Commentary on Leviticus, Book · Chapter 19
CHAP. XIX.
Ver. 1. Verſe 1 AND the LORD ſpake unto Moſes, ſaying.] The following Precepts, which contain in a manner all their Duty, ſeem to have been delivered to Moſes immediately after the former; being in great part a Repetition of ſome principal things, which had been already commanded.
Ver. 2. Verſe 2 Speak unto all the Congregation of the Children of Iſrael.] It is uncertain whether he delivered theſe Precepts only to their Elders and Heads of their Tribes, to be communicated by them to the People; or at ſeveral times he called every Family of every Tribe, and ſpake theſe words to them himſelf.
And ſay unto them, Ye ſhall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.] This very thing was ſaid to them before, with reſpect to ſeveral Meats which are forbidden them, XI. 44. See there. And now is repeated with a peculiar reſpect (as Maimonides thinks, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 47.) to the filthy Marriages and abominable Idolatries mentioned in the foregoing Chapter; as it is repeated again in the next Chapter, XX. 7, 26. with reſpect to ſome other things. It being a general reaſon, why they ſhould be ſeparated from all other People, by the obſervation of peculiar Laws, (which is the meaning of being holy) becauſe they were the Worſhippers of him, whoſe moſt excellent Nature tranſcended all other Beings, not only in Purity, but in all other Perfections.
Ver. 3. Verſe 3 Ye ſhall fear every man his mother and his father.] This Duty is called Honour in the fifth Commandment, (XX Exod. 12.) and the Father there put before the Mother; which being here called fear, and the Mother put before the Father, it ſhows, ſaith Maimonides, that honour and fear are equally due to both, without any difference. And the proper Expreſſions of Fear and Reverence are, (according to thoſe Doctors) not to ſit in their Seat, nor to contradict them in any thing they ſay; much leſs to cavil againſt them; nor to call them by their proper names, but to add the Title of Sir, &c. (as we ſpeak) or the like. And the Expreſſions of Honour, are not to ſit down in their Preſence; and to provide them with Neceſſaries, if they fall into Poverty, &c. See Selden, Lib. II. de Synedriis, oap. 13. p. 557, &c. and R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. XXVII.
And keep my Sabbaths.] Obedience as well as Reverence is included in the word Fear: but if Parents commanded them to break the Sabbath-day, or to profane any other day conſecrated to God's Service, they were not to be obeyed.
I am the LORD your God.] I reſted on the Sabbath-day; who am your Soveraign, and therefore have power to require you to reſt on any other days. Particularly on the great Day of Atonement, XVI. 31. when I am ſo gracious as to accept of an Expiation for all your ſins. This is repeated v. 30. and XXIII. 3.
Ver. 4. Verſe 4 Turn ye not unto Idols.] Not ſo much as to look upon them; no, nor to think of them (as R. Levi Barcelonita expounds it, Praecept. CCXXV.) much leſs to enquire after what manner the Gentiles worſhipped them, (which is expreſly forbidden XII Deut. 30.) for by this means they might be allured to Idolatry. The word we here tranſlate Idols, is a word of contempt, ſignifying a thing of nought. Or, as ſome of the Jews will have it, this word Elilim, is compounded of the Particle al, ſignifying not; and El, i. e. God. As much as to ſay, which are not gods; and therefore called in Scripture Vanities, which can do neither good nor hurt.
Nor make to your ſelves molten gods.] This ſeems to have reſpect to the Golden Calf, which they made to worſhip, and is called a molten Calf, XXXII Exod. 4. But all graven Images are no leſs forbidden: for if to look towards an Idol was a ſin, much more was it to make an Image of any ſort, to worſhip it. The Jews are ſomething curious in their obſervations upon this Precept. For, in the Book Siphra, they ſay, that they might not make molten Gods for others, much leſs for themſelves. Whence that ſaying, He that makes to himſelf an Idol, violates a double Precept; firſt in making it; and then in making it to himſelf. See R. Levi before-mentioned, Praecept. CCXXVI.
I am the LORD your God.] The ſame reaſon is given in the foregoing Verſe, for the obſervation of their Sabbaths: and that of the ſeventh day every Week, was ordained in memory of the Creation of the World; and conſequently intended as a Preſervative from Idolatry, (as I obſerved upon Exod. XX. 8.) which perhaps makes theſe two Precepts be here put together. But it is evident Moſes doth not obſerve the order wherein theſe Precepts were firſt delivered; but rather inverts it, beginning with the fifth Commandment, and ſo going back to the fourth; and here to the two firſt.
Ver. 5. Verſe 5 And if ye offer a Sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the LORD.] As they were to avoid all Idolatry, ſo they were to be careful to perform the Service due to the true God, in a right manner. Peace-offerings are only mentioned, becauſe they were the moſt common Sacrifices; being of three ſorts. See VII. 11, &c. XVII. 5.
Ye ſhall offer it at your own will.] Either of the Herd, or of the Flock; Male or Female, III. 1, 6. Or rather (as the Vulgar Latin and the LXX. underſtand it) they were to offer it ſo, that it might be acceptable to the LORD: according to the Rules preſcribed in the ſeventh Chapter.
Ver. 6. Verſe 6 It ſhall be eaten the ſame day ye offer it, and on the morrow.] This ſhows he ſpeaks particularly of thoſe Peace-offerings which were a Vow, or a voluntary Offering, VII. 16. for Sacrifices of Thankſgiving might not be kept till the morrow, but were to be eaten on the ſame day, v. 15. of that Chapter. See the reaſon of this XXIII Exod. 18. the latter end.
And if ought remain till the third day, it ſhall be burnt with fire. See VII. 17.
Ver. 7. Verſe 7 And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable. See VII. 18.
It ſhall not be accepted.] See there. This ſeems to juſtifie the ſenſe which the Vulgar puts upon thoſe words v. 5. which we tranſlate, according to thy will.
Ver. 8. Verſe 8 Therefore every one that eateth it, ſhall bear his iniquity.] See VII. 18.
Becauſe he hath profaned the hallowed things of the LORD.] By keeping them till they were in danger to ſtink, or to be corrupted.
That ſoul ſhall be cut off from his People.] By the Judges, if the thing was known: otherwiſe by the Hand of God.
Ver. 9. Verſe 9 And when ye reap the harveſt of your Land.] Which was a time of great joy, when they offered, its likely, many Peace-offerings of that ſort beforementioned.
Thou ſhalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field.] But leave a ſixtieth part (as their wiſe Men have determined it) and that in the extream part of the Field, rather than any other place, that the Poor might know where to come for it; as R. Levi Barcelonita explains it, Praecept. CCXIII. And this, whether they were in the Land of Iſrael, or out of it, as Mr. Selden obſerves out of the Talmudiſts, Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 6. p. 692. where he ſhows it was the cuſtom to add ſomething to the ſixtieth part, proportionable to the largeneſs of the Field, or the multitude of the Poor, or the greatneſs of the Crop.
Neither ſhalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harveſt.] That is, if an ear or two of Corn fell (as they cut it, or bound it up) out of the Sheaves, or from under their Sickle, they were not to gather them up from the ground, but leave them for the Poor, as oft as they fell. But not if there fell three ears at a time, as the Talmudiſts determine. See Mr. Selden in the place above-named; and the ſame R. Levi, Praecept. CCXIV.
Ver. 10. Verſe 10 And thou ſhalt not glean thy vineyard.] When they had cut off the great Bunches, they were not to examine the Vine over again, for the ſcattered Grapes, or ſmall Cluſters.
Neither ſhalt thou gather every grape of thy Vineyard.] If any fell to the ground as they gathered them, they were not to take them up. That is, if one or two Cluſters fell; but not if three, much leſs, if more: for they conſtrue this as they do the Precept about Ears of Corn (v. 9.) They alſo ſay, they were bound to leave the Corners of the Vineyard uncut, as well as the Corners of the Field. R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. CCXXX. and CCXXXI. and Mr. Selden, Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. & Gent. cap. 6. in the place before-named. And theſe Precepts obliged ſuch Strangers as ſojourned among them, (mentioned XVII. 8. XVIII. 26.) who before they were admitted to embrace the Jewiſh Religion, were examined whether they underſtood that they muſt obſerve ſuch and ſuch Precepts, particularly theſe here mentioned, which were propounded to them plainly and diſtinctly: and after they had promiſed to keep them, they were Circumciſed, &c. As G. Schickard obſerves out of the Talmud the cuſtom, was, after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, in Miſhpal Hamelek, cap. 5. Theorem XVII.
Thou ſhalt leave them for the poor and the ſtranger.] Though by Stranger the Jews think is underſtood a Proſelyte of Righteouſneſs, (as they call him who had embraced their Religion, (by receiving Circumciſion) yet they did not hinder any poor Gentile from partaking of this Charity, as the ſame R. Levi ſays. And if any one tranſgreſſed any of the Precepts contained in theſe two Verſes, he was beaten; as Mr. Selden ſhows, Lib. II. de Synedr. Cap. 13. n. 8.
I am the LORD your God.] I give you the Country to which you go, with theſe reſerves for the Poor: and have been ſo bountful to you, that I require you to be ſo them.
Ver. 11. Verſe 11 Ye ſhall not ſteal.] Here are ſeveral Moral Precepts put briefly together, for the maintaining Juſtice and Truth; without which Societies cannot be preſerved. And firſt he forbids Theft; the coveting of other Mens Goods, being the Source of the other Sins that follow. And whether they were the Goods of an Iſraelite, or of a Gentile Idolater, that any Man ſtole, he was bound to make Reſtitution, as R. Levi obſerves, Praecept. CCXXXII. See XXII Exod. 1.
