Commentary on the Old Testament Volume 1
By a fit man here Oleaster understandeth a man in years; Pagninus, one used to go that way; Hugo, one brought up purposely from his child-hood for this service; and some Hebrews, saith Comestor, that children were taken out of the Tribe for the time deputed, their spleen being first medicinally taken from them, with whom when the High Priest had gone without the camp, he returned. But I rest in the first, but whereas the Jews Talmud saith, that the goat being brought to the rock, was there thrown down and died; either it was not so used, or else the man carrying it went beyond his commission, which was only to carry it to a rocky place in the wilderness to run at liberty, as one of the birds before spoken of in the case of the leper was let fly, Ch. 14. and the very words, verse. 23. are, he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. Whereas the place of dismissing it is further described to be a land not inhabited, Hebr. it is a land 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of separation or cutting off, the Septuagint render it inaccessible, and it is noted, that this word is not elsewhere used in this sense, but Esa. 53. 8. where it is said of Christ, he was cut out of the land of the living. Job 22. 28. and Dan. 4. 17. it is used for a decree, which may also intimate some place determined, to which this goat should be sent. Vers. 23. Then Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and put off his linen garments, and leave them there, and wash, &c. This putting off of the linen garments, saith Maimonides, was done in this order. So soon as the High Priest had returned from sending the scape-goat away, he came again to the bullock and goat before killed, and took out their fat, that it might be burnt upon the Altar, putting it in a vessel, then he cut the flesh in great pieces, which yet were left cleaving together, and so delivereth them to others to be carried forth to be burned, and whilst they were burning, he came into the women's court to read the Law, then the Minister gave the book to the chief man of the congregation, he to the Sagan or second, and the Sagan to the High Priest, and he received it standing, and read standing, Levite. 16. 23, 27. and all the people stood before him, and before and after his reading he blessed God. After this he put off his white garments, washed himself, and put on the golden garments, and offered his own and the people's burnt-offering, and the fat of the sin-offering. And here are all the washings and changings of garments spoken of in the Text: but Maimonides saith, again after this he put off the golden garments, and washed and put on the linen, and went again into the most holy place to fetch from thence the censer and the cup, wherein the incense was carried, and then putting them off, he washed and put on the golden garments, and offered the continual evening Sacrifice, and incense, and trimmed the lamps, then putting them off again he washed, and put on his common garments and went home, all the people accompanying him, and then he made them a feast for joy, that he was come safely out of the Sanctuary. And all these washings were, saith he, in a vessel of gold, and in the Sanctuary, except the first which was without, but at other times he washed, as the other Priests, at a laver of brass. Lastly, the linen garments left in the Sanctuary were never served in anymore, nor put to any use, as was before touched upon Exod. 28. The conceit of Gregory here, that the High Prist had on the breast-plate, when he went into the most holy place, and never but then, and of Tostatus, that he put the white garments upon his common garments, when he changed him, and the golden garments upon them all, is not worth the naming, because it is plain, that when he put on the one, he first put off the other, and into the most holy [Note.] place he came only with plain linen garments, setting forth humiliation, with which we must come before God, when we come to have our sins expiated, as was the end of this days service. And he washed himself, saith Maimonides, this day five times, and his hands and feet ten times, certainly he [Note.] did it very often, and why so? but to show, what a deal of washing there must be by the tears of repentance in him, that would be thoroughly cleansed from all his sins.
And he that let go the scape-goat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, &c. The like thing is enjoined him that burnt the sin-offering without the campe, v. 28. This washing was for the uncleanness of sin put upon the scape-goat, and upon the sin-offering, that all sin might be the more abhorred, because he that had to do with the goat, which was a clean beast, yet by reason of the sins put upon it was made unclean.
The sending away of the bullock and goat for the sin-offering without the campe to be burnt is appointed here, but of this see enough before, Chap. 4. 11, 12. and of the man's washing his flesh and clothes, that burned it there.
And this shall be a statute forever unto you, that in the seventh month, the tenth day ye afflict your souls, and do no work, whether it be one of your own Country or a stranger, &c. Hitherto hath been shown by what sacrifices and rites the High Priest should cleanse them from all their sins, but the time of the year hath not been yet particularly set down, wherefore the tenth day of the seventh month is here appointed for this service, which was one day only every year, and this is further called, a Sabbath of rest, v. 31. wherein they must afflict their souls. Of this day it is spoken again, Levite. 23. 27. and Numb. 29. 7, 11. and upon this day the Jubile was proclaimed, Levite. 25. 8. But why was this [Quest.] day specially appointed? Some Hebrews say, that Moses came down from mount Sinai upon this very day, after that he had been there with the Lord the second time 40 days and 40 nights, entreating that their sin about the golden calves might be pardoned. Tostatus misliketh this, but whoso shall compute the times, shall find, that Moses his coming down was about the 10 day of the seventh month. For the third month the people are said to have come to the wilderness of Sinai, where some time was spent in preparing to receive the law. After the law of the ten Commandments given by a lively voice, many laws more were given to Moses for the people, Exod. 20. 24, 25, &c. and Chap. 21. and Chap. 22. and Chap. 23. in giving which, if a proportion were held in time with the laws given after, Chap. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. we may well account near 20 days, then add 40, Exod. 24. 18. of his first being in the mount, and 30 haply which he stayed to chastise and to bring the people to repentance before his going up again, Chap. 34. and lastly, the 40 days of his second being there, and we shall thus come just upon this time. And there was great reason, so heinous a sin being committed by all sorts both Priests and people, that this time should perpetually be set apart to bewail both it and all other their sins yearly, that they might not be utterly destroyed for them, as they were in danger to have been, if Moses had not stood in the gap and turned away the Lord's wrath from them There is another conceit of the Jews touching this day, mentioned by Tostatus, not worth the naming, viz. that God sat upon this day to forgive men's sins, and to show the Fatalia of everyone that year. And another of Comestor, that they offered for the dead upon this day, which Lorinus amplifieth, saying, that it was for the dead, who had been slain for their idolatry about the golden calf. But it is as easy for us to contemn such groundless inventions, as for them to devise them. This ordinance then was for the expiation of all their sins who did now afflict their souls, and of that most notorious sin about the golden calf in special, as is most probable, this time being singularly chosen for this purpose. And it seemeth to me that the seventh month was chosen, because of the Sabbath upon the seventh day from the Creation, whereby the number of seven seemeth to have been specially sanctified, and the tenth day, in allusion to the ten Commandments, the sins against all which were now expiated. And this, as Tostatus well noteth, was a fit time for the ease of the people, both because the fruits of the earrh were now gathered in, and about this time they were to be at Jerusalem upon occasion of two solemnities more, the feast of blowing trumpets the first day of this month, and the feast of tabernacles the 15 day thereof.
