Commentary on Exodus, Commentary · Chapter 23

Commentary on Exodus · Commentary · Chapter 23

p. 435CHAP. XXIII.

Verſe 1. THou ſhalt not raiſe a falſe report.] The Hebrews think this Law peculiarly concerns Judges; who are not to ſuffer their Minds to be prepoſſeſſed with falſe Reports. For that word we tranſlate raiſe, ſignifies alſo to take up; i.e. to entertain, or receive (as we have it in the Margin) and give credit to Reports. And conſequently they were not to p. 436hear any Man's Cauſe, unleſs his Adverſary was preſent; but to look upon all as falſe, which was ſaid by one Party alone, without the other. So R. Levi of Barcelona. Yet he confeſſes, that the Law hath reſpect alſo to him, who brings an Action againſt another; that he ſhould not lay his Cauſe before the Judge, in the abſence of him that is to anſwer, though the Judge would hear it. And he alſo adds, that the Rabbins take it to comprehend ſuch, as report a Calumny, or that receive it; or give a falſe Teſtimony. And Philo thinks the Greeks from thence took that Law, foreign, not to make a proof of a hearſay; which was in the Attick Law, as Mr. Selden obſerves, L. II. de Synedr. c. 13. p. 576. And it ſeems to me moſt rational, to take this to relate to Witneſſes, (as the following Clauſe doth) that they ſhould neither Calumniate any Man, nor bring ungrounded Reports to carry a Cauſe.

Put not thy hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witneſs.] This the Hebrews likewiſe think concerns Judges; who are required not to receive the Teſtimony of a wicked Man, nor do any thing upon his ſuggeſtions. And here they mention Ten ſorts of Perſons, whoſe Teſtimony was not to be received. But the laſt words in this Clauſe, inclines one to think, it rather concerns Witneſſes than Judges. For to put ones hand with another, is to help and aſſiſt him; to be confederate with him: And therefore to put the hand with the wicked, is to help a wicked Man in a bad Cauſe, viz. (as the laſt words interpret it) by giving a falſe Teſtimony in his behalf. Of the Hebrew word Chamas, which we rightly render unrighteous, or unjuſt, Bochartus hath a long Diſcourſe in his Hierozoic. P. II. L. II. c. 15.

Ver. 2. Thou ſhalt not follow a multitude to do evil.] p. 437This may well be thought to reſpect Judges, as the foregoing Verſe doth Witneſſes. And the moſt obvious meaning is, That no Judge ſhould condemn an innocent Man, though the whole Court, beſides himſelf, gave Sentence againſt him. But many of the Jews ſay, that they ſhould not Condemn one, whom they thought guilty, if he was caſt only by one Voice: If there were a majority of two, then indeed, they ſay, a Judge was bound to joyn with them. See Mr. Selden, L. II. de Synedr. c. 5. p. 229. and c. 6. p. 259. where he ſhows they take the word evil in this place, to ſignifie the evil of puniſhment. See alſo cap. 12. p. 525. But this ſeems to be only a Subtilty. Their Opinion is more reaſonable, who by the Hebrew word Rabbim here underſtand, not a multitude, but great and potent Men: to whom a Judge was not to have reſpect in Judgment, no more than to a poor Man; who (v. 3.) is oppoſed to theſe Men of might. But what follows I think will better interpret this.

Neither ſhalt thou ſpeak in a cauſe, to decline after many to wreſt Judgment.] This is interpreted by Maimonides to ſignifie, That no Judge was to give his Sentence in a Capital Cauſe, either for Abſolving, or Condemning, according to the Opinion of the reſt; if he were not able to deliver any Opinion of his own. See Mr. Selden, L. II. de Synedr. c. 13. p. 529. Other fancies they have about the word Rabbim in this Clauſe of the Verſe, which he notes there, c. 9. p. 421. But the ſenſe I think will be moſt plain and eaſie, if we take Rabbim in the firſt part of the Verſe (as we do) for the Multitude; and in this latter part for the great and potent or ruling Men, who are generally attended by a Multitude. And expound the whole thus; That the Judges were not to be deterred, either by the People, or by mighty Men, to pronounce a falſe Judgment. This agrees with what follows, and with XIX Lev. 15.

p. 438Ver. 3. Neither ſhalt thou countenance a poor man in his cauſe.] So as to give a wrong Judgment in his favour. The word we tranſlate countenance (in Hebrew tehedar) ſignifies to adorn, or honour: and ſo we tranſlate it XIX Lev. 15. And ſo it may be tranſlated here; Thou ſhalt not adorn, or ſet off a poor Man's Cauſe, with fine words and plauſible colours, to make it look better than it is. See I Deut. 16, 17.

Ver. 4. If thou meet thy enemies ox or aſs going aſtray, thou ſhalt ſurely bring it back to him again.] The Samaritan Copy adds (after ox or aſs) or any other beast. And Moſes himſelf extends it to all ſorts of Goods that are loſt, XXII Deut. 3. But the Jewiſh Doctors (as R. Levi of Barcelona confeſſes) reſtrain the word Enemy, to an Iſraelite: as if they thought not themſelves bound to any ſuch kindneſs for one of another Nation. This perhaps they gathered from XXII Deut. 1, 2. where inſtead of the word Enemy, we find Moſes uſes the word Brother. But this ſhould have taught them, to look upon all Men, even Enemies, as Brethren; having the ſame common Original, and bearing the Image of the ſame God.

This Verſe may be connected with the foregoing in this manner; If you be inclined to ſhow pity, do it in ſuch Inſtances as theſe, but not in Judgment.