Neither deal falſly.] This is a Divine Caution (as the Hebrew Doctors obſerve) againſt denying a thing that was depoſited with them; or, which they had found, &c. which they would never pretend they had not, if they were diſpoſed to be ſincere and upright in their Dealing.
Neither lie one to another.] Words being intended to declare the Mind, and for no other end; he that hears us ſpeak hath a right in Juſtice to be done him, that what we ſpeak be true. For otherwiſe he doth not know our mind by our words; and then we had better be dumb. But though all kind of lying be contrary to the intention of God, in giving us Speech; yet this relates particularly to ſuch lies whereby a Man's Neighbour was injured; defrauded, for inſtance, of his Goods which he had depoſited with another; or of the juſt Debts which were owing him, &c. But though the ſimple denying of ſuch things was not puniſhed with beating, as Mr. Selden repreſents the opinion of the Talmudiſts, Lib. II. de Synedr. cap. 11. yet he that denied a thing depoſited with him, was not admitted to be a Witneſs in any caſe, though he had not forſworn himſelf, unto which this lying diſpoſed him. So R. Levi, Praecept. CCXXXIII.
Ver. 12. Verſe 12 And ye ſhall not ſwear by my name falſly.] Much leſs was it lawful for them to confirm the lies fore-mentioned, with an Oath. So the Jewiſh Doctors interpret it, as Mr. Selden obſerves in the ſame place. If any Man did, and was found guilty, he was adjudged to reſtore the principal, and a fifth part more, VI. 5. And whether he forſwore himſelf knowingly, or ignorantly, he was to expiate his Crime with a Sacrifice. But if he was ignorant of that Command concerning a Sacrifice; or if, though he had the thing which he denied in his keeping, yet he had really forgot it, when he ſwore he had it not; he was freed both from the fifth part, and from the Sacrifice. See V. 4.
Neither ſhalt thou profane the Name of thy God.] By calling God to witneſs unto a frivolous thing, or to a raſh Reſolution. As if a Man ſwore in his anger he would not ſpeak to ſuch a Perſon, but afterwards did; or, he would not eat of ſuch Meat, &c. In ſuch caſes, the Jews ſay, when a Man's heart was touched with Repentance for his raſhneſs and incogitancy; he was to go to ſome wiſe Man, or to three Neighbours, and deſire them to abſolve him from his Oath, of which he truly repented. Which they did, when they found him truly penitent; ſaying, Be thou looſed, or, It is remitted to thee, or the like. So Selden obſerves out of Maimonides, Lib. II. de Synedr. cap. 11. n. 9.
Plato hath ſaid ſome remarkable thing, concerning Forſwearing, and alſo of Lying and Deceit. For which I refer the learned Reader to his eleventh Book of Laws, p. 916, 917. Edit. Serrani.
I am the LORD.] And therefore expect the greateſt Reverence to my Name; and that you ſhould deal honeſtly one with another.
Ver. 13. Verſe 13 Thou ſhalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him, &c. Here are ſeveral Precepts, almoſt coincident in their ſenſe: but have ſome peculiar Negations belonging to them. For (as R. Levi Barcelonita obſerves) in all things from which God would have them carefully abſtain, he multiplies admonitions, Praecept. CXXXVI. Accordingly here to defraud, is to keep in ones hand that which belongs to another: and ſuch a Perſon, he ſaith, is called an Oppreſſor in Scripture. The Vulgar Latine refers it to that which Men get from others by Calumny: as the next words relate to that which is wreſted from them by open violence.
Neither rob him.] The ſame R. Levi expounds this of that which is taken from another by manifeſt force, and doth not belong to him that takes it, Praecept. CCXXXVII. For ſo the Hebrew word gazilah ſignifies, that which a Man wreſts out of the hand of another, againſt his will, 1 Chron. XI. 23.
The wages of him that is hired, ſhall not abide with thee all night till the morning.] For this was a kind of force and robbery, to detain what was owing to him, againſt his will. In the XXIV Deut. 15. the words are, Thou ſhalt give him his hire, neither ſhall the Sun go down upon it. From whence the Hebrew Doctors conclude there were two ſorts of People that wrought for hire: one were day-labourers, whom Moſes ſpeaks of in this Verſe; another labourers by night, of whom he ſpeaks in Deuteronomy. Neither of which were to ſtay for their Wages beyond the time appointed: but the one were to have it before the Sun-ſet, the other before Morning; for it was due as ſoon as the day, or the night was done. So the Miſna, The Day-labourer requires his wages all night; and the night Labourer all day. See the fore-named R. Levi, Praecept. CCXXXVIII. who gives this reaſon for it; That the merciful God would have his Creatures ſubſiſt; which poor Labourers cannot do, if they want their wages to buy them Victuals. Upon which account the detaining of their Wages, is ſaid to be a crying ſin, in that XXIV Deut. 14. and in St. James V. 4.
Ver. 14. Verſe 14 Thou ſhalt not curſe the deaf.] No Iſraelite, whether Man or Woman, was to be curſed; though he could not hear the Curſe, and ſo was inſenſible of the Injury, as R. Levi explains it, Praecept. CCXXXIX. For there was the addition of barbarous baſeneſs in it, to curſe or revile a Perſon, who was not capable to anſwer for himſelf, nor do himſelf right: and the Caſe of the Sick, and the Infirm, or the Abſent, was the ſame with the Deaf. As for others, who were not Deaf, it was forbidden to curſe them, ſaith Maimonides, becauſe it provoked to Anger and Rage; which ſtirred Men up to take Revenge.
Nor put a ſtumbling block before the blind.] This is as inhuman as the former; proceeding from ſo great Malice, that the Hebrew Doctors ſeem to think Men incapable of it. And therefore expound it of giving ill Counſel to ſimple People, and adviſing them to their Damage. So R. Levi, Praecept. CCXL. which is no leſs contrary to Nature, then laying a ſtumblingblock in the way of thoſe that cannot ſee to avoid it; and a far greater ſin, becauſe it abuſed their Minds, and might tend to the hurt of their Souls.
But ſhalt fear thy God.] Believing he ſees and hears, and will avenge the Cauſe of thoſe who cannot right themſelves; becauſe they know not who injured them. If any Man was convicted of either of theſe Crimes, he was beaten.
I am the LORD.] And am therefore to be feared and obeyed.
Ver. 15. Verſe 15 Ye ſhall do no unrighteouſneſs in judgment.] The Jews take this to be an Admonition to their Judges, that they ſhould have an equal regard to the Plaintiff and Defendant; and not prefer the one before the other. Whence theſe words are thus explained in Siphra, Thou ſhalt judge thy neighbours juſtly; not letting one party ſtand, and bidding the other ſit; nor ſuffering one to ſpeak as much as he pleaſeth, and bidding the other be ſhort. See Selden de Synedr. Lib. II. cap. 13. n. 10. But none hath explained this ſo largely as Maimonides in the whole XXI Chapter of Sanhedrim, where he in general defines the juſt Adminiſtration of Juſtice to conſiſt in an equal reſpect to both Parties in the Suit; ſo that one of them have not the liberty to ſay what he will, and the other be cut ſhort. And then deſcends to many particulars, wherein equal reſpect to both Parties is to be obſerved: ſome of which it will be fit to mention, becauſe they illuſtrate the words of St James, in the ſecond Chapter of his Epiſtle, v. 2, 3, 4. If two Parties appear in a Cauſe, one of which is clothed in precious Garments, the other is ragged, or in a poor Habit; let it be ſaid to him that is the more honourable, Either do you beſtow upon your Adverſary as good Apparel as you have on your ſelf, or elſe put on ſuch as he wears, that you may be both alike, and then appear before the Court of Judgment. By no means let the one ſit, and the other ſtand: but let them both be commanded to ſtand: or if it pleaſe the Judges to give them both leave to ſit, let not one of them ſit in a high place, the other in a low; but both on the ſame Bench, one by the ſide of the other. See R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. CCXVII. who obſerves, that Mankind are preſerved by righteous Judgment; and therefore if a Judge was found to have given an unjuſt Sentance, he was condemned to make Reſtitution to him, whoſe Cauſe he had perverted, Praecept. CCXLI.
Thou ſhalt not reſpect the perſon of the poor.] See XXIII Exod. 3.
Nor honour the perſon of the mighty.] This R. Levi explains (Praecept. CCXLII.) as he did the firſt Clauſe; The Judge ſhall not bid the great man ſit down, while the meaner ſtands; but both ſhall ſtand before the Judge, as if they were in the Preſence of the Divine Majeſty, who ſtandeth in the midſt of the Judges, LXXXII Pſal. 1. If by the favour of the Judges both were permitted to ſit, yet when Sentence came to be pronounced, both roſe up and ſtood; according to XVIII Exod. 13.
But in righteouſneſs ſhalt thou judge thy neighbour.] The obſervation of Maimonides ſeems to be too nice and curious, who from this place gathers, that though the loweſt Court of Judgment ordinarily conſiſted of no leſs than three Judges; yet by the Law one of them might ſit alone as Judge in Matters not Capital, becauſe it is ſaid here in the ſingular Number, In righteouſneſs ſhalt thou judge thy Neighbour. For at the ſame time he acknowledges, their wiſe Men require that he ſhould take ſome Aſſeſſors to him; when they ſay, Do not judge by thy ſelf alone; for there is no ſole Judge, but one only, viz. God. See Selden, Lib. II. de Synedr. cap. 14. n. 2. and Guil. Schickardi Miſhpal Hamelek. cap. 4. Theorem XIV.