Whereas it is said to be a statute forever, this is to be understood, as that of circumcision, Gen. 17. and of the passover, Exod. 12. viz. all the time that this Ceremonial law should stand, so that it is a reviving of a Ceremony long ago abolished to keep one day in the year, as the Papists do, by many superstitious rites to seek to expiate their sins of all the year, and therefore it is noted, that in Italy this is turned into an occasion of all licentiousness to commit any manner of sensual wickedness, when this time approacheth, because the day is at hand when all their sins shall be done away again by fasting, strewing ashes upon them, and wearing hair-clothe, &c.
Touching their afflicting of their souls commanded upon this day, this, saith Maimonides, stood in five things; in abstinence 1 From meat. 2 From drink. 3 From washing. 4. From putting on their shoes. 5 From their wives. For they all fasted 24 hours, except children under nine years of age, and the sick, yet Comestor saith, that children of seven years old fasted. And in fasting and sorrowing chiefly stood their afflicting of themselves, and putting on sackcloth and ashes instead of better apparel, as we may gather from Esa. 58. and David when he mourned went bare-footed, 2 Sam. 15. 30. and when the Lord appeared, and the people were to come about him, Exod. 19. they must not come at their wives; and David, when he mourned for his child being sick, did neither wash nor anoint himself. But under these outward afflictings of the body were set forth the true repentance that was required to be accepted before the Lord, Esa. 58. 5, 6. Lastly, for the stranger, who is as well to keep this time, as the Jews, he was one dwelling amongst them that embraced the same Religion; by the Septuagint therefore called a Proselyte, Levite. 23, 29. Whoso did not afflict his soul upon this day, must be cut off.
This day is called a Sabbath of rest, for the most strict rest required upon it, and because of their fasting upon this Sabbath, Augustus mistaking it, commanded in imitation of Moses, a fast to be kept upon every Sabbath day; and Justin saith, that Moses wearied the people with the fasts of the Sabbaths: but fasts were not kept upon other Sabbath-days, but upon this only.
Here it is ordained for time to come, when Aaron should be dead, that his son should likewise being the anointed High Priest, put on the linen garments, &c. The care of the Jews of old was wonderful, as Maimonides setteth it forth, that all things might be rightly done now, and so an atonement made, being afraid, if any error were committed, lest the High Priest should be stricken with death to the damage of them all; as the two sons of Aaron had been, Levite. 10. wherefore the Synedrion seven days before this day would not suffer him to come at his wife for fear of being defiled by her disease, and in all this time he was inured to the killing of sacrifices, and burning of incense, and had read unto him often the duty of this day, and was caused to read it himself, lest he should forget it, and the evening before he fasted and watched, as was before said, and a second also was appointed, if by any accident he should be polluted in the service doing, to go on in his stead where he left.
And this shall be an everlasting statute amongst the children of Israel, to make atonement for alltheir sins once a year. Hence it is plain, that the High Priest went into the most holy place but once in a year, which was upon this expiation-day, and this is further confirmed by the Apostle, Heb. 9 7. wherefore that of Origen Hom. 9. and of Augustine Quaest. 133. that the High Priest went daily into the most holy place to burn incense, is a manifest error, and it is to be understood, that the Altar of incense was not in the most holy place, but without the veil of it in another part into which the priest came daily; But into the most holy it was not lawful for any to come to do any service therein at any time, except it were about the taking of it down, or setting it up, but for the High Priest only: wherefore it is to be rejected, as a palpable one, that the Virgin Mary dwelt in the most holy place, as Nicephorus reporteth, and that James the lesser, the Bishop of Jerusalem was suffered to come in thither when he would, for his great holiness, as Hegesippus hath it. Touching the sins here said to be thus expiated, Oleaster mentioneth, and rejecteth a tenet of the Hebrews, that sins against an affirmative precept were done away at any time by repentance, sins against a negative not till this day, and sins deserving cutting off not at all, but there must still be an expectation of vengeance from the hand of God therefore. Now for the last of these, it is true indeed, that there was no sacrifice to cleanse from presumptuous sinning under the Law, for which cutting off was threatened, yet this was not to show them to be unpardonable, for all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, but the sin against the Holy Ghost; but the more to deter men from this kind of sinning, and to shadow out that sin against the holy Ghost, which is elsewhere called a willing sinning after the knowledge of the truth received, for which there is no sacrifice.
But for all other sins the atonement now made hath been so largely spoken of, being for sins, transgressions and trespasses, as that the distinguishing of them by affirmative and negative precepts is over-curious and vain; sins of all sorts, whereof many were unknown, and for which no sacrifice had been before offered, by the sacrifices and rites of this day were all done away; and such as for which particular or general offerings had been made before, and so atonements had been made, the atonement of them all was now perfected.
The sacrifices then and rites of this day are chiefly to be looked at, as most notably pointing out Christ, and the expiation of all our sins by him. By those sacrifices to speak properly, there was no purging of sin, but of outward legal uncleannesses: for the blood of bulls and goats cannot thus purge, and their iterating often and particularly of these sacrifices once every year, is made an argument hereof, because if they had perfectly purged from sin, they should not have needed to have been anymore then once only offered. Christ Jesus then was the bullock and goat, with his blood expiating all sin to such as truly believe in him; and the faithful then living, by believing in his blood to be shed, were cleansed, when they thus sacrificed, as we now without all other sacrificing of fleshly things are cleansed by believing in it already shed for us. Christ was figured out by the High Priest, who alone did all the service of this day, washed so often, and put on linen garments, and entered into the holy place with incense and blood, and thus made atonement for the people, Sanctuary and Altar. For even so, he alone made a perfect atonement for our sins, washed himself in innocence, being without all stain of sin, and put on the plain linen garments of humility, entered Heaven by his own blood, and is there always offering the incense of his intercession for us before God the Father: see this further illustrated, Rev. 8. 3, 4.
And if it be true, which was noted before out of the Rabbins, that the High Priest having put off his white garments, never put them on again; this did notably show, that Christ having left his humbled estate, now that he reigneth in Heavenly glory, shall never come in such a manner again, but with great Majesty and Glory. The holy place, Tabernacle and Altar and people reconciled by blood shown, that all things both in Heaven and in earth should be reconciled by the blood of Christ.
The High Priests offering for himself first, and then for the people, shown that the High Priest that then was, had no virtue in him to save, and therefore there must necessarily come another, not after the order of Aaron, but of Melchizedek. And yet for this he was herein a type of Christ, in that hereby was shown, that he must be without sin himself, that should save others from sin. Touching the scape-goat, he also was a notable figure of Christ in his bearing the sins of the people: for even so Christ did bear the sins of us all, and carried them away into a place cut off, as the word signifieth, or into a land inaccessible, as the Septuagint render it, because he is said to have been cut off, and whither I go, said he to his disciples, can ye not come. And in that there were two goats, one killed, the other saved alive, his two natures were hereby figured out, or by the sending of the one away far off, the coming of the Gospel to the Gentiles, according to some, might be set forth. And all this was done in our September answering to their seventh month in the latter end of the year, to show that in the declining age of the world Christ should suffer. And at this time everyone must afflict his soul, to show that no benefit redoundeth to any by Christ, but to those that by mourning and contrition afflict themselves inwardly for their sins, and by true repentance turn therefrom.