Ver. 5. If thou ſee the aſs of him that hateth thee, lying under his burden.] His Aſs is only mention'd, but Oxen and other ſuch like Creatures are intended; as appears from the former Verſe. Yet this likewiſe the hard-hearted Jewiſh Doctors, would have belong only to an Iſraelite who hated them. And they put ſeveral Caſes upon this Law: As, what if the Beaſt be a Gentile's, and the Burden belong to an Iſraelite, or on the contrary; what is to be done? And if they meet with two Beaſts belonging both to Iſraelites, and labouring under Burdens; but one the Beaſt of a Friend, the other p. 439of an Enemy; which is he bound to help? In which they reſolve, that he is by this Precept to have regard to the Beaſt of his Enemy: that he may ſubdue his evil Affection, which would perſwade him otherways. How far alſo the word ſee extends, is a queſtion among them: that is, how far they were to go out of their way to lend their help: with ſuch like Niceties, which I ſhall not trouble the Reader withal.

And wouldſt forbear to help him, thou ſhalt ſurely help with him.] The ſenſe is clear enough: but the conſtruction of the words, in the Hebrew, is not ſo plain. For the word Azab, which we tranſlate help, ſignifies to leave or forſake: and ſo the Chaldee here interprets it; Thou ſhalt in that moment diſmiſs or forſake thy enmity to him, and go and help him. And L. de Dieu to the ſame purpoſe; Rather than leave him under his Burden, quit thine enmity to him, &c. A great many other ways there are to make out the Grammar of the Hebrew words; but Bochart thinks all in vain: unleſs inſtead of the Particle lo with a Vau, we admit it with an Aleph: and then they run clearly in the Hebrew in this manner, Thou ſhalt ceaſe (or abſtain) from leaving him, (i. e. not follow thy own ill inclinations to paſs by him) leaving thou ſhalt not leave him, (i. e. by no means leave him) viz. to raiſe up his Beaſt himſelf, as if it nothing concerned thee. Or, Thou ſhalt abſtain from leaving it, (i. e. the Aſs, labouring under his Burden) I ſay thou ſhalt by no means leave it. The ſame thing is repeated, becauſe it is a Command ſo oppoſite to Mens depraved Affections; and therefore was fit to be inculcated, that they might not lightly paſs it over. See Hierozoio. P. I. L. II. c. 40. p. 399.

Ver. 6. Thou ſhalt not wreſt the judgment of thy poor in his cauſe.] As they might not favour a Man becauſe he was poor, (v. 3.) ſo much leſs might they wrong p. 440him; or not do him right, becauſe he wanted Money to proſecute it. There ſeems to be an Emphaſis (as Conradus Pellicanus obſerves) in the word thy poor: importing that they had ſuch a relation to them, that they ought to be as much concerned for them, as any other Member of their Body.

But the Jews fancying this to be ſufficiently included in the Precept before mentioned, v. 3. underſtand here by the poor, a bad man: who is pauper praeceptorum, non facultatum, one that wants Vertue, not Money. To whom a Judge might not ſay, He was a wicked Fellow, and Condemn him without any further Examination of his Cauſe: for it belongs to God (ſaith the ſame R. Levi) to execute Judgment upon the ungodly, and not to the Judges.

Ver. 7. Keep thee far from a falſe matter.] i. e. From a falſe Judgment (for he ſeems to ſpeak to the Judges) and neither admit that which is falſe, nor pronounce it.

And the innocent and righteous ſlay thou not.] That is, ſaith the before-named R. Levi Barzel, beware carefully, leſt thou takeſt away the Life of him, that may be innocent of that, whereof he is accuſed. And therefore, he ſaith, the Judges were to Condemn no Man, but by the Teſtimony of two Eye-witneſſes. And they make this Precept as much as, Thou ſhalt not judge out of Conjectures. Nay, if there were two Witneſſes, that did not ſpeak to the ſame matter, he was not to be Condemned. As if one Witneſs ſaid, he ſaw ſuch a Man break the Sabbath, and another ſaid he ſaw him commit Idolatry; Judgment was not to be given againſt him, upon this Teſtimony; becauſe Moſes ſaith, Slay not the Innocent. Another Example of which is ſtill more cloſe, which is mentioned in the T. Sanhedrim: If one ſaid he ſaw him Worſhip the Moon; and another p. 441that he ſaw him Worſhip the Sun; the Man was not to be Condemned who was thus accuſed, becauſe the Witneſſes did not ſpeak to the ſame ſort of Idolatry. See Selden L. II. de Synedr. c. 13. p. 567. By the ſame reaſon they were not to acquit him, who was plainly Convicted of ſuch Impieties.

For I will not juſtifie the wicked.] i. e. Such an unjuſt Judge.

Ver. 8. And thou ſhalt take no gift.] No, not to Abſolve the Innocent; or to Condemn the Guilty: as it is interpreted in Siphri.

For a gift blindeth the wiſe.] Such Preſents made to a Judge, are apt to caſt a Miſt (as we ſpeak) before his Eyes, i.e. to corrupt his Underſtanding; though he be otherwiſe perſpicacious enough, to diſcern between Truth and Falſhood, Good and Evil, 1 Sam. VIII. 3. The word which we tranſlate wiſe, is in the Hebrew Piccehim, open or ſeeing: concerning which conſult Bochart. L. I. Canaan, c. 16. p. 470.

And perverteth the words of the righteous.] By words ſeems to be meant the Sentence of thoſe, who might otherwiſe have been inclined to be righteous and upright Judges.

The Hebrew Lawyers ſay, That not only Pecuniary Gifts are here forbidden, but ſuch words alſo (I ſuppoſe they mean Promiſes of Reward) as may win the Affection: and that he who gave the Preſent was guilty, as well as he that received it. See Selden de Synedriis, L. II. c. 13. p. 570. But eſpecially Joh. Coch. ad excerpt. Gem. Sanhedrim. cap. 1. ſect. 10. Annot. 4. where, among other things, he gives this ingenious derivation of the Hebrew word Schochad, which we tranſlate gift (out of the Treatiſe called Chetuboth) where it is ſaid to be as much as Schechu chad, that is, whereby he is one. For the Party who receives the Gift hath his Mind ſo drawn p. 442to the giver, that he becomes one and the ſame with him. And no Man is fit to be Judge in his own Cauſe. Plato thought this ſo neceſſary a Law, that he expreſly enacts (L. XII. de Legibus, p. 955.) that all Men who ſerved their Country in any Office, ſhould foreign, perform their Duty without Gifts. foreign. He that offended againſt this Law, was to ſuffer death. Which was the Law of the XII. Tables among the ancient Romans. Judex qui ob rem dicendam, pecuniam accepiſſe convictus est, capite punitor. A Judge that is convicted to have received Money, for giving his Sentence, let him loſe his Head.