Ver. 16. Verſe 16 Thou ſhalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people.] The Vulgar Latin takes the Hebrew word Rachil to ſignifie one that goes about with Calumnies. But it may ſimply ſignifie, as we tranſlate it, a Tale-bearer: whom Aben-Ezra compares to a Merchant or Pedler, (as the Hebrew word imports) who buys of one, what he ſells to another, and goes about the Country as a Tale-bearer doth from Houſe to Houſe; carrying to one, what he hath heard at another; ſaying, Such a one hath ſaid ſo and ſo of you, whereby Peace and Concord is deſtroyed among Men. For commonly ſuch Men carry falſe ſtories to their Neighbours, or add to the true, and ſecretly backbite others; which hath moved many to think a Detractor is meant by this word, who hopes by his Tales of others to get ſome advantage to himſelf, as every Trader doth by his Merchandiſe. Whence the Jews ſay, An evil Tongue kills three: him that ſpeaks; him that hears; and him of whom he ſpeaks, R. Levi Praecept. CCXLIII.
Neither ſhalt thou ſtand againſt the blood of thy neighbour.] Much leſs, be a falſe Witneſs againſt him, to the indangering of his Life. So it is commonly interpreted, becauſe the Accuſers and Witneſſes ſtood before Judges, who ſat in the Courts of Judgment. But R. Levi Barcelonita, and the reſt of the Hebrew Doctors, generally underſtand it otherwiſe; that no Man ſhould ſuffer his Neighbour to periſh in Judgment, or other ways, when he could free him by his Teſtimony or Aſſiſtance, Praecept. CCXLIV. So it is ſaid in Siphra in ſo many words; Whence do we gather that he who can clear another by his Teſtimony, muſt not ſuppreſs it in ſilence? Becauſe it is ſaid thou ſhalt not ſtand againſt the blood of thy Neighbour. Whence it follows, that if a Man ſaw his Neighbour any way in danger, he was bound, if he could, to deliver him; not only when his Life was in hazard, but that which is as dear as Life, ones Honour and Chaſtity. Thus if any one went about to force a Woman, eſpouſed to another, &c. he that ſaw it was bound to Reſcue ſuch a Perſon, though with the death of him that made the Attempt. For this was a piece of Juſtice, which they committed to private Men, as Mr. Selden ſhows out of the Jewiſh Authors, Lib. IV. de Jure N. & G. cap. III. p. 481, &c. But then, they reſtrain this Charity only to themſelves, and from the word Neighbour argue, that they are bound to do thus, only to an Iſraelite. Nay, (which is ſtrange) ſome of them are ſo ſelfiſhly ill natur'd, that they fancy they are forbidden to do ſuch kindneſs to a Gentile. See there p. 485.
Ver. 17. Verſe 17 Thou ſhalt not hate thy brother in thine heart.] When thy Brother hath done thee any wrong, do not conceal a ſecret hatred againſt him in thy Breaſt, but tell him plainly of his Fault, as the next words ſeem to direct. It appears by this, they were ill Interpreters of the Law, who thought it forbade only external acts of ſin, but not evil affections, which were not executed.
Thou ſhalt in any wiſe rebuke thy neighbour.] Time after time (if he will not be ſenſible of it at firſt) argue the caſe with him, and reprove him for his fault. And if he will not amend, do it publickly, (as the Vulgar Latin interprets it) and bring him before the Judges. So R. Levi, Praecept. CCXVIII. But he extends this to all ſins, whether againſt God, or againſt themſelves: which, he thinks, they were bound to reprehend privately, and then publickly, if the Offenders did not grow better.
And not ſuffer ſin upon him.] He interprets it, But not put him to confuſion.] For nothing is more grievous to a Man then that: and therefore Reprehenſion ought to be mild and gentle, eſpecially when the Offence is againſt ones ſelf; but in thoſe againſt God, greater ſharpneſs is allowable. So he diſcourſes Praecept. CCXLVI. the words in the original being, Thou ſhalt not bear ſin upon him; charge him with his Guilt too ſeverely; or, as others take it, Thou ſhalt not accuſe him of any Crime whereof he is not guilty. Our Tranſlation in the Margin of our Bibles takes it, as if by not reproving their Neighbours, they brought the guilt of his ſin upon themſelves; for ſo the words there are, That thou bear not ſin for him. Which is an excellent ſenſe, if the Hebrew word alau did not ſignifie upon him, not for him. And yet ſome of the Jews have thus underſtood it: this ſaying of Rabbi Chanina being famous among them, Jeruſalem had not been deſtroyed, but becauſe one Neighbour did not reprove another. See Selden, Lib. I. de Synedr. cap. 9. p. 280. Where he obſerves the Doctrine of the ancient Jews was (drawn from this Text) that when one Man offended another in things concerning themſelves, relating to their Civil Affairs, he was to be reproved by his Neighbour, once, or twice, or thrice, if the matter required; but without ſharpneſs; and ſo that he was not expoſed to publick ſhame. But if the Offence was againſt God, in matters of Religion, they ſay private Reproof was firſt to be given; and if that did not work amendment, then publick before all. And they admitted publick Reprehenſion upon no other ſcore: but ſaid, He that publickly puts his Brother to ſhame, ſhall have no part in the other World.
Ver. 18. Verſe 18 Thou ſhalt not avenge.] Not deny to do their Brethren a kindneſs, out of a remembrance of any injury received from them, as R. Levi interprets it, Praecept. CCXLVII. By which means, as he obſerves, Strife and Contention was aboliſhed, and Peace and Concord eſtabliſhed among Men. It may be thought alſo, that as they are forbidden to take Revenge themſelves for the Wrongs any one did them; ſo likewiſe to ſeek for Redreſs from the Publick, meerly to ſatisfie their wrath and deſire to have the injurious Perſon ſuffer, and not to prevent the like or greater Miſchiefs for the time to come.
Nor bear any grudge againſt the children of thy people.] When thou doſt thy Neighbour a kindneſs, do not ſpoil it, by upbraiding him with all his Faults. For the Hebrew word Natar ſignifies having ſomething in reſerve in ones Mind, particularly Anger or Wrath; which our Tranſlation frequently ſupplies to make out the ſenſe, III Jer. 12. CIII Pſal. 9. 1 Nahum 2. And ſo the LXX. underſtand it here, foreign, &c. And thou ſhalt not be angry with the Children of thy People.
But thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thy ſelf.] In not doing to him, what thou wouldſt not have done to thy ſelf; and taking ſuch care of him, and what belongs to him, as thou would'ſt have him to do of thee and thine. This, ſaith R. Aquiba (as R. Levi obſerves, Praecept. CCXIX.) is the great ſum of the Law; i.e. many Precepts depend upon this: for he that thus loves his Neighbour, will neither ſteal any thing from him, nor violate his Wife, nor murder ſo much as his good Name, nor remove his Land-mark, nor offend him any other way. The ſame, in a manner, with what St. Paul ſaith XIII Rom. 8, 9, &c.
The only queſtion is, Who is to be underſtood here by their Neighbour? which the Jews would reſtrain to themſelves; and have the meaning to be, That one Iſraelite ſhould love another, but he is not bound to love a Stranger in the ſame manner: which is directly againſt Moſes his command, v. 34. And certain it is, the word Neighbour comprehends more than Iſraelites; as appears by the laſt Commandment, which forbids them to covet their neighbours wife: which did not give them leave ſure, to covet the Wife of a Gentile, provided they did not covet the Wife of an Iſraelite. A Neighbour therefore is every other Man, as in XXII Deut. 26. and more plainly in XI Exod. 2. where the Egyptians are called their Neighbour. And therefore D. Kimchi ſaith very honeſtly upon the XVth Pſal. 3. A Neighbour is every one with whom we have any dealing or converſation. Which juſtifies our bleſſed Saviour, in making this Command, of Loving their Neighbours as themſelves, to reach all Men, with whom they had to do, X Luke 27, 28, &c.
I am the LORD.] Unto whom you are all equally ſubject; and upon that account ought to love one another. See v. 34.
Ver. 19. Verſe 19 Ye ſhall keep my ſtatutes.] This may be thought to be premiſed to what follows; leſt ſuch Commands as are contained in this Verſe, ſeeming ſmall, ſhould be neglected by them.
Thou ſhalt not let thy Cattel (or rather make them) gender with a divers kind.] As Horſes with Aſſes, Goats with Sheep, &c. whoſe mixture one with another they were by no means to procure. But if they did of themſelves come together, it was lawful to uſe ſuch Heterogeneous Creatures, as were ſo produced. For they did not abhor the uſe of Mules, which were either begot by accident among them, or brought from other Countries to them.
The reaſon the Jews commonly give for this Precept, is, becauſe God having made all things perfect in their kind, it was a preſumptuous attempt to go about to mend his Creation, and add to his Works. By this means alſo Men were deterred from unnatural Mixtures, which they ſaw to be abominable in Brutes. So R. Levi Barcelonita (Praecept. CCXLIX.) and Philo, whoſe words are very ingenious (Lib. de Creatione Princip.) Things of the ſ…me kind were made for Society one with another; but things heterogeneous (as we call them) were not intended to be mixed and aſſociated: and therefore he who attempts to mingle them, foreign, wickedly deſtroys the Law of Nature. To the ſame purpoſe Joſephus. See Selden, Lib. VII. de Jure N. & G. ſec. Hebr. cap. 3. p. 798. Maimonides alſo himſelf gives this reaſon of this Precept, (More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 49.) where he ſaith, No Creature hath a deſire commonly, to mix with a Creature of another kind; and therefore Men ought not to promote ſuch a deſire. But after all, there might poſſibly be a reſpect in this Precept to ſome Idolatrous Cuſtoms, which Moſes intended to prevent or aboliſh: for there is good ground to think the following Precepts in this Verſe were ſo intended; and in after times, ſome Gentiles did procure ſuch Mixture of Creatures, as are here forbidden (Mules, for inſtance) in honour of their Gods. See our learned Dr. Spencer, Lib. II. de Leg. Hebr. Ritualibus, cap. 20. where he indeavours to prove, that by Cattel in this place are peculiarly meant Oxen and Aſſes, which were uſed in Husbandry; and are of ſuch different Natures, that none would ever have thought to procure their Conjunction, unleſs he had been moved to it by the Devil.