Hesychius drawing every particular to an Allegory, beginneth with the prohibition of going at all times into the holy place, saying, that hereby is forbidden rashly and lightly to dispute of the mysteries of the Deity, and to all others but Aaron, that is, those that are of more excellent understanding, to dispute hereof at all. And Aaron, that is, such must not go about this, but with a bullock and a ram, that is, with Christ set forth hereby, taking light from him, who hath revealed the will of the Father unto us, and they must put on these linen garments, the coat of justice, the breeches of chastity, the mitre of wisdom, and the girdle of fortitude, and be baptized, set forth by washing: but baptizing must be first, or else these virtues are not acceptable to God. Then proceeding to the bullock to be taken by the Priest for his house, and to the goat for all the people, he saith, that by both these Christ was figured out; by the bullock which is a laboring beast, as he was a Sacrifice for the just, set forth by the house of the Priests; and by the goat which hath a stinking smell, as he was a Sacrifice for sinners; and a ram is also offered for a burnt-offering, to show that as we, for whom Christ sacrificed himself, must be mortified to sin, set forth in the sin-offerings: so we must rise up to newness of life, thus wholly offering up ourselves unto Ged, as S. Paul exhorteth. And whereas two goats must be taken, and lots cast, that one may be for the Lord, and another for a scape-goat; some, saith he, wickedly understand the scape-goat, as offered to the Devil, as if here it were appointed, that God should be sacrificed to, and the Devil also. But this wicked conceit is overthrown, because they are both set before the Lord, and the scape-goat after the killing of the other, was brought again, and set before the Lord, and over him confession of sins was made, &c. They were both then brought to the Lord, by the one Christ's humanity, by the other his Deity, that died not, being set forth; and therefore prayers were made over him that was sent away alive, to show that by Christ living still after his death, his humanity was supported and quickened, and by him our prayers come up acceptably before God the Father. And the two goats had lots cast upon them, the whole disposition whereof is said to be from the Lord, to show that Christ came not by human election, but by the mere grace of God. Whereas the scape-goat is sent into a land cut off and not inhabited, which may seem not to agree to Christ going into heaven; it agreeth very well, because heaven is unaccessible by men, being in this cut off as it were, because there is no passing and repassing of men there, as in habitable places of the earth; and a desert where men come not, may aptly set forth the holy seat of God, because it is untainted by men's sins, as places where they dwell are not, and to this David alludeth, Psal. 63. 1. in describing the land where he sought God, to be dry and thirsty, as a wilderness.
But both this and many other passages, whereof Hesychius is full, are misapplied by him, yet of these his Allegories the judicious Reader may make some good use, because all things here were certainly done mystically. And lastly, whereas v. 32. it is said, The Priest whom he shall anoint, shall do all this, Christ, the anointed Son of the heavenly Father, was certainly pointed at, as being figured out by him, anointed to this office by his Father before his departing out of this World.
CHAP. XVII.
WHosoever killeth an ox or goat out of the campe or in the campe, and bringeth it not to the door of the tabernacle to offer, &c. blood shall be imputed to him. After provision made to keep the Priest within the compass of his duty in serving about the holy things of the Lord, now follow laws for all the people, that they might not offend about sacrifices: For all killing of any beasts is not here forbidden in their tents for their private use, but only of beasts for sacrifice, these must be killed and offered nowhere else but at the tabernacle, as is explained, v. 8, 9. and is iterated, Deut. 12. 5, 6, 15, &c. and Chap. 14. 23. and Chap. 15. 19, 20. And this law is spoken by Moses to Aaron and his sons, and to the children of Israel, v. 2. because it concerned all the people, and the priests were to look unto it. Whereas it is said, He shall be guilty of blood, &c. it is meant, that his sin shall be as great as if he had shed unjustly the blood of man, and he shall die for it as a murderer; and according to this it is spoken, Esa. 66. 3. so also Sol. Jarchi, and the Targum Jonathan explain it, if he did but kill it, although he offered it not out of the tabernacle. And thus strict was the Lord herein, because he would by this teach, that no service is acceptable to him that is done out of Christ, who is the true tabernacle, but abominable: so Calvin, and the cessation of this service in time to come, when the temple should be destroyed forever, as Hesychius. It was shown also, that nowhere but in his Church is God acceptably served: so Ainsworth, alleging for this, 1 Tim. 3. 15. Revel. 21. 3. Ephes. 2. 20. Act. 2. 47. Whereas Samuel is said to have sacrificed elsewhere, as at Mizpah, 1 Sam. 7. 6 in Gilgal, 1 Sam. 10. 8. in Bethlehem, 1 Sam. 16. 2, &c. and Manoah, Judge. 13. this was by special direction from God, and by his dispensation, although they were not priests: Junius upon 1 Sam. 16. thinketh that this was only a feast but no sacrifice properly so called, but I rest in the former resolution And for the reason of this sentence, he that killeth a beast elsewhere and not at the tabernacle shall be guilty of blood: Oleaster saith well, Man by sinning came into the danger of death, but the Lord in mercy accepted of the killing of a beast in his stead, but if he did it not in the place, and according to the manner by him appointed, death was still his due.
That the children of Israel may bring the offerings which they offer in the open field unto the Lord to the door of the tabernacle, &c. Before this ordinance they offered their sacrifices, say the Hebrews, upon every high place, and that by the ministry of the first-born, but when the tabernacle was set up, they might not offer in any other place, and not by any other but the priests, so that here is a restreint from the liberty by them formerly used, that they might no more offer unto Devils, as they had done then, v. 7. for to come all to one place, and to the same priests, well instructed in the service of the true God was a certain means to prevent such gross idolatries. Yet the Heathen, saith Maimonides, might sacrifice to God in other places, and the priests might teach them how to offer, but no Israelite might offer elsewhere for them, but only at the tabernacle, or assist them in their offering, because this law is given to the children of Israel. But it is to the Israelites, and to the strangers so journing amongst them, v. 8. they that lived in other countries, might sacrifice there, as Job did. It is added, And offer them for peace-offerings to the Lord. Why for peace-offerings more then for burnt-offerings, or sacrifices for sin? To this some answer, because peace-offerings were most commonly offered, and were brought to testify their piety, and more cheerfully, because the owner had a part therein, and these being not of the most holy offerings, but less holy, it was to be understood, if these must be brought to the door of the tabernacle, then much more the other most holy sacrifices. Others, by peace-offerings here understand all sacrifices, because they all tend to peace betwixt God and man, being before at difference for sin. I think that one kind, which was most commonly offered, was named, the rest being understood.