Ver. 9. Alſo thou ſhalt not oppreſs a ſtranger.] This was ſaid before XXII. 21. but then it was a Precept to all Iſrael; which is here applied peculiarly to Judges. Whom he would have to deal equally with Strangers, and to make no difference between them and Iſraelites, remembring what they themſelves were not long ago; and that they found by experience it was Affliction enough to be Strangers. That's the meaning of what follows in this Verſe.

For ye know the heart of a ſtranger, ſeeing ye were ſtrangers in the land of Egypt.] Ye have felt what a diſtreſſed Condition that is; how friendleſs and helpleſs. See XXIV Deut. 17, 18. XXVII. 19.

Ver. 10. And ſix years thou ſhalt ſow thy land.] There was the ſame reaſon for dreſſing their Trees.

And gather in the fruit thereof.] Together with the Fruit of their Trees.

Ver. 11. But the ſeventh year thou ſhalt let it rest, and lie ſtill.] Neither ſow, nor reap, nor prune their Trees, nor gather the Fruit.

The poor of thy people may eat.] And the Levites, and themſelves alſo; who might take their ſhare, not to lay p. 443up, but for preſent uſe: though not as Proprietors, but in common with the reſt of the Country. Whence it was that Alexander the Great, allowing them to live by their ancient Laws, among other things granted foreign, every ſeventh year ſhould be tribute free; Joſephus L. XI. Archaeol. c. 8. For ſince they received nothing, it ſeemed reaſonable to him they ſhould pay nothing.

And what they leave, the beaſts of the field ſhall eat.] This ſignifies, God ſent ſuch vaſt Plenty, when they obſerved his Laws, that ſo much ſprung up of it ſelf, as would more than ſatisfie Men, and afford Food to the Beaſts.

In like manner thou ſhalt deal with thy vineyard and olive-yard.] Under theſe two are comprehended all other ſort of Fruit-trees, as the Hebrews themſelves acknowledge, who give ſeveral Reaſons for this Law. Which was ordained, ſaith Maimonides (P. III. More Nevoch. c. 39.) in compaſſion to all Men in general, that they might have ſome time of breathing and refreſhment. But principally, ſay others of them, to be a memorial of the Creation of the World, and the production of all things by the Power of God, in ſix days, and his reſting on the ſeventh…. Their expoſing all things in common which that year produced, as well as letting the Land reſt, Put them in remembrance (ſaith R. Levi of Barcelona, Praecept. LXIX.) that God was their Preſerver, as well as Creator: the Earth bringing forth Fruit every year, not by its own proper ſtrength, or of its own accord, but becauſe it hath a Lord upon whom it depends; who, when he ſpeaks, hath a right to diſpoſe of its Fruits to a publick uſe. This Command alſo bred in them a truſt in God and in his Providence; and was a Curb to Covetouſneſs, and taught them Mercy alſo and Liberality. Philo adds, that this was a Politick contrivance p. 444to let the Earth reſt: partly that it might have time to recruit its ſtrength, that it might bring forth more plentifully; and partly that the People might grow ſtronger and more apt for all Employments, by ſo long forbearance of their Labours. This Euſebius thought worthy to tranſcribe out of him at large in his Praepar. Evang. L. VIII. c. 7.

But this Precept about the Year of Reſt, is more fully delivered in XXV Lev. v. 2, 3. where ſee what I have noted.

Ver. 12. Six days thou ſhalt do thy work, and on the ſeventh day thou ſhalt rest.] He would not have them imagine, they ſhould reſt leſs on the Sabbath this Year, than in others, becauſe this whole Year was a kind of Sabbath; but keep it with the uſual ſtrictneſs. Which is the reaſon perhaps of the repetition of this Precept in this place.

That thine ox and thine aſs may rest, &c.] This ſhows that one great end of inſtituting the Obſervation of this Day at Marah (XV. 25. XVI. 23.) was that Men and Beaſts might reſt, in remembrance of the reſt that God had given them from their Burdens in Egypt. See XXXV. 2. R. Levi Barzelonita obſerves that this Precept is repeated in the Law XII. times.

Ver. 13. In all things that I have ſaid unto you, be circumſpect.] Be cautious leſt you offend in any of the fore-named Particulars; but eſpecially in that which follows.

And make no mention of the names of other gods.] Such Cautions as theſe, to prevent Idolatry, are repeated no leſs than XLIV. times in the Law, as the ſame R. Levi obſerves. And the meaning of this is, either that they ſhould not Swear by other Gods, or make any Vows in their Names; nor conſequently enter into Society with Gentiles (as the beſt of the Hebrew Writers underſtand p. 445it, and as the Vulgar Latin takes it) or that they ſhould not ſo much as ſimply name the Gods of other Nations. They who are of this laſt Opinion, differ in their Explication of it. For ſome of them ſay, only the calling them by ſuch Names as attribute ſome Divinity to them, is the thing forbidden; not calling them by their proper Names of Moloch or Bell, or the like: and thus Tertullian underſtood it. But there are others, who think it unlawful ſo much as to uſe any of their Names in common Diſcourſe; though there be no mention of their Divinity. For Chemoſh and Milcom, and ſuch like Names, they ſay, are not mentioned in Scripture, but with deteſtation and reproach (as the Abomination of the Moabites or Ammonites) and therefore they think it unlawful to ſay, I invite thee on the Feast-day of ſuch an Idol of the Gentiles, or the like. Yet ſome of thoſe who imagine the ſimple uſe of their Names to be forbidden, except the Names of thoſe mention'd in Scripture. So Maimonides; The Names of the Idols of the Gentiles which are mentioned in Scripture, it is lawful for us to Name; as Peor, Bell, Nebo, Baal, &c. See Selden L. II. de Jure N. & G. c. 13. p. 269, &c. They ſay, this Precept binds Men and Women, in all places, and at all times; and the Puniſhment for its violation, was beating.