Thou ſhalt not ſow thy field with mingled ſeed.] The reaſons of this, according to the Jews, are the ſame with the former: and R. Levi extends it to Trees; which, he ſaith, they were not to ingraft of different kinds, one upon another. But it concerns, they ſay, only ſuch Seeds and Plants as are for Mens food; not thoſe which are for Medecine, Praecept. CCL. But Maimonides found a particular reaſon for this Precept, from the Idolatrous Cuſtoms of the old Zabij: Who not only ſowed different Seeds, and grafted Trees of a divers kind upon one another, in ſuch or ſuch Aſpect of the Planets, and with a certain form of words, and fumigations; but alſo with abominable filthineſs, at the very moment of the Inciſion. Which he proves out of a Book, concerning the inciſion of an Olive into a Citron: and doubts not, that God forbad his People to ſow with mingled ſeed, that he might root out that deteſtable Idolatry, and thoſe preternatural Luſts which abounded in thoſe days, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 37.
Neither ſhall a Garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.] In the Hebrew the words are, A Garment of mixtures of Schaatnez, ſhall not come upon thee. But that they might certainly know what Schaatnez was, it is explained in XXII Deut. 11. to ſignifie (as we tranſlate it) a Garment of Woollen and Linen mixed together. The Jews have taken abundance of pains to find out the original of this word; which Bochartus derives from the Arabick word Saat, which ſignifies to mingle, and nez, which ſignifies to weave. Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. II. cap. 45. But Joh. Braunius, I think, hath demonſtrated, that it doth not import the weaving of any different things together; but only of Linen and Woollen: and that by Woollen is to be underſtood only what is made of the Wooll of Sheep, not of Camels or Goats, which they called by the ſame name, Lib. I. de Veſtitu Sacerd. Hebr. cap. 4. n. 2, 3, 6. Where he obſerves out of Maimonides, in his Halach. Kelaim, that if a Man ſaw an Iſraelite wear ſuch a Garment, it was lawful for him to fall upon him openly, and tear his Garment in pieces; although he were his Maſter, who taught him Wiſdom. And the reaſons for this abhorrence, are commonly ſuch as are given of the former Precepts; to preſerve them from the horrid Confuſion which was among the Gentiles, by inceſtuous and unnatural Mixtures. But Maimonides takes it to have been principally intended, as a Preſervative againſt Idolatry: The Prieſts of the Gentiles in thoſe times wearing ſuch mixed Garments, of the product of Plants and Animals, with a Ring on their finger, made of ſome Metal, as he ſays, he found in their Books, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 37. By which mixture, it is likely, they hoped to have the beneficial influence of ſome lucky Conjunction of the Planets or Stars, to bring a Bleſſing upon their Sheep and their Flax.
Ver. 20. Verſe 20 Whoſoever lieth carnally with a Woman that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband.] The Jews had ſome Servants that were Gentiles; who, if they embraced the Jewiſh Religion, were baptized; ſometimes with the reſervation of their Servitude, and ſometimes with the full grant of Liberty. But ſome there were in a middle Condition; partly free, and partly ſervile; viz. when part of their Redemption-money had been paid, and part was ſtill behind. Now as while a Woman was a perfect Slave, no Iſraelite might marry her: ſo when ſhe was partly free, though he might Eſpouſe her, and the Eſpouſals were valid, yet they could not be of full force, till her liberty was perfected. And of ſuch a Maiden the Hebrew Doctors underſtand Moſes to ſpeak in this place, that was in part free, but not wholly; as the next words interpret it.
And not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her.] Not intirely, but in part redeemed: and conſequently her Freedom not abſolutely granted to her.
She ſhall be ſcourged.] If ſhe had been perfectly free, both he that lay with her, and ſhe her ſelf ſhould have been put to death, XXII Deut. 23, 24. But being not fully free, and conſequently not fully his Wife, who had eſpouſed her, it was not reckoned Adultery; and therefore puniſhed only with ſcourging. See Selden, Lib. V. de Jure N. & G. cap. 12. p. 613. And Maimonides, I obſerve, thus expounds it, of a Woman that was not a meer Servant, and yet not compleatly free, but between both, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 41. But whereas we mention here in the Text, the Scourging only of the Woman; in the Margin it is rightly noted that the Hebrew words are, There ſhall be ſcourging; viz. of them both, as the Vulgar Latine, with great reaſon, underſtands it. And the Hebrew word Bikkoreth properly ſignifies ſcourging with Thongs made of a Bulls or Oxes Hide; as Bochartus obſerves in his Hierozoicon, P. I. Lib. II. cap. 28. & cap. 33. n. 8.
They ſhall not be put to death, becauſe ſhe was not free.] Her Maſter not having ſet her quite at Liberty, her Marriage was not compleat: which freed her from ſuffering Death; though ſome Puniſhment ſhe deſerved, becauſe it was begun.
Ver. 21. Verſe 21 And he ſhall bring his Treſpaſs-offering unto the LORD, unto the door, &c.] Which was not enjoyned her, becauſe ſhe had not wherewithal to offer for her Expiation: all ſhe had being her Maſters, and not her own.
A Ram for a Treſpaſs-offering.] Which was the proper Sacrifice in ſuch a caſe, V. 17, 18.
Ver. 22. Verſe 22 And the Priest ſhall make an atonement for him with the Ram of the treſpaſs-offering.] She needed an Atonement as well as he, being equally guilty in conſenting to the Fact; and being eſpouſed to another, ſeems to have had a greater guilt upon her; and therefore was left in a lamentable condition, without any publick aſſurance of God's pardon.
For his ſin which he hath done.] Which had ſo much guilt in it, that beſides the puniſhment he ſuffered in being Scourged; this Satisfaction was to be made to God.
And the ſin which he hath done, ſhall be forgiven him.] By virtue of the Sacrifice; which would not have been accepted if ſhe had been perfectly a Free-woman: but the ſin would have coſt his own life and hers alſo, XXII Deut. 23, 24.
Ver. 23. Verſe 23 And when ye ſhall come into the Land, and ſhall have planted all manner of Trees for food.] The Precept is ſo general, that the boldneſs of R. Zerika is unaccountable; who would have it underſtood only of the Vine, which if it be not cut, its Grapes are not ſo large, nor the Wine ſo good, nor fit to be offered at the Altar, &c. as his opinion is repreſented in Pirke Elieſer, cap. 29. But Moſes expreſly mentioning all manner of Trees for food, there is no colour for this limitation; and a very good account may be given of this Prohibition, if we have reſpect only to natural reaſon. For young Trees grow better, if they be ſtript of their Fruit; the Juice of which is wateriſh and unconcocted, having neither pleaſant ſmell nor taſte; as Nachmonides obſerves: and therefore not fit for Food; and upon that ſcore not fit to be offered as the Firſt-fruits to God.
But beſides all this, Maimonides affirms there was an Idolatrous cuſtom among the Zabij, to which this Law of Moſes may reaſonably be thought to be oppoſed: For they imagined all Trees would be blaſted, or their Fruit fall off, whoſe Firſt-fruit was not part of it offered in their Idol Temples, and the other part eaten there: as their Children, they thought, would not thrive, unleſs ſome of them paſſed through the fire. And therefore God commanded his People to forbear to eat the Fruit of any Tree, till the fourth year; and not doubt of the fruitfulneſs of their Plantations, though they did not Conſecrate the Fruit of the years foregoing, after the manner that the Gentiles did. More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 37. where he obſerves ſome Trees brought forth Fruit in one year; ſome not till the ſecond; and others not till the third; according to the different ways wherein they were planted.
Ye ſhall count the fruit thereof as uncircumciſed.] That is, as unclean; and therefore to be caſt away as the Foreskin was.
Three years it ſhall be as uncircumciſed to you; it ſhall not be eaten of.] And therefore they pluckt off the Buds when they put forth, that they might not grow into Fruit; or if any by chance did, they threw it away, as unfit for food. But this is meant only of ſuch Fruit-trees as they planted after they came to Canaan; not of ſuch as they found already planted there. And it was the ſame thing, whether he planted them himſelf, or bought an Orchard, or Vineyard, &c. of another Iſraelite, or had it left him as an Inheritance, or beſtowed on him as a Gift: the three firſt years the Fruit was not to be uſed.
Ver. 24. Verſe 24 But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof ſhall be holy, to praiſe the LORD withal.] It was to be offered as the Firſt-fruit to God, and eaten by the Prieſts: which, as Maimonides ſaith in the Book forenamed, cap. 49. was to excite them to Liberality, and give a check to their Appetites, as well as to Covetouſneſs. Yet there are thoſe who ſay this Fruit of the fourth year was to be eaten by the Owners before the LORD at Jeruſalem, (when his dwelling was ſettled there) as they eat the ſecond Tythe. So R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. CCXX. ſhows at large. And they obſerve many Benefits which the Iſraelites received by this means; not only in exciting their Thankfulneſs to God, but their Love to that Holy Place; unto which ſome of their Family might conceive ſuch an affection, as to ſettle there, and learn the Law.