Touching the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar by the Priest, &c. v. 6. see before, Chap. 3. 8.
That they no more offer their sacrifices to Devils, &c. See the like speech, Deut. 32. 17. By Devils the Idols are meant, to whom they offered, as is explained, 1 Cor. 10. 20. and accordingly Jeroboams idols are called devils, 2 Chro. 11. 15. The word rendered devils, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , rugged things like goats, because the Devil sometimes hath appeared thus; the Septuagint render it, vain things. To offering to Devils going a whoring after them is joined, because the people of God are married as it were unto him; and to offer to other gods is a dissolving of the marriage-knot, and sinning against the vow of marriage, which is whoredom. We may see here, howsoever some [Note.] extenuate the sin of idolatry, yet it no better then the worshipping of the devil; and spiritual whoredom, and this is, when any image is worshipped, as is to be seen in Jeroboams calves.
Here followeth a ratification of this law: If any either Israelite or stranger so journing amongst them transgressed herein, he must be cut off. Of such strangers, see before, Chap. 16. 29. But by offering here Maimonides saith, is to be understood offering upon an altar; for if any man offered upon a stone or rock without, he was not guilty, because it is not Corban, unless it be offered upon an altar, he shall not therefore, saith he, die for this.
Here is a charge against eating blood, cutting off being threatened to such as offend herein. Of this law, see before, Levite. 7. 26, 27. and Chap. 3. 17. but, as there blood of sacrifices was forbidden to be eaten, so here blood of anything killed for their ordinary food; as also, Gen. 9. 4. As in all this a reverend esteem of the blood of Christ figured out by blood was aimed, so we may hence gather, that the Ceremonial law keepeth men that still cleave unto [Note.] it, from partaking of the blood of Christ, because, according to this law it is denied to any to eat blood.
If any man hunteth and catcheth beast or fowl, that may be eaten, he shall pour out the blood of it, and cover it with dust: for blood is the life, &c. This, say the Rabbins, is to be understood only, as it is spoken, the blood of clean beasts is to be covered, not of the unclean, which might not be eaten. Again, they say, that covering in the dust is a burying, and is to be done for honor of God, who hath commanded it, and with blessing God; and therefore it is to be covered not with the foot, which were a contempt, but with the hand or some instrument, Ezech. 24. 7, 8. Blood not covered is spoken of, as the cause of wrath from God. Further they note, that of every beast or fowl to be eaten, the blood must be let out, and no part of it must be eaten, till the life is quite gone, that is, till it hath done trembling, something touching this, see 1 Sam. 14. 32. if any blood remained afterward in the intestines, it might be eaten, because it was not the blood, wherein the life stood, which only was forbidden.
If any man eateth that, which dieth, or is torn with beasts, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself, &c. Of this Law see before, Chap. 11. 39. 40. and Exod. 22. 31. but the Rabbins distinguish it thus, Here is meant, that which is inclining to die through tearing or hurt otherwise, although it be not yet dead, because it is not orderly killed, and the blood let out by man, as is commanded, it may not be eaten. If it be an unclean beast or fowl, although it be killed, and the blood be let out, it may not be eaten, nor the untimely birth of a clean beast, nor anything, before it be eight days old, Ex. 22. 30. Whereas the strangers within their gates are forbidden to eat it, as well as they, but Deut. 14. 21. it is allowed to be given to strangers; there by strangers are to be understood such as were not of their Religion, here such as were.
For the mystery here; Hesychius understandeth by the wild beast or fowl taken in hunting, which might be eaten, such as fear God, whether they be secular or spiritual persons, but yet are unawares overtaken with sin, their blood, that is, their sins are to be buried in the dust, and not to be blazed abroad to their infamy, or to be reputed as crying sins, that cry for revenge, as blood spilled upon the ground, but not buried. And to this Job alludeth, when he saith, O earth, cover not thou my blood. Ainsworth by killing things taken in hunting understandeth such killings, as of which it was said to Peter, kill, and eat, viz. by converting; and the blood, that is, the old man in such must be buried. For things dying alone or torn, see the mysteries of the prohibiting them, Levite. 11. 9. and Exod. 22. 31.
CHAP. XVIII.
AFter the doings of the land of Egypt shall ye not do, nor of the land of Canaan, &c.
In forbidding them to do like them of Egypt, or Canaan, he meaneth all heathens: for so Maimonides saith, we may not walk in the statutes of the heathen, nor be like unto them in hair or in apparel, &c. Levite. 19. 27. Chap 18. 3. and Chap. 20. 26. A man must not apparel himself with apparel peculiar to them, nor let the locks of his head grow like their locks, nor shave off the sides, leaving the hair in the midst, &c. Why Egypt is specially named, see Ezech. 20. 7, 8. Chap. 23. 8. and Canaan, Levite. 20. 23. In Egypt they had lived long, and had been already corrupted thereby: for it is noted of Isi • their goddess, that she was married to her brother Osiris, and hereupon a Law was made in Egypt that it should be lawful for brother to marry with sister; and for other degrees here forbidden, the Arabians are said to have married only with their kindred, the Persians with their daughters, and the Parthians, mothers with their sons. And the Canaanites coming of Cham were most corrupt by fleshly corruptions, giving themselves to all manner of uncleanness, and this by their living amongst them afterwards the Israelites should see, and therefore they are here warned against the manners of these two in special, and under these all heathens are meant, as Jer. 10. 2.
These things are said to have been spoken to Moses, that he might speak them to the children of Israel, that distinction, to Aaron and his sons, and the children of Israel, Chap 17. being left out, because these concerned Priests and people all alike, those the Priests one way, and the people another. For the words prefixed before these Laws, I am the Lord your God, this is noted to be five times repeated in this chapter, to move them the more to the obedience of these Laws both for the love of his being their God, and for the fear of him being their Lord. As if he had said, I am your God in a peculiar manner, having chosen you for my people above all other nations, and therefore I will in these things have you distinguished from them, and not like unto them, because they are abominations before me. So in special going after charmers and consulting with such as have familiar spirits, are forbidden, Deut. 18. 9, 10, 11, 12. as Hesychius noteth, and I am the Lord your God, is spoken again, verse. 4. and it is said, Thou shalt keep both my judgments and mine ordinances, bythis doubling of the same, to show, that there are Laws of two Testaments, both which must be carefully observed to come to life. In commanding them to keep his Ordinances, he meaneth that they should keep his only, and not follow either their own inventions; which are taxed, Eccles. 7. 29. or to do the works of their own hands, as Jerem. 25. 6. or the Statutes of the Kings of Israel made without the commandment of the Lord, 2 King. 17. 8. for thus our Savior Christ expoundeth this, Thou shalt serve him, Deut. 6. 13. Him only shalt thou serve, Mat 4. 10. so Ainsworth.
Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and my judgments, which if a man do, be shall live in them. Here by judgments and Statutes are not meant, as some expound, Ceremonials and Judicials, but all, yea even the Moral Laws, for thus the Laws of the Old Testament are all spoken of, Gal. 3. 12. Rom. 10. 5. But seeing live is here propounded to such as keep the Laws of God, why is this [Quest.] contradicted, Ezech. 20. 5. I gave them Statutes, that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live? To this it is answered that the reason, why they could not by keeping these Laws obtain life, was their own corruption, whereby they brake out into sin the more, the more they were hereby restrained from sinning, as Rom. 7. and therefore it is said to be impossible to the Law, as weak through the flesh. If any man could perfectly have kept these Laws all his life-time without sinning, he should have lived hereby, but seeing none could, Christ came and fulfilled them, and suffered for our sins, that we through him might attain to justification, and life by faith in his name. And seeing how full of sin we are by the Law we are thus taught to flee to Christ, for which it is said to be a Schoolmaster to bring us unto him. For the living here spoken of, Which if a man do he shall live in them, it is not the temporal life and prosperity here, as some expound it, but everlasting life in the world to come, so the Chaldee, He shall live by them to eternal life. and Rab. Solomon Jarchi, in the world to come, so likewise Hesychius, and our Savior Christ according to this saith, This do and live. This is the promise of the Old Testament; but in the New it is, Releeve and live, Rom 10. 5, 9.
None of you shall approach to any, that is near of kin to him to uncover their nakedness. For, none of you, Hebrew is man, man, a phrase common to set forth men of all sorts. For near of kin, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the remainder of his flesh, so called, because our kindred are part as it were of our own flesh. By aproaching near to uncover nakedness, having carnal copulation or knowledge is meant, according to this Abimelech is said not to have come near Sarah, Gen. 20 4. see the like also, Ezech. 18. 6. Esa. 8. 3. The Rabbins will not only have carnal copulation hereby forbidden, but also coming near to embrace or kiss in lust, because this tendeth to the bringing on of uncovering the nakedness here forbidden: and likewise to make signs with hand or foot, as Prov. 6. 13. to sport with, or to gaze on her beauty: Maimonides. And herein they teach divinely, and much like to that of Christ, Mat. 5. 28. uncovering nakedness, for uncovering the secret parts, is spoken of per euphemismum, that is, cleanliness of speech, saith Junius, forever since the sin of our first parents there is in nature a shame to have these parts uncovered or spoken of, and therefore even in Barbarous conntreys where they go naked, they cover them. All unlawful copulations here forbidden, saith Maimonides, are called nakednesses or incests; and verse. 17. these words, it is wickedness, the vulgar Latin rendereth, incestus est, incestus, saith Tostatus, quasi incastus in a most notorious manner: the Hebrew word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a wicked action, or abomination, as it is used, Ezech. 16. 43. The reason, why incestuous marriages are forbidden, seemeth to lie in the words of the precept, the remainder of his flesh. It is unnatural to be joined in carnal copulation with a man's own flesh, although in the beginning it was not so for the necessity of those times. And therefore even the Heathen led only by the light of nature abhorred from many of these marriages, upon which it is touched, 1 Cor. 5. 1. as the Romans and the Tuscans, amongst whom they were punished with death.
And some beasts utterly refusing to couple with their dams, show incestuous copulations to be against nature, as the camel, which cannot by any means be brought to cover her that brought him forth: and Aristotle telleth of one once, that being deceived by his keeper covering her with a cloth did this act, by and by perceiving it, he killed his keeper; and of an horse upon the like occasion, that cast himself down headlong from a rock. And Hermion in Eurypides saith, Every such is a barbarous generation, when the father lieth with the daughter, the son with the mother, or the brother with the sister. And the reason hereof is, because in nature ever since the fall of our first parents we hide our nakedness, that is, our secret parts, and are greatly ashamed that they should at any time be uncovered, from whence they are called Pudenda, and in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the nakedness of our near kindred is, as it were, our own nakedness, and therefore it is a shameful thing to uncover it by carnally coupling with such, whether out of marriage, or in it; yea, in marriage it is much more horrible, because this is a profession, as it were of incest, and a cloking of it with the holy ordinance of God. Again, by incestuous marriages one end of marriage is frustrated, which is the joining together of the more in love and unity, as both of nation with nation, and family with family, seeing where affinity is contracted, there is the more likelihood of drawing on affection, and holding them together in one that before were dis-joined, seeing the name of father and mother, son and daughter, nephew and kinsman naturally stirreth up a good affection in the one to the other, and to such as belong unto them: and naturally men do desire to enlarge their kindred, and therefore must not return for propagation to the first principles, as by incest it is done.
Moreover, by incestuous marriages is brought in a confusion, the former near relations in nature being hereby extinct, and the mother who is to be obeyed and honored by her son being made subject unto him, and the brother lord over the sister, betwixt whom and him in nature there is a parity. Lastly, by reason of their conversing together, if such marriages might be, a gap would lie open to much incontinency, account being made of a future marrying together to salve all again, whereas if these laws be duly observed, it is stopped up, and brother may the more securely converse with sister, and nephew with aunt, &c. because such certainly will not uncover the nakedness of one another. How even by the light of nature such marriages have been most anciently eschewed, we may gather from that speech of Abraham, being asked of Sarah when he came into Egypt, he said, she was his sister, and hereupon Pharaoh took her to him, verily believing that if so, she could not then be his wife. But of her being his sister some way indeed, see Gen. 11. 29. and of the difference of the case then. But all these reasons notwithstanding, some there are, saith Calvin, that will have these laws to belong only to the Jews, as other of their Judicials, but he confuteth this well by the preface, verse. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. made before these laws, wherein a charge is given again and again to keep them, and it is promised that in so doing they should live, which is not used to be done, but about moral and perpetual laws, which ever bind all nations. And the Apostle in speaking against one kind of incest, intimateth the continuance of the laws against all in force forever. It is true indeed, he speaketh of nothing, but a man's taking his fathers wife, that is, his mother in law, but forsomuch as an aunt is as it were a mother, and an uncle a father, and a sister is as near as any of these, it must needs follow, that under that one all incestuous marriages forbidden by the laws of God are impugned. And therefore whoso dispenseth with any of these laws, as divers Popes of Rome have done, do but set themselves against God, and of this their intolerable insolency shall have judgment, neither can they by all their dispensings make that lawful which is sinful, but it shall be counted so still before the Lord, although it may hereby be coloured over amongst men. As that marriage of Emmanuel the King of Portugal by the Popes dispensation with two sisters, and of Katharine Qu. of England with two brethren, Arthur and Henry; and of Ferdinand King of Naples with his aunt; and of one of whom Autoninus writeth, who by the dispensation of Martin the fifth married his own sister, with whom he had before committed fornication, and of such as being before incestuously married in the time of their infidelity, that being converted to the faith were dispensed withal by Innocent the third. It is memorable that is related of Claudius the Emperor, that he having married his niece Agrippina, and thereupon made a law, that it should be lawful for others to do the like, none would ever follow his example yet herein, but only one bond-man, showing hereby that it was even against the law of nature to make such marriages, notwithstanding the ordinances of men. And hitherto of incestuous marriages in general: now follow the particular degrees forbidden both in consanguinity and in affinity.