Neither ſhall it be heard out of thy mouth.] i. e. With any reſpect or reverence to them: Otherwiſe, the ſimple pronunciation of the Name was not unlawful.

The Sabbath being inſtituted, partly to preſerve them from Idolatry, ſome think that the reaſon why this Precept is joyned to that.

Ver. 14. Three times ſhalt thou keep a feast unto me in the year.] Viz. At the Paſſover, Pentecoſt, and when they gathered all the Fruits of the Earth, and dwelt in Tabernacles; as it follows in the next Verſes. The p. 446first of which was plainly inſtituted, in memory of their coming out of Egypt. The ſecond, ſome think, was in memory of their coming into Canaan (rather, of the overthrow of Pharaoh in the Sea, and giving the Law on Mount Sinai). And the third in memory of their dwelling ſo long in the Wilderneſs, and of the wonders which God did there; as Maimonides obſerves in his More Nevoch. P. III. c. 43. At theſe three great Solemnities three things were to be done: First, they were to make a Feaſt: Secondly, to appear before God in the Court of the Temple: and thirdly to rejoyce. Beſides which, they were to bring certain Offerings unto God.

Ver. 15. Thou ſhalt keep the feast of unleavened bread, &c.] See XII. 17, &c. XIII. 6, 7.

In the time appointed of the month Abib.] Or in the Month of new ears of Corn. See XIII. 4. For many Learned men (particularly Huetius) think this word Abib not to be a proper Name, but an Apellative (as they ſpeak) the proper Names of Months being not yet uſed among the Hebrews: who ſpake of them before the Captivity of Babylon, according to the order and number wherein they ſtood, viz. first, ſecond, third, &c. Month. See Demonſtr. Evang. Prop. IV. Cap. de Libro Joſhuae n. 2.

And none ſhall appear before me empty.] The phraſe in the Hebrew (which we tranſlate appear before me) is very remarkable, viz. None ſhall ſee my face: Which doth not ſignifie that they beheld the External Symbol of his Preſence; but that they looked directly that way where it was; and that they ſhould not be accepted by God, unleſs they brought ſome Preſent with them. For none approached to an Earthly Majeſty in thoſe Countries without a Preſent, (as we read in the Sacred Story) which was a Token of Love and Affection, as well as of Reſpect and Honour. And therefore this Precept p. 447did not belong only to this Feaſt, but to all the three mentioned in the Verſe before, as appears from XVI Deut. 16. And accordingly there were ſpecial Oblations ordained by the Law it ſelf, which were then to be made. At the Paſſover, when their Harveſt began, they were to bring a Sheaf of the First-fruits of their Harvest, and might not eat any Corn till this was done, XXIII Lev. 10, 14. At the next Feaſt they brought two wave Loaves, for a ſecond Firſt-fruit, of their Wheat-harveſt, XXIII Lev. 17. and at the Feaſt of Tabernacles they offered the Firſt-fruits of Wine and Oyl. See Mr. Mede, Diſcourſe XLVI. p. 355. Beſides all which, good Men brought Free-will Offerings; which are often mentioned in the Law.

Ver. 16. And the feast of harvest.] Called alſo the Feast of Weeks, XXXIV. 22. becauſe it was Seven Weeks after the Paſſover. Mr. Mede in the place now named, thinks this was called the Harvest Feast; becauſe as Harveſt began at the Paſſover, ſo it ended at Pentecost. And thus Bochart alſo: At the Paſſover they first put the Sickle into the Corn; and about Pentecost Harvest was finiſhed, and all brought into the Barn. Hierozoic. P. I. L. III. c. 13. But this ſeems not to be true; for now only the Firſt-fruits were brought: which were not offered in the end, but in the beginning of Harveſt. And ſo it follows here;

The first-fruits of thy labours which thou hast ſown in the field.] Which is not to be underſtood of all their Labours, but of thoſe Fruits which were firſt ſown in the Ground. It being therefore called the Harvest Feast, becauſe the principal part of Harveſt, viz. the Wheat Harvest (as it is expreſly called XXXIV. 22.) then began: which ſort of Grain was ſown before Barley, as that was before Flax; and therefore here called the firſt-fruits of their labours ſown in the field.

p. 448And the feast of in-gathering.] Called alſo the Feast of Tabernacles, XXIII Lev. 34.

Which is in the end of the year.] By this it appears that their Year anciently began in the Month Tiſri, about Autumn: at which time the World it ſelf began, as Scaliger, and a great many other Learned Men aſſert, with ſuch Reaſons as are not eaſie to be confuted.

When thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field.] At this Feaſt their Harveſt was compleated; the Fruits of the Earth being not only ripe, but gathered into their Barns. Which was the foundation of the great rejoying we read of at this time; becauſe God now gave them ſome reſt, and reſpiration, as Maimonides ſpeaks, from their Imployments, More Nevoch. P. III. c. 43. where he obſerves that Ariſtotle himſelf, in his VIII^th Book of Ethicks, mentions ſuch a Feaſt among the Gentiles, and upon the ſame ground, in theſe words, as he recites them. Anciently Sacrifices, and publick Aſſemblies for the ſake of Sacrifices, were in the gathering of the Fruits and Products of the Earth: as if the Sacrifices were offered for their reſpiration. The Iſraelites dwelt in Booths at this Feaſt for another reaſon: and their dwelling in Booths was now moſt tollerable (as the ſame Maimonides there notes) becauſe the Weather was moderate at that time; when they were not wont to be troubled either with heat, or with rain.