Ver. 25. Verſe 25 In the fifth year ſhall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increaſe thereof.] He would not have them think that they ſhould loſe any thing, by ſtaying till the fifth year for the Fruit of their Trees; but promiſes them here, that by forbearing ſo long, their Trees ſhould be the more exceeding fruitful.
I am the LORD.] Who beſtowed this Land upon them, to hold of him by what Tenure he pleaſed; by whoſe Bleſſing they might expect to receive the Increaſe thereof abundantly; without the help of ſuch wicked Arts as Maimonides ſays the Zabij uſed. Who, letting certain things lie till they were putrified, and, when the Sun was in ſuch or ſuch a degree, ſprinkling them about the Trees which they had planted, with certain Magical Ceremonies, they fancied Flowers and Fruits would be produced ſooner than they could have been without theſe practiſes.
Ver. 26. Verſe 26 Ye ſhall not eat any thing with the blood.] This is an admonition, as R. Levi Barcelonita fancies (Praecept. CCLII.) againſt Gluttony and Drunkenneſs; ſuch as the rebellious Son was guilty of, XXI Deut. 18, &c. which made Men prone to ſhed blood: for ſo he underſtands this Precept, Thou ſhalt not eat upon blood; i. e. eat till thou art excited to ſhed blood: unto which he applied XXXII Deut. 15. Jeſhurun waxed fat and kicked. But this is a very forced Interpretation; and our Tranſlation is not exact: for he doth not ſay, Ye ſhall not eat any thing, with the blood; but ye ſhall not eat upon the blood, or at the blood. Which Oleaſter very ſagaciouſly ſuſpected to be a piece of Superſtition unknown to him. And ſo did the LXX. when they tranſlated it, Ye ſhall not eat, foreign, upon the Mountains, which was an Idolatrous Cuſtom mentioned in IV Hoſea 13. and here forbidden, as Procopius and Heſychius imagine. But the Hebrew word haddam no where ſignifies a Mountain, but Blood, as the Vulgar here truly tranſlates it. There is a Greek Scholion which renders theſe words foreign, ye ſhall not eat on the houſe top. Which, in all likelyhood, as ſome have conjectured, was a miſtake of the Tranſcriber for foreign, upon the blood: which is the litteral Tranſlation of the Hebrew phraſe; and imports ſomething more than is prohibited, XVII. 12. where he ſimply ſaith, No ſoul of you ſhall eat blood. But here warns them againſt an Idolatrous Practiſe of the Zabij: who, to enter into the Society of Daemons, and obtain their favour, were wont to gather the blood of their Sacrifices, into a Veſſel, or a little Hole digg'd in the Earth; and then, ſitting about it, to eat the Fleſh of the Sacrifices: imagining that by eating as it were of the ſame food, (for they thought the Daemons fed upon the blood, as their Worſhippers did upon the fleſh) they contracted a Friendſhip and Familiarity with them. So Maimonides relates in his More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 46. For the prevention of which Idolatrous Cuſtom, God ordered their Sacrifices to be offered only at one place, where his own Houſe was: and there the Prieſts ſprinkling the blood, and they eating the fleſh of their Peaceofferings, God and they feaſted together upon them. Nachmanides is wont to oppoſe Maimonides in his Notions; yet this was ſo plain, that he confeſſes, as Dr. Cudworth hath obſerved (in his Treatiſe of the Right Notion of the Lord's Supper, Chap. ult.) that blood it ſelf was forbidden in the Law, upon the account of the Heathens performing their Superſtitious Worſhip in this manner, by gathering together blood for their Daemons, and then coming themſelves, and eating of it with them, whereby they were their Daemon's gueſts; and by this kind of Communion with them, were enabled to propheſie, and foretel things to come. And this Interpretation is the more probable, that they hoped, by eating of the blood of the Sacrifices, or the fleſh, or both, to have ſuch familiarity with them, as to receive Revelations from them, and be inſpired with the Knowledge of ſecret things, if we conſider the two other Prohibitions in this Verſe, that are joyned with this of not eating upon blood: which ſhow that it was a Rite of Divination.
Neither ſhall ye uſe inchantment.] In the Hebrew the words are lo tenakaſhu; which all agree ſignifie ſome Superſtitious obſervation, or other; whereby they made omens, and gueſſed what ſhould happen to them; either from Men's ſneezing; or the breaking of a Shoes Latchet; or the name of a Man they met withal; or ſome Creatures croſſing their way; or paſſing upon their right hand, or their left. And moſt, following the LXX. and the Vulgar Latin, take it for Divination by the flying, or crying, or pecking of Birds. But the word Nachaſh, ſignifying a Serpent, and having no relation at all to Birds, the famous Bochartus thinks tenachaſhu (which ſeems to be derived from thence) to relate rather to the ancient foreign, Divination by Serpents, than to their foreign, Divination by Birds. For it was very much in uſe among the Gentiles in old time, as appears from Homer (in his VIIth Iliad.) where Chalcas ſeeing a Serpent devour eight Sparrows, with their Dam, divined how long the Trojan War would laſt. And many ſuch inſtances he heaps up together in his Hierozoicon, P. I. Lib. I. cap. 3. R. Levi Barcelonita (Praecept. CCLIII.) refers this to any kind of Divination; by their Staff falling out of their hand; by a Serpent creeping on their right hand; or a Fox going by their left, &c. which made them forbear any work they were about: but he thinks withal, it may ſignifie, as we tranſlate it, Inchantment; to cure Wounds (for inſtance) by reading a Verſe of the Law; or laying the Book of the Law, or a Phylactery, upon a Child's head to procure ſleep: which are ſuch Superſtitions as are now in uſe among ſome Chriſtians; who hang the firſt Verſe of St. John's Goſpel about Peoples Necks to cure an Ague. But ſuch things could not be meant by Moſes, who had not yet delivered them a Copy of his Laws: nor can we certainly fix upon any other in particular which were then in uſe. See J. Coch upon the Title Sanhedrim, cap. 7. n. 18. and Maimonides de Idololatria, cap. 11. ſect. 4, 5, 6, &c. where he gives a great number of inſtances of ſuch Superſtitious Obſervations, as were in uſe among the Heathen: ſome of which are mentioned by Theophraſtus in his Characters of Superſtition; and by Plutarch in his Book on the ſame ſubject; and are derided by Terence in his Phormio, Act. IV. Scen. 4. With which Superſtitions the greateſt Perſons were anciently very much infected; and they were ſo ſettled in Mens minds, that when they became Chriſtians, they could not preſently ſhake them off; as appears by the frequent Reprehenſions, which St. Chryſoſtom (and others) give to thoſe who continued to be governed by them. Particularly in his VIII Homily upon the Coloſſians, he chides his People ſeverely for contemning the Croſs of Chriſt, and calling in old drunken Women, with their Salt, their Aſhes, and Soot to free thoſe that were bewitcht. And more eſpecially in his VI Hom. againſt the Jews, he ſharply rebukes thoſe that uſed foreign, Charms and things hung about the Neck to cure Agues; whereby they got a worſe diſeaſe in their Souls, and wounded their Conſciences, &c. And in other places he Reprehends their obſerving of Omens, good and bad; ſome of which which were very ſtrange. See Tom. VI. p. 610, 611. Edit. Savil.
Nor obſerve times.] Take no notice of days, according to the Precepts of Aſtrologers, who made ſome to be lucky, others unlucky. For the Jews generally think ſomething of this nature is here forbidden; the Hebrew word teonenu being derived, they imagine, from Onah, which ſignifies time (as R. Levi before-mentioned ſaith, Praecept. CCLIV.) ſuch an hour being thought by Superſtitious People to be fit for buſineſs; but another very croſs to it. Which Opinion God ſeems to have intended to extinguiſh, by appointing the Sabbath, as the only day of the Week upon which they ſhould reſt from their Labours: leaving all the other ſix days, to be imployed in their buſineſs, without any difference of days or hours. But there being no ſuch ſignification, as many think, of that word in the Hebrew Language, they rather derive teonenu from Anan, a Cloud; imagining Moſes to forbid them to mark the flying of the Clouds; or to make obſervations from their Motions; which was a thing common among the Gentiles. But Maimonides, who in the XI Chapter of Avoda Zara interprets it, as we do, of obſerving times, by eſteeming one day fortunate, and another unfortunate; mentions another Notion of this word from ain, an eye: and ſaith in the ſame Treatiſe, that Juglers, who delude Mens ſight, in playing their tricks, are comprehended under the Name of Meonim. And there are thoſe alſo, who deriving this word from ana… to anſwer; think it intends ſuch as pretended to tell their Fortunes.
I ſhall not determine which of theſe is moſt likely; but only obſerve, that there was no Superſtition of this ſort more ancient than that of Aſtrology: which was in uſe among the old Chaldaeans, who pretended to caſt Mens Nativities (as we ſpeak) and thence to tell their Fortunes. But this ſort of Men were rejected, as Strabo tells us, Lib. XV. by the Astronomers of that Country: and ſo they were by the beſt Philoſophers in other Nations, as Tully tells us, who calls their pretences Chaldaeorum Monſtra, Lib. II. de Divin. And therefore no wonder God cautions his own People againſt them, as he doth not only here, but by his Prophets, eſpecially Jeremiah X. 2, 3. Learn not the way of the Heathen, and be not diſmayed at the ſigns of Heaven, for the Heathen are diſmayed at them, &c. But then this Caution was moſt neceſſary, when they were going Captives into that Country; which at that time was undoubtedly infected with this Error, but may be thought, perhaps, not to have been ſo in the days of Moſes; and therefore I ſay no more of it, but this, That all thoſe whom we call Juglers, were ſometimes comprehended under the Name of Chaldaeans: who ſeemed to perform wonderful things, as vomiting fire, and transforming Straws into Birds, &c. which relate to the other Notion of Meononu, derived from foreign, which ſignifies an eye: which they deluded by the ſlight of their hand, or other means.
