put into the Condition of other Men. But when he had undergone it for his Sin, then it had been a ſin in the People not to have taken him down, or prolonged his Suſpenſion longer than God impoſed this Curſe upon him. And the Land had been defiled, if after this Suffering which God had appointed, they had not buried him. To this purpoſe Abarbinel, who refutes ſeveral other accounts of this matter, particularly that of Sol. Jarchi; who thinks he was not to hang longer than till the Evening, becauſe it would have been a diſhonour to the Soveraign of the World, after whoſe Image Man was made. This is followed by many, and even by Grotius himſelf, who gives no other reaſon of it in his Book de Jure Belli & Pacis, Lib. II. Cap. XIX. Sect. IV. But this is a reaſon, as p. 362Abarbinel notes, why he ſhould not have been hanged up at all. It may be alſo uſefully noted further, that they ſay in the Tract called Sanhedrim, that not only the Malefactor, but all the Inſtruments of Puniſhment were to be buried at the going down of the Sun. Even the Tree it ſelf, upon which he was hanged, was to be buried, that no memory of ſo foul a thing might be left in the World; nor any might ſay, Behold, this was the Tree upon which ſuch a one was hang'd.

That the Land be not defiled which the LORD thy God giveth thee.] By the ſtench of the Body, after it putrified, as the ſame Abarbinel expounds it: who obſerves, that the dead Body of no Creature corrupts and ſtinks ſooner than that of a Man; which is exceeding offenſive to the living. For which cauſe, ſaith he, the Book Siphre determines not only that all Malefactors ſhould be buried, as ſoon as the Law here orders (that they might not imitate the manners of the Egyptians and Philiſtims, and ſuch like People, who let Bodies rot in the Air after they were hanged up) but that every Man ſhould bury his dead, the ſame day they died, or be deemed to have tranſgreſſed a Negative Precept. Which may paſs for a very good natural reaſon of it: but there is ſomething more in it, reſpecting a Legal Pollution, under which their whole Country lay, as long as an accurſed thing hung openly among them; juſt as all that entred into the Tent where a dead Body lay, and all that was in it, were made unclean by it, XIX Numb. 14, 15. Upon which ſcore S. Paul might well apply this Paſſage to Chriſt crucified for us; not only becauſe he bare our ſins, and was put to death, and expoſed to ſuch ſhame as theſe Sinners were, who were accurſed of God; but was alſo taken down in the Evening, in token now p. 363the guilt was removed;Chapter XXII. as the Curſe upon the Man that was hanged, ended at the going down of the Sun; and as the Land of Iſrael was pure and clean, after the dead Body was taken down and buried, with the Tree upon which it was hanged. Joh. Coch hath well explained this, in his Notes upon the Sanhedrim, Cap. VI. Sect. V. whoſe ſenſe in ſhort is this: As our bleſſed Saviour, while he hung upon the Croſs, was made a Curſe, and an Execration; ſo when, according to the Law, he was taken down, and buried, both he ceaſed to be a Curſe, and all they that are his.