Ver. 17. Three times in the year all thy males ſhall appear before the LORD God.] This Verſe more fully explains what was ſaid v. 14. by ſhowing where they ſhould keep theſe Feaſts, viz. before the LORD; i. e. in the place where his moſt glorious Majeſty ſhould ſettle; which was firſt in the Tabernacle, and afterward in the Temple: And then who ſhould appear before him there, viz. all the Males. Others were not bound to it; though ſome Religious People carried p. 449their whole Families with them, as appears by Elkanah, 1 Sam. 1. This Command is repeated XXXIV. 23. and the true reaſon of it ſeems to have been this: That while they dwelt in the Wilderneſs they are no Meat at all at their private Tables, but what had been firſt offered up to God at the Tabernacle, XVII Lev. 4, 5. Which Precept was diſpenſed withal when they came into the Land of Canaan, and dwelt, many of them, ſo remote from the Tabernacle, that they could not come up every day to Sacrifice, XII Deut. 21. Inſtead of which therefore there were theſe three conſtant and ſet times appointed in the year; in which every Male was bound to come up, and ſee God at his Tabernacle, and there ate and drink before him. Whence the Sacrifice which was then offered, was wont to be called a Sacrifice of Seeing, as Dr. Cudworth hath obſerved in his little Treatiſe of the Right Notion of the Lord's Supper. But, as the Doctors interpret it, they were not bound to bring their Males to appear before the LORD, till they were able to walk, in their Father's hand, up from Jeruſalem to the Temple.

Ver. 18. Thou ſhalt not offer the blood of my Sacrifice.] That is, the Paſchal Lamb, as Jonathan in expreſs words interprets; and it appears from XXXIV. 25. That the Paſſover was a Sacrifice, I obſerved before XII. 27.

With leavened bread, &c.] There being three great Solemn Feaſts appointed in the foregoing Verſes, (v. 14, 17.) in this and the following he preſcribes ſome Rules how they were to be obſerved. And here, in this Verſe, ordains two things relating to the Paſſover, that it ſhould not be eaten with leavened bread; nor any of the Fat of it remain until the morning. Both which were ordained before (XII. 10, 14, 15.) in its firſt Inſtitution: and here repeated, upon its being mention'd again with the other Feaſts.

p. 450It may be ſit for me here to obſerve, that to move the Iſraelites to keep this Paſſover with the greater care, God calls it both here, and in XXXIV. 25. after a peculiar manner, my ſacrifice, and my Feast (as the latter part of this Verſe may be tranſlated) being a Feaſt of a moſt Solemn Nature; and a Sacrifice then offered of ſingular uſe. For which reaſon he requires them, as not to offer it with Leaven (which was at that time forbidden for ſpecial reaſons) ſo not to reſerve the Fat of the Offering till the next day. For that was not for the honour of the Sacrifice: Fleſh being apt quickly to corrupt in thoſe hot Countries, and to offend the Palate, or the Noſe, which had been againſt the dignity of the Sacrifice. Which is the reaſon the Jews give, why the Fleſh of the Peace offerings was not to be kept till the third day, XIX Lev. 6. It was to preſerve the magnificence of the Sacrifice; things kept ſo long being apt to ſtink. Whence foreign, yeſterdays meats, in Hippocrates, is the ſame with foreign, corrupt: and Galen expounds foreign by the word foreign, to tend to corruption; as Pet. Caſtellanus obſerves L. I. de Eſu Carnium, c. 5. p. 42.

Ver. 19. The first of the first-fruits of thy land, thou ſhalt bring unto the houſe of the LORD thy God.] This Precept hath a reſpect to the next Feaſt, that of Pentecost. And therefore, though there were ſeveral First-fruits, which were all to be offered in their time (which were of ſeven things, Barley, Wheat, Figs, Pomegranates, Olives, Dates, and Grapes) yet here are meant only the two Loaves or Cakes made of their new Wheat, which were to be offered at this Feaſt, (XXIII Lev. 17.) For till this was done, they might not make uſe of their Corn. See more concerning this matter on XXIII Lev. 10. R. Levi of Barcelona, and others, rightly obſerve, that this was brought, as an Acknowledgment p. 451unto God, That he was the Giver of all good things.

Thou ſhalt not ſeethe a Kid in its mothers milk.] This Precept hath a particular reſpect to the third Feaſt, that of the in-gathering of the Fruits of the Earth, in the end of the Year, mentioned v. 16. And the Jews commonly take it to be a Prohibition againſt eating a Kid ſo boil'd, or taſting of the Milk: taking it to be a Precept againſt Cruelty. But here is not a word about eating, either of the Kid or the Milk; but only about boiling. The famous Bochartus mentions three other Interpretations, but confutes them all: and taking the words ſimply, as we tranſlate them, ſuppoſes there was ſome ſuch Cuſtom as this among the Gentiles, which Moſes would not have them imitate. And ſo doth Maimonides in his More Nevoch. P. III. c. 48. where he takes this indeed for a Command not to eat Fleſh with ſuch Milk: but ſaith, that, beſides it was very groſs Nouriſhment, &c. it ſeems to him it was prohibited, becauſe it ſmelt of Idolatry; the Gentiles doing ſo in their Worſhip, upon ſome of their Feaſts. He could not find indeed, as he confeſſes, any ſuch Rite in the Books of the Zabii: but yet he was confirm'd in this Opinion, by the Law conſtantly mentioning this, only when it ſpeaks of their Feaſts; for there are other places where we meet with it, XXXIV. 26. XVI Deut. 21. in both which he ſpeaks, as he doth here, of their three great Feaſts. At the laſt of which, Abarbinel expreſly affirms, the ancient Idolaters were wont, when they gathered the Fruits of the Earth, to ſeeth a Kid in its Mothers Milk, that their Gods might be the more propitious to them. But as he names no Author for his opinion, ſo he doth not explain the manner of it. Our moſt Learned Dr. Cudworth was the firſt Perſon who happily found this in a Karaite writer; who ſaith, All the Trees and p. 452Fields and Gardens were ſprinkled with this broth (of a Kid ſeethed in its Mother's Milk) after a magical manner, to make them more fruitful in the following year. This Bochart alſo takes to be the trueſt Interpretation, and quotes the fore-named Doctor for it, (not having ſeen the Author himſelf.) P. I. Hierozoic. L. II. c. 52. See Right Notion of the Lord's Supper, p. 25.