Some of the Jews confeſs, that their Nation is at this day extreamly addicted to theſe things. See Wagonſail his Annot. on Sota, p. 529, &c. where he recites a long paſſage to this purpoſe, out of Fredericus Franciſcus O…ingenſis a converted Jew; whom one of his own Nation undertaking to confute, he confirmed the Charge.
Ver. 27. Verſe 27 Ye ſhall not round the corners of your head.] Or, The ends of the hair of your head. For the Hebrew word peah, which we tranſlate corners, ſignifies alſo the ends or extremities of any thing: And the meaning is, they were not to cut their hair equal, behind and before; as the Worſhippers of the Stars and the Planets; particularly the Arabians did (as R. Levi of Barcelonita interptets it, Praecept. CCLV.) For this made their head have the form of an Haemiſphere.
The LXX. tranſlate it foreign. Where Siſoe is the ſame with the Hebrew Siſith, which ſignifies that Lock, which was left in the hinder part of the head, the reſt of the hair being cut in a Circle. And thus the ancient Arabians cut their hair, as Herodotus tells us, in imitation of Bacchus. Whence, as Bochartus notes (Lib. I. Canaan, cap. 6.) the Idumaeans, Ammonites, Moabites, and the reſt of the Inhabitants of Arabia Deſerta, are called circumciſed in the corners, i. e. of the head, IX Jer. 26. And the Greek Scholiaſt on that place, ſaith, that in his time the Saracens were ſo cut.
But there are thoſe, who thinks this refers to a Superſtitious Cuſtom among the Gentiles, in their mourning for the dead. For they cut off their hair, and that round about; and threw it into the Sepulchre with the Bodies of their Relations and Friends: and ſometimes laid it upon the Face, or the Breaſt of the dead, as an Offering to the Infernal Gods, whereby they thought to appeaſe them, and make them kind to the deceaſed. For that this relates to the dead, is probable from the like Law, repeated XIV Deut. 1. and from the next Verſe to this. See Maimonides de Idoll. c. 12.1, 2, 5.
Neither ſhalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.] There were five corners (as their phraſe is) of their Beards; one on either Cheek, and one on either Lip, and one below on the Chin: None of which, much leſs all, they might ſhave off, as the manner of the Idolatrous Prieſts was; if we may believe Maimonides P. III. More Nevoch. cap. 37. But if the former have reſpect to their mourning for the dead, I do not ſee why this ſhould not alſo be ſo interpreted: the Gentiles being wont (as Theodoret obſerves) to ſhave their Beards, and ſmite their Cheeks, at the Funerals of their Friends.
Ver. 28. Verſe 28 Ye ſhall not make any cuttings in your fleſh.] Either with their Nails, or with Knives, or other ſharp Inſtruments; as the manner of the Heathen was.
For the dead.] To pacifie the Infernal Spirits, and make them propitious to the dead; which was the end at which the Gentiles aimed in ſlaſhing themſelves. Otherwiſe, ſimple tearing their Fleſh out of great Grief and Anguiſh of Spirit, doth not ſeem to be prohibited, no more than tearing off their hair; which were in uſe among the Jews, without any offence againſt this Law, XVI Jer. 6, 7. XLI. 5. and other places. See Maimon. de Idol. cap. 13. ſect. 10, 11, 12, 13. J. Gerard. Voſſius de Idol. p. 209. Edit. 1. and Gierus de luctu Hebraeorum, cap. 10. ſect. 2, 3. Huetius thinks that Law of Solon's, which was tranſcribed by the Romans into the XII Tables, That Women in mourning ſhould not ſcratch their Cheeks, had its original from this Law of Moſes, Demonſtr. Evang. Propoſ. IV. cap. 12. n. 2.
Nor print any mark upon you.] If this refer to the dead (as the foregoing Prohibition doth) than theſe Marks were made by the Gentiles in their Fleſh, at the Funeral of their Friends; that by the Compunction and Pain they felt in their Bodies, they might Appeaſe the Infernal Powers. And ſo Aben-Ezra underſtands it: though there be no footſteps, that I can find of this, in any other Author; but it is probable only, from what goes before. There is far greater reaſon for another Expoſition, that theſe Prints were made in the Fleſh, that they who had them might be known to belong to ſuch or ſuch a God. For it was the cuſtom of Idolaters, ſaith the often-named R. Levi, Praecept. CCLVII.) to devote themſelves to their Gods, by Notes or Signs, ſignifying they were their Servants, (for every one knows, in future times, Slaves had Marks ſet upon them to certifie to whom they belong'd) redeem'd with their price, and ſtamp'd with their mark. And theſe Marks were made with a hot Iron, in their Hands, Foreheads, or Necks: or they were prickt with a Needle dipt in Glaſtum, as he ſays, which made blue Spots in their Skin; as the manner was among the Arabians, eſpecially the Scenitae. And they expreſſed either the very name of the God, to whoſe Service they were Conſecrated; or elſe by a proper Character denoted whom they honoured: as a Thunderbolt ſignified they were devoted to Jupiter, a Spear or Helmet, to Mars; a Trident to Neptune, &c. And theſe were Signs (or Sacraments as we may call them) whereby they were ſolemnly addicted to their Worſhip.
It is poſſible there might be ſome Nations then that made ſome Marks in their Fleſh, as an Ornament to them: for at this day the Women in Greenland do not paint their Faces, which are very ſwarthy, but ſtigmatize them in ſeveral places, by drawing a Needle and Thread, dipt in Whales greaſe, through the Skin, in what figure they pleaſe. Such Tho. Bartholinus ſaith he had ſeen; though he fancied they did not this as an ornament, but in token they were marriageable; for they that were not, had no ſuch Marks, Anatom. Hiſtor. Cent. IV. Hiſt. 90. But if any ſuch thing were in uſe in ancient times, it eaſily might degenerate into the Idolatrous Cuſtom before-mentioned: For nothing more certain then that they made ſuch Marks in honour of Mars the God of Battel; and that he who devoted himſelf to Hercules, received foreign, Sacred Marks, giving up himſelf to that God, as Herodotus ſpeaks (Lib. II. cap. 13.) of one that fled to his Temple in Egypt. And Lucian ſaith of the Prieſts of the Syrian Goddeſs, foreign, &c. they were all marked; ſome in their Wriſts, others in their Necks: from whence all the Aſſyrians foreign, carry ſuch Brands, or Marks, in their Fleſh. And ſo are the Jews, that were initiated in the Egyptian Rites, ſaid (by the Author of the Third Book of Maccabees) to be ſtigmatized with the Leaves of Ivy, which were the inſignia of Bacchus. From which ancient practiſe, it is probable, Chriſtians have derived the Cuſtom of printing the Jeruſalem Croſs upon the Arms of thoſe, who go to viſit our Saviour's Sepulchre. See Tollius in Carmina inedita Gregor. Nazianz. p. 160. I ſhall add no more, but that the Jews themſelves were ſo inclined to receive ſuch a Badge as this, that they made no ſcruple to print the name of their own God in their Fleſh: as appears by that ſaying mentioned by Schickard out of the Title Sopherim; If any Man write the name of GOD upon his fleſh, let him neither waſh, nor anoint in that place. See his Miſhpat Hameleck, cap. II. Theorem V. and Carpzovius his Annotations upon it.
I am the LORD.] For this reaſon ſuch Marks were forbidden, becauſe the Iſraelites were peculiarly devoted to him, as their Sovereign Lord and Benefactor, (for the Syriack adds your God) and therefore were not to own any other but him: whoſe Mark they had received in Circumciſion; which made all other abſolutely unlawful.
Ver. 29. Verſe 29 Do not proſtitute thy daughter, to cauſe her to be a whore.] It is ſcarce to be imagined that any Man would proſtitute his Daughter, to be a common Strumpet; though he might poſſibly overlook the lewdneſs to which ſhe had given up her ſelf. Therefore here in all probability, is prohibited the expoſing their Daughters, as a piece of Religion, to the Service of ſuch filthy Deities, as were worſhipped in thoſe days, by Acts of Uncleanneſs in their Temples. For which purpoſe both Men and Women were there kept, as Perſons conſecrated to ſuch uſes. Our great Selden hath obſerved ſomething of this in his Diſcourſe upon Succoth-Benoth. See Syntagma de Diis Syris II. cap. 7.
Thoſe are fanſiful Interpretations which R. Elieſer and R. Akiba make of theſe words; who ſay, a Man proſtitutes his Daughter, who did not get her a Huſband when ſhe was marriageable; or married her to an old Man, Gem. Sanhedrim, cap. 9. n. 1.
Lest the Land fall to whoredom.] Unto which nothing could contribute ſo much, as to make Whoredom a piece of Religion.
And the Land become full of wickedneſs.] By ſuch abominable Idolatries (as St. Peter calls them) and many other foul ſins, particularly Murders, which flowed from hence; as Maimonides obſerves in his More Nevoch. P. III. c. 49.
Ver. 30. Verſe 30 Ye ſhall keep my Sabbaths.] Not the days conſecrated by the Gentiles to the Service of their Gods: but the Solemn days which I have appointed for the remembrance of my benefits. See v. 2.
And reverence my Sanctuary.] This Reverence conſiſted principally, in coming to it ſo prepared as the Law required; in ſuch Purity and Cleanneſs as was there preſcribed; and then behaving themſelves there with an awful Humility. But the better to ſecure this Reverence, the Maſters in Iſrael ordained, that no Man ſhould come into the Mountain of the Houſe, with a Staff, or a Sword, or a Girdle with a Purſe, or with Shoes on his feet: and that no Man ſhould ſpit there, nor make it a thorow-fare; nor go out of it with his back towards the Sanctuary; but go backward leiſurely with his face towards it, till he was out of the Gate, &c. So Maimonides in his Beth Habechira, cap. 7. R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. CCXXI. and ſee Petrus Cunaeus, Lib. II. cap. 12. de Republ. Hebr.