The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother shalt thou not uncover, &c. There is some difficulty in these words: for if we shall with Targum Jonathan say, the first are spoken to a daughter, Thou shalt not uncover thy fathers nakedness, and the next to a son, this is improbable, because the fathers nakedness is nowhere else taken in this sense, but his wife is called his nakedness, verse. 8 and chap 20. 11. and the fathers brothers wife his nakednesle, Chap. 18. verse. 14. Yet Junius, Oleaster, and Cajetan, and Willet follow this: but let them show me anything spoken to a woman in all these laws, forbidding her to uncover the nakedness of a man, and I will subscribe unto them, and if they cannot, it is unreasonable to make this exposition here, for he uncovereth the nakedness that goeth in unto her, and not she to whom he goeth in, unless we shall say that this is singularly thus enacted with reference to Lots daughters, Genes. 20. 31. and therefore nothing is said more against the fathers going in to his own daughter in all that followeth. If with Vatablus and Ainsworth we expound it of another wife of the father, and not mother to him that goeth in unto her, verse. 8. maketh against this, where this is expressly forbidden, and therefore it is improbable▪ that such a tautology should be committed to forbid the same sin twice together. By the nakedness of the father then, either that which was first said, or the mother is meant; and if so, the same thing is double forbidden in this double prohibition, that the son may be moved for reverence to his father, whose nakedness his mother is, and also for reverence to his mother, the more to abhor from this wickedness. And according to this Maimonides saith, He that doth this is double guilty, once because she is his fathers nakedness, and another time because she is his mother; and the case is all one, his father being then alive or dead. What the punishments are for transgressing any of these laws, see Chap. 20. verse. 11, 12, &c. It is cutting off with death, and therefore such sins are with all care to be avoided. Semiramis a Queen of Babylon, a beastly woman, would needs have her own son Ninus, contrary to this law, but he being moved with indignation at it slew her therefore, although to cover her wickedness she made a law, that others might do the like. Of daughters coupling with their own fathers, there have been many examples amongst the brutish Heathen. Cynaras had Smyrna his own daughter in this kind; Hoemon, Rhodope; Nyctoeus. Nyctemane; Clymenus, Epiraste, &c.
The nakedness of thy fathers wife thou shalt not uncover, &c. that is, of any other wife which he hath besides thy mother, mother, as Reuben did, and was therefore dis-inherited, Gen. 49. 4. and as Absalom did by his father David's concubines. Theseus an heathen man did so abhor from this, that he pulled his son Hippolytus in pieces with horses for suspicion of his incontinency with Phoedra, his wife, when as it was but her accusation only, because Hyppolitus would not yield to her lust. Caracalla an Emperor is said to have sinned thus with his step-mother, and Antiochus with the wife of Solencus his father, being first sick for the love of her, and his father therefore yielding her unto him. But the Rabbins note well that there be four, with whom a man may not be joined in any case, the fathers wife, the sons wife, the brothers wife, except as Deut. 25. 5. and the fathers brothers wife, and if the husband be alive, he that sinneth with any such is double guilty, and if he be dead, it is unlawful to marry any such forever.
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or of thy mother, &c. Here is further added, born at home, or born abroad; that is, saith the Chaldee, and Targum Jonathan begotten by the father of another woman, or begotten by another man of thy mother: and Maimonides yet to make it more plain, in wedlock or out of wedlock by fornication, she is yet thy sister, and it is a nakedness not to be uncovered by thee. And if the daughter, either of thy father or of thy mother be forbidden thee, saith Augustine, then much more the daughter of them both. And yet amongst the Egyptians whose manners they are forbidden specially to follow, it is noted that Ptolemy Philadelphus married his sister Arsinoe, and likewise Soter and Philopater took to wives their own sister. Herodotus saith also of Cambyses the King of Persia, that loving his younger sister, he asked the Judges, whether there were any law against his marrying of her? they answered, that they knew none, but that it was lawful for the Kings of Persia to do what they listed. But amongst the Romans they were put to death for such marriages.
The nakedness of thy sons daughter or of thy daughters daughter, &c. From hence Maimonides gathereth, as Augustine did before, that if the daughters daughter be forbidden, then much more a man's own daughter, although this be not named. And this law, some think, must be understood with an & coetera, as if the meaning were, that all marriages in the line descending should be unlawful in infinitum, so that if Adam were now alive, he could nowhere have a wife, because he is a common father to all, and all women are his daughters, and this indeed is a good reason: yet Isidore thinketh, that only the degrees named are unlawful and no more, because in going on consanguinity weareth out: so likewise Cajetan and Lorinus. Some dispute whether a man might not marry his daughter or daughters daughter, &c. if there were no more women to be had? and resolve it affirmatively from the example of Lots daughters, but of that see before in their history, and whatsoever they conceived, God never suffered the world, no not when he drowned it, to be brought to this strait, intimating hereby, that such marriages are of all others most unnatural and contrary to his laws.
The nakedness of thy fathers wives daughter begotten of thy father, &c. It may seem strange, that the Lord not intending here to forbid marrying with a fathers wives daughter begotten by another man, should institute his law thus, and not thy fathers daughter by another wife: but this is done, as the Rabbins note, to intimate a double guiltiness in him that doth thus 1 Because she is his sister: and 2 His fathers wives daughter, and not his daughter by another woman begotten in fornication, wherein there is but a single guiltiness. Maimonides. If it be demanded how this law differeth from that, v. 9. Augustine, Lyranus, and Cajetan answer, that it is a repetition or further explanation of that law, there being need for the commonness of this sin to inculcate the same law again. Osiander, that the daughter both of thy father and mother is meant, because this hath not been hitherto spoken of; Junius, that a kinswoman or grandchild by the father is meant here.
But neither of all these rightly; not the last, for the word is Modoleth, begotten of the father, so as a grandchild is not, nor the second, because if so, she should have been called his mother, and there is least probability of the first, that the Lord using such brevity here should repeat the same law twice, or explain it a verse after another coming between. More probably, v. 9. a daughter gotten in fornication is meant here in wedlock: thus also Lyranus, as by another way resolveth it, and therefore it is said there, at home or abroad, only; here, thy fathers wives daughter begotten by him.