To which may be added, that a Goat was anciently uſed in Magical Rites; and that Daemons were wont to appear in that form. But it muſt be noted withal, that in every one of the three places, where this Precept is mentioned, the LXX. tranſlate the word we render Kid, by foreign a Lamb; though every where elſe they tranſlate it foreign. And I make no queſtion, but we are to underſtand here either a Lamb, or Kid boil'd in its Mother's Milk; and the Hebrews ſay, any other clean Creature. Concerning which I ſhall add no more, but that nothing could be more contrary to Nature (and therefore agreeable to the Inſtitutions of the Devil) than to boil any young Creature, in the Milk of its Mother, from whom it came. Which they firſt offered to their Gods, and then eat ſome of it themſelves, and the reſt they ſprinkled, as before-ſaid. Some Reliques of which Cuſtom we find even among the Romans themſelves, who propitiated Sylvanus, with offering him Milk, and Faunus with a Kid: and every one knows both theſe were uſed in the Worſhip of Bacchus.

Ver. 20. Behold, I ſend an Angel before thee.] In the 23th Verſe he calls him mine Angel: by which the Jews commonly underſtand Michael; there being but a very little difference between Malachi (which ſignifies my Angel) and Michael. But a great many Chriſtians think this was not a created Angel, but an increated, viz. the Eternal Son of God; who they ſuppoſed appeared to Moſes in the Buſh, and conducted them all p. 453along to Mount Sinai. Which I am affraid to aſſert, becauſe it ſeems dangerous to me (as I obſerved upon XLVIII Gen. 16.) to call him ſimply an Angel; i. e. a Miniſter, or Meſſenger, without any ſuch addition as that in III Malach. 3. The Angel of the Covenant. For ſo he was at his Incarnation of which he there ſpeaks: before which I dare not aſcribe to him ſuch Miniſterial Works as theſe, of bringing the Children of Iſrael out of Egypt, and going before them to lead them the way to Canaan. This was properly the Work of an Angel, to whom Moſes attributes it, when he orders his Ambaſſadors to ſay to the King of Edom, XX Numb. 16. When we cried unto the LORD he heard our voice, and ſent an Angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt, &c. But this Angel was a prime Miniſter in the heavenly Hoſt, by whom he was accompanied. So he ſaith to Joſhua, V. 14. I am come as Captain of the Host of the LORD: which is the Title of Michael in X Daniel 13, 21. But though we thus underſtand it here, this doth not exclude the Preſence of God himſelf, but rather proves it: For this Angel and his Hoſt, was ſent from the SCHECHINAH, who was in the Pillar of Cloud; which was moved by this Angel, and conducted them through the Wilderneſs. See III. 2.

To keep thee in the way, &c.] To preſerve and protect them, as well as to direct and guide them, till they came to Canaan; which was the place God had prepared for them.

Ver. 21. Beware of him.] Or, obſerve him.

Obey his voice.] Becauſe he did but report what God himſelf commanded; who was there preſent with them, as long as they obeyed him.

Provoke him not.] By any diſobedience.

For he will not pardon your tranſgreſſions.] But puniſh you, when you contumaciouſly offend me.

p. 454For my Name is in him.] He acts by my Authority and Power, and ſuſtains my Perſon, who am preſent where he is. For the Name of God is ſaid to be there, where he is preſent after a ſingular and extraordinary manner, 1 Kings VIII. 16. 1 Chron. VI. 5, 6. Maimonides expounds it, My word is in him; i. e. ſaith he, God's will and pleaſure was declared by the Angel, P. I. More Nevoch. c. 64. In which he ſeems to follow the Chaldee, who tranſlates it, for his Word is in my Name; i. e. what he ſpeaks is by my Authority.

Ver. 22. But if thou ſhalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I ſpeak.] By this it appears that the words of the Angel, were the words of God; who ſpake by him: and both are to be underſtood to be preſent. See XXII Gen. 11, 15.

Then I will be an enemy unto thine Enemies, &c.] God and the Angel ſeem to me to be ſo diſtinguiſhed, in this Verſe, that we ſhould not look upon the Angel as God, but as his Miniſter.

Ver. 23. For my Angel ſhall go before thee.] The word Malachi (my Angel) conſiſting of the very ſame Letters with Michael, the Author of Baal Hatturim takes it, as if he had ſaid, Michael my proper or peculiar Angel, &c.

And bring thee unto the Amorites.] Who were the principal People in the Land of Canaan; and had made themſelves Maſters of the firſt Country, which Joſhua conquered. See X Gen. 16.

And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, &c.] Concerning theſe, and the other People here mentioned, ſee X Gen. 16, 17. XV. 19, &c. The Reader cannot but obſerve that here are only VI. Nations mentioned, whereas there were VII. in all, whom God delivered up into their hands, III Joſh. 10. yet in another place, where he commands them all to be utterly deſtroyed, Moſes p. 455mentions but VI. as he doth here XX Dent. 17. For, as ſome have conjectured, the Gergaſites, who are here omitted, had been ſubdued by the Amorites, and were mixed with them; who were the moſt powerful of all the VII. Nations, and had ſpread themſelves into many parts of the Country; as appears from XIV Gen. 13. XIII Numb. 29. 1 Deut. 7, 19, 44.