But the great thing which ſecured the Reverence due to the Sanctuary, was, that which I mentioned at firſt, the ſtrict Purity from all Legal Defilements, with which they were to be prepared: which made it very difficult to be in a condition to approach it. For when there were ſo many ways of being defiled, and ſo much time required to make Men clean again, and ſo many things, in many Caſes, to be done for that purpoſe, it was not poſſible that they ſhould be fit to come thither very often, without exceeding great care and diligence: as I obſerved before out of the ſame Maimonides, P. III. More Nevoch. cap. 47. Which very much tended to preſerve their Reverence to the Sanctuary. For Men led by ſenſe, as they were, make nothing of thoſe places to which they may go when they pleaſe: but thoſe to which they cannot be admitted, without much Solemnity, and only at certain times, and after great pains to fit themſelves for it, they are apt to have in great eſteem.
I am the LORD.] Whoſe Majeſty dwelt in that Houſe: unto which therefore no Body might approach, either for Prayer or for Sacrifice, without an awful ſenſe of him. For ſo Maimonides explains it, in the place now named; The Sanctuary it ſelf was not to be reverenced, but he who commanded that reverence.
Nor did this Reverence belong only to the Tabernacle or Temple, inſtituted by God's expreſs Command; for that Ceremonial Service, which was unlawful to be performed any where elſe (for then it might ſeem proper only to that Ceremonial Diſpenſation, and to be now vaniſht under the Goſpel) but the perpetual practice of the Jewiſh Nation ſhows, that they thought themſelves obliged by this Precept to uſe Reverence in their Synagogues. Which were neither inſtituted by any written Precept of the Law, nor for any Ceremonial Service, which was confined to the Temple: but for publick Aſſemblies, to hear the Law read and expounded; and to offer the Prayers of the People to God. For in the Pſalms of Aſaph (where there is the only mention we find of Synagogues in the Old Teſtament) they are called, not only Houſes and Aſſemblies of God, but alſo Sanctuaries (as the word is here in Moſes) LXXIII Pſal. 17. LXXIV. 4, 7, 8. LXXXIII. 12. See Mr. Thorndike in his Rights of the Church in a Chriſtian State, p. 213.
Ver. 31. Verſe 31 Regard not them.] Do not go to conſult them; nor follow their Directions.
That have familiar ſpirits.] It is uncertain what is here meant by Oboth; which we tranſlate familiar Spirits. But the word Ob ſignifying a Bottle, or hollow Veſſel, XXXII Job 19. the Jews think it probable that Oboth here ſignifies ſuch as the Greeks call foreign, who had a Spirit or Daemon ſpeaking out of the Belly, or Cheſt, with an hollow voice, as if it came out of a Bottle. So the Woman whom Saul went to conſult, is called baalath ob, a Miſtreſs of ſuch a Spirit: where it is plain ob ſignifies the Spirit, or Daemon, (See XX. 27.) and he or ſhe that had familiarity with ſuch a Spirit, was properly called Baal, or Baalath ob, the Maſter or Miſtreſs who poſſeſſed it, and gave Anſwers by it, with a voice that ſeemed to come out of the lower parts of the Belly. In one place indeed the LXX. tranſlates it foreign, XIX Iſa. 3. They that ſpeak out of the Earth; becauſe the Voice coming from the lower parts of her that was poſſeſſed, ſeemed to come out of the Earth; as Mr. Selden explains it in de Diis Syris.
R. Levi of Barcelonita ſaith the manner of it was thus, (Praecept. CCLVIII. after certain Fumes, and other Ceremonies, a Voice ſeemed to come from under the Arm-holes (ſo he takes it, and ſo it is ſaid in Sanhedrim, cap. 7. n. 7.) of the Perſon that had the familiar Spirit, which anſwered to the Queſtions which were askt. For this he quotes Siphra. But if it came from under the Arm-holes, ſtill it was ſo low and hollow, as if it had been out of the bottom of the Belly, or the Cavities of the Earth. Others imagine ſuch Perſons had the name of Oboth, becauſe they were ſwelled with the Spirit, as a Bladder is when it is blown. However it was, this continued till the times of the Goſpel, as appears from XVI Acts 16. For ſhe that had the Spirit of Python was the ſame with an foreign, as Plutarch informs us. See Caſaubon and L. de Dieu on that place. The famous Pythia, who delivered the Oracles of Apollo, ſate over a hole, and by her Secrets Parts received the Spirit which ſwelled her, and made her utter Oracles, as Origen obſerves, Lib. VII. contra Celſum; and St. Chryſoſtom, Hom. XXIX. in I Epist. ad Corinth. See Beyerus in his Annot. upon Selden de Diis Syris, p. 226, &c.
There are thoſe that look upon all that theſe Authors ſay, as old Stories to which no Credit is to be given. But Aug. Eugabinus affirms, That he himſelf had ſeen ſuch Women, called Ventriloquae, (which is the ſame with the Greek foreign) from whom, as they ſat, a Voice came out of their Secret Parts, and gave Anſwers to Enquiries. And Caelius Rhodoginus (Lib. VIII. Antiq. Lect. cap. 10.) ſaith this is not to be entertained with Laughter; for not only he ſaw ſuch a Woman, and heard a very ſmall Voice coming out of her Belly; but innumerable other People, not only at Rhodigium, but in a manner through all Italy. Among whom there were many great Perſons (who had her ſtript naked, that they might be ſure there was no fraud) to whom a Voice anſwered unto ſuch things as they enquired. Hieron. Oleaſter alſo upon XXIV Iſa. 4. ſaith, he ſaw ſuch an one at Lisbon; from under whoſe Arm-holes, and other parts of her, a ſmall Voice was heard, which readily anſwered to whatever was asked.
Neither ſeek after Wizards.] The Hebrew word Jideonim importing Knowledge, as all confeſs, ſignifies ſuch as we call Cunning-men; who pretended to tell what was loſt, or what Fortune people ſhould have. And theſe were Men (as far as I can judge) as the other were moſtly Women; who held intelligence with ſome Daemon. For this word ſeems to have the very ſame derivation in Hebrew, which the other hath in Greek: for all ſay, foreign are as much as foreign, knowers; and Jideonim are as much as Joadim, which is the very ſame, futurorum conſcij, as Mr. Selden obſerves. And ſo the LXX. tranſlate it foreign, 2 Kings XXI. 7. though here and XX. ult. they render it foreign, and elſewhere foreign. This knowledge they pretended to obtain, (as ſome think) by looking into the Entrails of their Sacrifices: or, as Maimonides will have it, by putting the Bone of a certain Bird, called Jadua, into their Mouths, with certain Fumes and Adjurations; which made them fall into an Ecſtaſie, and foretel things to come, R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. CCLIX. And there are thoſe who think that theſe Jideonim were ſuch as pretended by Charms to cure Diſeaſes, &c. of which we can have no certainty, and it ſeems to rely only on the LXX. in this place, who, as I obſerved, tranſlate it by a more general word, in another.
To be defiled by them.] With the fouleſt ſins. For ſeeking to theſe, was a forſaking of God; and one peculiar kind of Idolatry. And therefore they that were guilty of it were to be ſtoned (as the ſame R. Levi obſerves) if they committed this ſin knowingly, and there were Witneſſes of it. If there were no Witneſſes, then they were left to God to be cut off by his hand, XX. 6.
I am the LORD your God.] Unto whom you are to ſeek for all that you deſire.
Ver. 32. Verſe 32 Thou ſhalt riſe up before the hoary head.] That they might accuſtom themſelves to Modeſty and Humility, (as Maimonides gloſſes upon this Law, More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 36.) for the maintenance of which the uſage was, they ſay, to riſe up to them, when they were at the diſtance of four Cubits: and as ſoon as they were gone by, to ſit down again; that it might appear they roſe up purely in reſpect to them. To this Nature directed all civilized People; who anciently, as Juvenal ſays, Satyr. XIII. believed this a great wickedneſs, to be puniſhed with death, if a young Man did not riſe up to an old.
Credebant hoc grande nefas, & morte piandum,
Si juvenis vetulo non aſſurrexerat,—
And ſuch a Law there was eſtabliſhed among the Lacedaemonians, foreign, That aged Perſons ſhould be reverenced no leſs, than if they were their Fathers. And ſo Plato, foreign, Let every one reverence him that is elder than himſelf, in deed and in word, Lib. IX. de Legibus, p. 875. Where he requires that a Youth ſhould honour a Stranger that was his ancient: and hath this memorable ſaying, foreign, &c. That Youth ſhould glory more in obeying well, than in ruling well. And first of all in obeying the Laws; for this is all one with ſerving God: and next in giving honour to old Men; and to thoſe eſpecially, who have paſſed their days honourably, and with glory. See more to this purpoſe in Henricus Stephanus de juris civilis font. & rivis. And there was the greater reaſon for this Reverence toward old Men in this Nation, there being nothing elſe among them but Age and Experience that could diſtinguiſh them: for they were all equally noble, and equally rich; of the ſame Profeſſion, and brought up in the ſame manner.