The nakedness of thy fathers sister, &c. Here and in the next verse marrying with the fathers or mothers sister, which is an aunt, is forbidden, and because the Niece is in the same degree to her Uncle, that the Nephew is to the Aunt, under this that marriage also is forbidden; so Calvin and Tostatus, for the reason, she is thy fathers near kinswoman, holdeth as well to the Niece marrying the Uncle, as to the Nephew marrying the Aunt; as the Aunt is as it were a mother to her Nephew, so the Uncle is as a father to his Niece, saith Brenz, wherefore in both cases marrying is alike to be abhorred as monstrous and unnatural. For Amrams marrying his Aunt, Exod 6. see what is to be thought of that there.
The nakedness of thy fathers brother, that is, as in the next words is explained, Thou shalt not approach unto his wife, for she is called his nakedness, because man and wife are one flesh, so the fathers nakedness was expounded before, v. 7. But if the daughters marrying with the father be forbidden, as some hold, v. 7. by the same reason the Neeces marrying with her Uncle is forbidden here, and so there is not only a law by consequence, but an express law against it.
The nakedness of thy sons wife, &c. Upon this law some think, that Absalom having gone in to his father David's Concubines, he returning, shut them up, and would know them no more, because by going in unto them, the son had now made them as it were his wives.
The nakedness of thy brothers wife, &c. Some understand this, as if it were meant during his life, because Deut. 25. 5. after his death her brother might marry her, if he died without issue to raise up seed unto him, and therefore they say, Herod was reproved by John the Baptist for marrying his brothers wife, he being yet alive, & having put her away. But this is an exposition contrary to the sense of all the like laws, for they do not only forbid such marriages, the man being yet alive, but dead, because the consanguinity or affinity yet dieth not. And one may not take any other man's wife, he being yet alive, seeing this were adultery, and for a near kinsmans wife, although she be divorced, she is a near kinswoman, and may not be married. Others therefore take that Deut. 25. to be an exception to this law, as if it had been said, the nakedness of thy brothers wife thou shalt not uncover, but only in case that he dieth without issue. For thus both Judah before the law gave Tamar his son Er his wife, when he was dead, to his son Onan, and he being dead, promised afterwards to match her to his third son Shelah, and after the law Naomi, when her two sons were dead, spake unto Ruth, her daughter in law, and her sister: Have I anymore sons in my womb that they should be husbands to you? alluding, to that law, Deut. 25. 5. and Matth. 22. it is said of seven brethren, that each one of them after another took one woman, according to that law, to wife. But against this Calvin argueth thus, If this were so, God should be contrary to himself, sometime allowing that which before he condemned as an abomination, and touching Judah, he saith, he went according to the custom of those times, but in so doing he erred from the right way. Wherefore he expoundeth that, Deut. 25. 5. of a kinsman, an uncles or aunts son, or some other so far remote, as that without incest he might marry the relict of his kinsman, as is exemplified in Boaz, no brother, but a kinsman taking Ruth to wife. To this of Calvin I answer, that God by making one exception to a general law is not against himself, for in forbidding to marry a brothers wife, his drift is, that he should not do such a thing to his ignominy, intimated in these words, It is thy brothers nakedness; for his honor, and to uphold his family ready to fade by his dying without issue he forbiddeth it not: here necessity requireth a dispensing with laws in this kind, as at the first brothers and sisters were through necessity enforced to marry together, because otherwise mankind could not have been increased. And although by a brother, a kinsman is sometimes understood, yet the experience of examples commemorated concurring with this law, for a brother properly understood showeth, that we ought not to flee here to any secondary acception of this word brother. And thus the Hebrews also understand it, of a brother by the fathers side, by whom the inheritance cometh, and not by the mother; and therefore it is not any brothers wife, whom that exception concerneth, but the first-born or eldest; and the next brother, seemeth to be meant, who is single, because Deut. 25. 5. it is said, brethren dwelling together, but if there be no such brother, say the Hebrews, then a kinsman, called also a brother, is to do this office, as Boaz to Ruth. For the reasons of that exception, they are by Fonseca summed up four. First, that families in Israel might not perish. Secondly, that the relict might be comforted. Thirdly, that the brother dying might have some comfort herein. Fourthly, that the memory of the just might not perish. But the chief reason, as I take it, was, that the first-born might still always live in his posterity, to figure out the eternity of Christ, the first-born amongst many brethren, so that he being now come, that law holdeth no longer, neither may a brother in any case take a brothers wife, which is now incestuous, whatsoever the case is.
The nakedness of a woman, and her daughter, or sons daughter, or her daughters daughter, &c. Upon this law the Rabbins say, that when a man hath married a wife, there are six women with whom he cometh now to have such affinity; that he may never marry with any of them, three here named, and her mother, mothers mother, and fathers mother necessarily understood. This is such a sin, as that singularly it is here said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 incestus, or abomination, as was touched before, and they that sin thus must be burnt, Levite. 20. 14.
Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, &c. By the equity of that law, v. 16. whereby a woman may not marry with her husbands brother, it is unlawful for her husband to marry with her sister, but here specially, because of Jacob's taking two sisters sometime, which was a cause of so much vexation and disquiet betwixt them, he is forbidden to take her during his wives life, to vex her; not that he may marry her after his wifes death: For from that which is written, saith Basil, we may not rashly gather that which is not written, because it is written, that during her life, thou mayest not take her, therefore after her death thou mayest take her, as a man may not gather from this, Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son, therefore he knew her after. For if a man may not marry his own sister at any time, he may not at any time marry his wives sister, seeing as the same reason is against marrying the wifes mother or daughter, that is, against marrying thine own mother or daughter; so it is against marrying thy wifes sister, that is, against marrying thine own sister, for in all these the rights of cognation or kindred are the same. And Beza likewise, there is an Emphasis in saying, during her life, to vex her, in allusion to Jacob, and not an allowing to marry her after. Yet Calvin by sister understanding a kinswoman, saith, that it is here forbidden to marry with a kinswoman so far remote, as that otherwise a man may marry her, but only for vexing his wife whilst she liveth he must flee such marrying, afterwards he may take her to wife. But Junius by sister understandeth any other woman, as if here were a law against having two wives together, both because the words, Ishah el Acothah, a wife to her sister, are put, Ezech. 1. 9. for one to another, and likewise, Gen. 26. 31. Exod. 26. 3. and because if here be not a law against Polygamy there is none in all the Book of God, which yet we are sure is against the first institution, for one woman only was made for one man, to which respect is had, Mal. 2. 15. And lastly, because the reason here used, to vex her, holdeth to any second wife as well as to a sister, as we may see in the example of Hannah and Peninnah, the two wives of Elkanah; and because if Polygamy be not here forbidden, nothing in effect is said, forsomuch as by the equity of a former law, v. 16. to marry a wives sister is forbidden, and the limitation of the time during her life, seemeth to intimate one spoken of here with whom a man may marry after his wives death. Upon these reasons I find that many are swayed by Junius, as Ainsworth and Willet, &c. as myself have also been in my Catechism. Yet the Hebrews understand her next sister in blood, whether by her father or her mother, begotten in marriage or in fornication. And if they had understood it otherwise, as being against Polygamy, they would not certainly have done contrary so commonly as they did, yea the holiest and the most famous men amongst them. But of their Polygamies I have said something in my Catechism, Command. 7. And if it be granted, that this is no law against Polygamy, yet from other grounds before spoken of it appeareth, that it was never lawful, or if it were, as some hold in those days, yet it is not now under the Gospel, because no further liberty is now given, but for every man to have his own wife, not wives; and every woman her own husband, not husbands, that being enjoined here, which was long ago pointed at in God's making but one and one. And therefore the practice of the Turks in taking each man more wives is abominable, and of those in the Magors Country, where they are said to have but one wife in a family amongst all the brethren, and if any presume to do so amongst us, it is well enacted, that he shall be put to death, as a professed adulterer, and a justifier of so foul a sin. And let no man plead the example of Theodosius here, who took unto his wife Eudoxia another Justina upon his wifes urging him, and thereupon made a law, that it should be lawful for others to do the like, for even the best have had their imperfections, and haply he erred thus for want of better information, this point being not so thoroughly considered of in these days.