Ver. 24. Thou ſhalt not bow down to their gods, nor ſerve them.] This is a Caution againſt the Idolatry of the People of Canaan: into whoſe Country, when he had brought them, he charges them to be ſo far from doing any honour to their Gods, either outwardly by bowing down to them, or inwardly, by ſerving them; i. e. as ſome of the Hebrews interpret it, praying to them, or giving them thanks, &c. (Selden L. III. de Jure N. & G. c. 3.) that he commands them to break them down, and utterly deſtroy them.

Nor do after their works.] Theſe words are ſo large, that they may comprehend all the abominable things which were done by the VII. Nations (mentioned in XVIII Lev. and other places) but here the matter ſeems to reſtrain them to their Worſhip, which he would not have them imitate, by building Temples or Altars in honour of their Gods, or offering ſuch Sacrifices as they did, or obſerving any of their Religious Rites.

But thou ſhalt utterly overthrow them.] This relates to the People of the Land; as it is explained in XX Dont. 17.

And quite break down their Images.] For they were bound intirely to root Idolatry out of the Land of Canaan: though in other Countries, which they might conquer, they did not think themſelves bound to break their Images, as Selden obſerves, L. II. de Jure N. & G. c. 2.

p. 456Ver. 25. And ye ſhall ſerve the LORD your God.] Worſhip him as he directs, and no other being. I obſerved before that none were ſo ſenſleſs, as to imagine a Figure of any thing made of Wood or Stone, &c. to be the Creator of Heaven and Earth: but they worſhipped them (as Maimonides well obſerves) as things intermediate between the moſt High, and them; which is here forbidden, More Nevoch. P. I. c. 36.

And he ſhall bleſs thy bread and thy water, and I will take ſickneſs away from thee.] This is a Promiſe, that he would abundantly ſupply them with Meat and Drink, and alſo give them health; without which they could take no comfort in that plentiful Proviſion.

Ver. 26. There ſhall nothing caſt their young, nor be barren in thy Land.] Abortion and Barrenneſs hinder all Propagation, both in Men and Beaſts; and therefore to the two foregoing Bleſſings, of Plenty and Health, he adds two more in this place; a numerous increaſe of their Cattle and of their own Progeny; together with long Life in the Land which he gave them.

The number of thy days I will fulfil.] Thou ſhalt come to a good old Age, ſuch as healthful Men (who are not cut off by any accident) are wont to attain. Procopius Gazaeus gathers from hence, that there is not a fixed term ſet for every Man's Life. But it rather ſeems to ſuppoſe that there is a Term fixed beyond which Men cannot ordinarily go (to ſome a longer, to ſome a ſhorter, according to their ſeveral Conſtitutions) but may come ſhort of it, by various Accidents, and by their own ill uſage of themſelves, or by the Judgment of God: who alſo, in regard to their Obedience, prolongs the Life of ſome Men, beyond what it would naturally reach.

p. 457Ver. 27. I will ſend my fear before thee.] Strike a terrour into the Inhabitants of Canaan before thou comeſt thither, which ſhall facilitate the Conqueſt of them. See II Joſhua 9, 10. with which agrees the Story that is told in the Gemara Hieroſol. ad Tit. Shebiith (by R. Samuel ben Nachman) that upon Joſhua's denouncing War againſt the VII. Nations, the Gergaſites fled into Africa. Which may be true Perhaps of a part of them, but not of them all; for ſome of them were remaining, it appears from the Book of Joſhua III. 10. XXIV. 11. This is confirmed by another Story in the Talmud of the Africans, ſuing to Alexander the Great to be reſtored to their ancient Poſſeſſions in Canaan (which I mentioned before) and the old Inſcription in Procopius (L. II. de Rebus Vandal.) not far from Tangier, which ſaid the ancient Inhabitants of that Country fled from the face of Joſhua the Son of Nun. Selden L. VI. de Jure N. & G. c. 13. p. 736.

And I will deſtroy all the people to whom thou ſhalt come.] Make them more afraid, when they come to fight; ſo that preſently they ſhall run away, and be eaſily ſlain: For that's the meaning of the laſt words, I will make all thine Enemies turn their backs to thee.

Ver. 28. And I will ſend hornets before thee.] Either before they came thither, or when they marcht againſt the People of that Country. Both ſeem to be true: that many of them were forced to quit their Country, when it was infeſted by the Hornets God ſent in great Swarms among them; and that they who remained, when they came to ſight, were aſſaulted by theſe Hornets, which flew in their faces, and ſo forely prickt their Eyes (as Kimchi and R. Solomon take it) that they could not ſee to ſtrike a ſtroke. Whence thoſe words of Joſhua (who expreſly ſaith this was fulfilled) XXIV. 12. that the Amorites were not driven out by the Sword p. 458and bow of the Iſraelites, but by the Sting of theſe Hornets. Which ſeem alſo to have purſued them when they fled away, and killed them in their lurking holes, where they hid themſelves after the fight, VII Deut. 20.

Which ſhall drive out.] That ſeveral Nations have been driven out of their Country, by contemptible Creatures, ſuch as Frogs, Mice, Snakes, and Gnats, is made good by Bochartus out of ſeveral Authors. And he hath particularly ſhown that by theſe very Creatures, Waſps and Bees, People have been forced to forſake their Country, as Herodotus, Appianus, and Strabo teſtiſie. See his Hierozoic. P. II. L. IV. c. 13. p. 539, &c. where he ſhows the Sting of this ſort of Waſp (called a Hornet) is of all other the moſt pernicious: for it is bigger than the ordinary Waſp, and fiercer; ſeldom ſtinging, as Pliny ſaith, without putting Men into a Fever. Ib. p. 543. And of their flying at Mens Eyes, ſee what he alledges out of good Authors, p. 535.

The Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before thee.] Theſe three Nations it ſeems were principally infeſted by the Hornets; among whom perhaps they were more venomous than elſewhere, (for ſo R. Solomon ſaith, their Poyſon was deadly) though the reſt of the Nations alſo felt their Sting, as we read in XXIV Joſh. 11, 12.