And honour the face of the old Man.] Or of the Elder: that is, of thoſe who were skilful in the Law, as the Jews interpret it; and I ſee no reaſon to contradict it, (as ſome have done) ſince he ſpeaks of aged Perſons before. See Mr. Selden, Lib. I. de Synedr. cap. 14. where he deduces this at large: and another excellent Writer of our own, Mr. Thorndike in his Rights of the Church in a Chriſtian State, p. 214, &c. For if ſuch as taught the Law had not been honoured before Men, no body would have minded their words, nor received what they propounded, about things to be known or to be done, as Maimonides words are in his More Nevoch. P. III. cap. 36. And it made no difference of what Age he was, whether an old Man or a young; (for ſome Elders, it appears by Daniel, were not aged) but the ſame honour was given to him, even by wiſe Men; as R. Levi Barcelonita ſhows, Praecept. CCXXII.
And fear thy God.] This is the fountain of all Vertue; particularly of the fore-mentioned: God having imprinted a venerable Character upon thoſe who are grown aged, eſpecially on ſuch as are wiſe, and inſtruct others in Vertue. But ſome of the Hebrews think that in this Verſe there are three Degrees of Honour enjoyned, to three Ranks of Men: one to the Aged; the next to the Wiſe and Learned; and the third to the Judges; who they imagine are here meant by Elohim (God) whom they are commanded to fear or reverence.
I am the LORD.] Moſt high above all; and therefore greatly to be feared.
Ver. 33. Verſe 33 And if a ſtranger ſojourn with thee in your Land, ye ſhall not vex him.] Not ſo much as by upbraiding him with his being a Stranger; or his having worſhipped Idols heretofore. For of ſuch a Stranger they underſtand this, as was become a Proſelyte to their Religion. See XVII. 8, 12, 13. and XXII Exod. 21. But common Humanity teaches every Body, to be kind to all manner of Stangers, and not meerly to refrain from oppreſſing them, or giving them vexation. Plato hath moſt excellent Diſcourſes about this in ſeveral places: particularly Lib. V. de Legibus, where he ſhows, that God is the Avenger of all Wrongs done to Strangers, more than of thoſe that are done to our fellow Citizens: foreign, &c. For a Stranger being deſtitute of Friends and Kindred, is the greater object of pity, both of Men and of God. And therefore he that can hurt most, ſhould be moſt ready to help him, &c. See p. 729, 730. Edit. Serrani. Upon which account he makes it lawful for a Stranger to pluck any of the beſt Fruit, as he is upon his way, whether Grapes, Figs, or Apples, &c. Lib. VIII. p. 845. And the Corn being divided, as he would have it into twelve parts; and a twelfth part divided into three; he orders one of thoſe third parts to be given to Strangers, p. 847, 848. foreign, for a Stranger or Sojourner ought to be comforted, in a moſt friendly manner, &c. See Lib. XII. p. 952, 953.
Ver. 34. Verſe 34 But the ſtranger that dwelleth with thee, ſhall be as one born among you.] They underſtand this only of ſuch a Stranger, who by Circumciſion was become a perfect Proſelyte: whom they were to be ſo far from oppreſſing, that they were to treat him as if he had been a Native Jew, and love him as a Brother.
And thou ſhalt love him as thy ſelf.] He had commanded them, v. 18. to love their Neighbour; i. e. an Iſraelite (they expound it) as themſelves: and now he commands them to love a Stranger with the ſame Affection; which demonſtrates, they think, he was become an Iſraelite; and therefore was to have the ſame Priviledges with themſelves, both in all Civil and Sacred things. And this, no doubt, was true that they were bound to treat ſuch a Proſelyte with a tender Affection, and to make no difference between him and an Iſraelite. For he was to be admitted to eat of the Paſchal Lamb, and of the Peace-offerings: and he might marry with an Iſraelite; inſomuch that Moſes ſaith, One Ordinance ſhall be for both, XV Numb. 15. All the difference I can find, was, That they never admitted any Stranger to be a Member of the great Sanhedrim. But notwithſtanding all this, I cannot think it reaſonable to exclude all other Strangers from their Affection; but they were bound to love them, and to be kind to them, though not to embrace them with ſuch a ſtrict Friendſhip as the other. And to confirm this, it may be obſerved, That in the fourth Commandment, the Stranger within their Gate ſignifies, as they confeſs, not him that was a perfect Proſelyte, but only one that had renounced Idolatry. And ſo they underſtand the word Stranger in the XXVth Chapter of this Book, v. 47. and I ſee no reaſon why ſuch a Stranger ſhould not be admitted here to have a ſhare in their Affection, who was become a Worſhipper of the true God, though he had not taken upon him to obſerve the whole Law.
For ye were ſtrangers in the Land of Egypt.] This Reaſon is little leſs than a Demonſtration that ſuch Strangers as I now mentioned, are comprehended in the foregoing Precept. For the remembrance of what their Condition was in Egypt, is that whereby they are moved to have pity on thoſe whom they found among themſelves in the ſame: and they and the Egyptians were not of the ſame Religion, but found ſuch kind entertainment there a long time, as they were to give to thoſe who were of their Religion.
This Argument indeed became ſtronger, when any Perſons were incorporated with them, and become more one with them than they were with the Egyptians; but was of great force to procure kindneſs to thoſe who did not live by their Laws.
I am the LORD your God.] Who have done ſo much for you when you were meer Strangers, that you ſhould not ſtick to be kind to thoſe who are in the like Condition.
Ver. 35. Verſe 35 Ye ſhall do no unrighteouſneſs in judgment.] The Hebrews refer this word judgment to all the following particulars; and think that Moſes uſes it here to ſhow of what moment this Law is, which he calls doing judgment. So that he who meaſures or weighs, hath the Office of a Judge; and if he commit any fraud in his Meaſures or Weights, he is a corrupter of Judgment, and is called wicked, abominable, accurſed. They are the words of R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. CCLX. where he adds that ſuch Men are the cauſe of five Miſchiefs, which are imputed to unjuſt Judges: who defile the Land; prophane the Name of God; remove the Preſence of the Divine Majeſty; bring a Sword upon the People; and at laſt carry them captive out of their own Country. And therefore great Puniſhments have been enacted in all Countries againſt this Crime, as deſtructive to Human Society: Particularly Juſtinian ordained that ſuch Offenders ſhould be beaten foreign ſorely, as impious People.
In mete-yard.] By which they meaſured Lands, Cloath, and ſuch like things: for Middah (as Foſterus obſerves) is the Meaſure of continued quantity, viz. in things dry.
In weight.] By which they paid and received Money in thoſe days; and ſold Braſs and Iron, and things of like nature.
Or in meaſure.] The Hebrew word Meſurah (from whence ſeems to come the Latin Menſura, and our Engliſh word Meaſure) denotes the Meaſure of Diſcrete Quantity (as we ſpeak) as of Corn; and of all continued Fluid Quantity, as of Wine and Oil. And the forenamed R. Levi will have it to ſignifie the very leaſt of ſuch Meaſures; about which, ſaith he, the Law concerns it ſelf, that Men ſhould be exact in them, as well as in the greateſt. And ſo Heſychius here notes, that Moſes provides againſt all Injuſtice in ſmall things, as well as in great: for what the poſſeſſion of a Field, or a Houſe is to a wealthy Man, that the meaſure of Wine or Corn, or the weight of Bread is to the Poor, who have daily need of ſuch things for the ſupport of their Life.
Ver. 36. Verſe 36 Just balances, just weights.] This Verſe only poſitively requires ſtrict juſtice in thoſe things, wherein the former Verſe forbad all deceit. And theſe two words refer to things ſold by weight.
A just Ephah and a just Hin ſhall ye have.] Theſe two words Ephah and Hin, comprehend all ſorts of Meaſures of things, whether wet or dry. And that they might have ſuch juſt Weights and Meaſures among them, the Standard of them was kept in the Sanctuary, by which all were to be governed; as appears from 1 Chron. XXIII. 29. See XXX Exod. 13. The Jewiſh Doctors alſo ſay, that it was a Conſtitution of their wiſe Men, for the preventing all Fraud in theſe matters, that no Weights, Balances, or Meaſures ſhould be made of any Metal, as of Iron, Lead, Tin, &c. (which were obnoxious to ruſt, or might be bent, or eaſily impaired) but of Marble, Stone, or Glaſs, which were leſs liable to be abuſed.
For theſe Conſtitutions Moſes was ſo famous, that his Name was celebrated on the account of them in other Nations. Nay, Lucius Ampelius (a rude kind of Writer, but who had collected much out of better Authors) ſaith, that Mochus was the Inventer of Scales and Weights; and that his memory is preſerved in the Conſtellation called Libra. Now if for Mochus we read Moſchos, it is the very name of Moſes in Hebrew (viz. Moſcheh) who is called ſo by other Authors, as the learned Huetius obſerves in his Demonſtr. Evang. Propoſ. IV. cap. 7. n. 16.
I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the Land of Egypt.] This is the general reaſon for their Obedience; which is repeated in this Chapter above a dozen times. Sometimes more briefly, I am the LORD; and ſometimes a little larger, I am the LORD your God: and here with this addition, which brought you out of the Land of Egypt. Whereby he in a ſpecial manner demonſtrates himſelf, both to be their LORD (faithful to his promiſe, VI Exod. 3.) and their God: who obliged them to his Service, by the moſt ſingular benefit.
Ver. 37. Verſe 37 Therefore ſhall ye obſerve all my ſtatutes and all my judgments, and do them.] Theſe words, Statutes and Judgments, comprehend all the Laws of God: ſome of which were Prohibitions, which they were to mark and obſerve diligently, ſo as to abſtain from ſuch things; and others Precepts or Commands, which they were to practiſe and do according to them.
I am the LORD.] No more need be ſaid to engage your Obedience in every thing than this, that I am your Soveraign, and the Soveraign of the whole World.