Ver. 29. I will not drive them out from before thee in one year.] All the reaſons of which are not here declared, (as they are elſewhere, III Judg. 1, 2, 3.) becauſe he would not diſhearten them.

Leſt the land become deſolate, &c.] i.e. Leſt ſome part of the Land ſhould be left without Inhabitants, and ſo be poſſeſſed by wild Beaſts; which might have been very dangerous to the Iſraelites in other parts where they were ſetled. For if all the People of the VII. p. 459Nations, had been deſtroyed at once, the Iſraelites were not yet numerous enough to People the whole Country; eſpecially when two Tribes and an half were ſettled on the other ſide of Jordan.

Ver. 30. By little and little I will drive them out before thee.] Diminiſh them by degrees, till they were wholly expelled.

Ʋntil thou be increaſed and inherit the land.] Until the Iſraelites were grown ſo numerous, that they were able to ſtock the whole Country.

Ver. 31. And I will ſet thy bounds, &c.] This was the utmoſt extent of the Country, which he intended to beſtow upon them, (See XV Gen. 18.) but they did not enjoy it till the times of David, 2 Sam. VIII. 1, 3, &c. and Solomon 1 Kings IV. 21, 24. when their Dominion ſeems to have been enlarged not only to Euphrates, but even beyond it, IV Ezra. 16, 20. (See my Paraphraſe upon LXXII Pſal. 8.) Before theſe times, it appears by the Book of Joſhua, and thoſe that follow, that many of the old Inhabitaints remained long after his death.

From the Red-ſea to the ſea of the Philiſtines.] Theſe were the Bounds from Eaſt to Weſt. For though the Red-ſea was towards the South, yet the farthermoſt part of it lay Eaſt. And the Sea of the Philiſtines is that now called the Mediterranean, which was full West.

And from the Deſert.] Of Arabia, called Shur, XV. 22.

Ʋnto the River.] i. e. To Euphrates: Which made the Southern and Northern Bounds of the Country God promiſed to them.

For I will deliver the inhabitants of the Land into thy hand.] This ſeems to relate to that Land which the VII. Nations inhabited: for as far as Euphrates they never drove out all the Inhabitants, but only made them Tributaries.

p. 460And thou ſhalt drive them out before thee.] In ſuch manner as is mentioned in the foregoing Verſes.

Ver. 32. Thou ſhalt make no covenant with them.] i. e. With the People of the VII. Nations. But with other Gentiles they might make Covenants: only not ſuffer them to live in their Land, unleſs they renounced all Idolatry. Nay, Maimonides is of opinion, that ſuch of the VII. Nations, as renounced Idolatry, were to be received into their Friendſhip: For that Law in the XX Deut. which requires them to ſend a Summons to every City before they beſieged it, with an offer of Peace, he extends even unto them; and grounds his opinion upon XI Joſh. 19, 20. As for that Objection which ſeems to lye againſt this, about the Gibeonites, who needed not by craft to have obtained a League with the Iſraelites, if this were true Doctrine: His Anſwer is, That Joſhua had ſent a Summons, with offers of Peace to them, and all the reſt; which they rejected; but would afterward have gladly accepted, and then it was not to be admitted: and therefore they contrived that cunning way to be received into Friendſhip with the Iſraelites. See P. Cunaeus L. II. de Republ. Hebr. c. 20. And Selden L. VI. de Jure N. & G. c. 13. where he quotes a Paſſage out of the Hieruſalem Gemara, which ſays, That Joſhua ſent three Letters to the Gibeonites. But he ſhows withal, that other Jews contradict this; and expreſly declare the VII. Nations were not to be invited to peace. What the terms were on which others were invited. See there cap. 14.

All this conſidered, I am inclined to think Maimonides his opinion too true; which that place in Joſhua very much favours; and ſo doth the ſtory of Rahab, and the practice of Solomon; who only put the Remainders of theſe Nations under Tribute, 1 Kings IX. 20, 21.

p. 461Nor with their gods.] This prohibits them to ſuffer any of the VII. Nations to Exerciſe Idolatry among them, as R. Levi of Barcelona interprets it. Or rather, he forbids them to make any Vows to their Gods, or oblige themſelves to perform any Act of Worſhip to them.

Ver. 32. They ſhall not dwell in thy land.] If a Gentile did renounce his Idolatry, he might dwell among them; and was called a Stranger, Toſhab, dwelling, or inhabiting. But if he did not forſake it, they might not ſell him a Foot of Land, nor let him Hire a Houſe among them: only he might come and ſell Commodities to them, as the ſame R. Levi expounds it. But Maimonides ſays, they might not ſo much as ſuffer them to paſs through their Country, when they had power to hinder it; which others think too rigid an Opinion, as Mr. Selden ſhows, L. II. de Jure N. & G. c. 3. p. 155, &c.

Lest they make thee ſin against me.] All Society with Idolaters was forbidden, leſt they ſhould infect the Iſraelites with their Infidelity, (as the ſame R. Levi ſpeaks) of which there was the greater danger, becauſe they were too prone to follow the Gentile Cuſtoms.

For if thou ſerve their gods.] This Caution being repeated three times in this Chapter, ought to have been the more diligently obſerved by the Jews, and made them more fearful of entring into Familiarity with Idolaters. Who were of various ſorts; for not only every Nation had its proper and peculiar Gods, but every City, Town, Houſe, n ay every Man made themſelves Gods according to their fancy.

It will ſurely be a ſnare unto thee.] Bring great Calamities upon thee, and at laſt be thy ruin; as it is explained XXIII Joſh. 13. II Judg. 3. For inſtead of driving out the VII. Nations, they brought Iſrael under p. 462their yoke, and grievouſly oppreſſed them; as we read in the Story of the Judges; particularly in the IV^th Chapter.