And hitherto of the degrees of kindred forbidden, if any man shall extend them further, making any degree beyond these unlawful, or dispensing with any of these, that marriages may be made, or stand by such despensings, notwithstanding the express Word of God to the contrary, he shall be judged, as adding to or taking away from the Word of God: wherefore the Council of Trent hath done very presumptuously in extending decrees against marrying with kindred by consanguinity to the seventh degree, and the Popish Canons, which make affinity spiritual by baptism and confirmation between Godfathers and Godmothers together, as Bellarmine showeth. Again the same Trent-Council decreeth, that the Church can dispense with some of the degrees prohibited, Levite. 18. because they are judicials of Moses. But they have been already proved to be according to the Law of nature, and confirmed in the New Testament, and therefore as morals. But for prohibiting marriages to the seven degree are the Ethiopic Churches also, and in a Council at Wormes it was decreed, that no Christian should marry with his kindred as long any remembrance of kindred lasted; but these are excesses, beyond that which is written, and therefore dangerous.
Others again there have been, that have taught it unlawful to marry more wives successively, as one being dead to take another, as Tertullian and Novatus, and Nicolas Bishop of Constantinople, who censured Leo the Emperor because he had married the fourth wife successively. And Jerome inveighed much against second marriages, calling them honesta adulteria. And in disgrace hereof he telleth of a couple, that married together in Rome, whereof the one, that is, the woman had then had 21 husbands, and the man 20 Wives, and therefore he out-living her and marrying again, a great triumph was made by the young gallants of Rome, because the man had now gotten the victory. Indeed to be so carried by the flesh, as to pass on suddenly from one marriage to another so soon as the husband or wife is dead, if it be but to the taking of the second or third, standeth not with Christian modesty, and therefore more continency is to be ensued by everyone, but for any simply to condemn the marrying of another, when the first is dead, is to take from the Word of God, Rom. 7. 1. &c. 1 Cor. 7. Touching the marrying of brothers or sisters children together, although this be not expressly forbidden, whereupon it may seem not unlawful; yet many Councils have decreed against it, as Council. Agathens. c. 61. Epannens. c. 30. Aurelianens. 3. c. 10. Antisiodor. c. 31. Arelatens. c. 11. Ambrose to Paternus, dissuading him from marrying his son and niece together saith, It is against the Law of God. Augustine, although he saith not so, yet he hath these words, Who doubteth, but that the marriages of cozen Germans are more honestly forbidden in these times? Theodosins made a Law against it, which Ambrose also urgeth, and saith, These marriages are forbidden in nature. And Willes goeth yet further, affirming that all Churches in Christendom are against these marriages, for the rules of the Canon Law touching marriages are allowed by the reformed Churches. And Calvin, that speaketh most favourably herein, saith, that they are inconvenient, because by long use and custom they have been interdicted, and a regard must be had of giving offense. Reasons against this marrying are 1 As far degrees are forbidden in other cases, as of marrying with the Uncles wife, and how much further is the Uncles daughter, then the Uncles wife? 2 A man's daughter is his nakedness, as verse. 10. and the nakedness of thy Uncle thou mayest not uncover, v. 14. it is there indeed expounded of his wife, but she is one of his nakednesses, and by verse. 10. we may gather, that his daughter is another, for the daughter is as the fathers own flesh. 3 The general prohibi ••• n, verse. 6. None shall come near any of his near kindred, maketh against such marriages, seeing cozen, Germans are most near, being as it were brothers and sisters, as in the Hebrew phrase they are commonly called. Lastly, for the marrying of the Uncle with the niece, although it hath been shown to be unlawful, yet the Romanists approve it, as Cajetan, Lorinus, &c. and it is commonly practiced betwixt the Kings of Spain and the house of Austria, and Othoniels example is urged, who married his brother Caleb's daughter. But Caleb was not brother German to Othaniel, but he is called his brother, because they two were brothers children.
Here approaching to a woman in her disease is forbidden, and adultery with another man's wife: of the first of which see before, Chap. 12. and 15. and of the other upon the seven Commandment. For the punishment of both these, see Chap. 20. 10, 18. And by this Law the woman's own husband is forbidden at this time to approach unto her. But before I proceed any further, I will show, to what mystery the Laws against marriages with kindred are drawn by Hesychius. In that the Lord saith twice in way of preface to these Laws, I am the Lord thy God, hereby is intimated, that they have a double understanding. Wherefore besides the sense already given, here it is mystically forbidden to uncover the shame of any, that be near unto us by divulging their sins, because we must rather restore them that are fallen by the spirit of meekness, and to do otherwise is with Ham to uncover our fathers nakedness, or to mock at it. And there be ten degrees nominated, to intimate the ten Commandments, all which he breaketh, that speaketh of his sins that is near to him to his shame, because this is against love, and love is the fulfilling of the Law. And in particular the forbidding of marrying a woman and her sister during her life, is mystically a forbidding of joining to Judaism Christianity; the Law of Ceremonies must be dead to all that will embrace the Christian Religion rightly.
Thou shalt not let any of thy seed to pass through the fire to Molech, &c. The word Molech, or Moloch, Amos. 5. 26. or Milcom, 1 King. 11. 5, 7. seemeth to come of Melech signifying a King, and the Septuagint render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Prince. It was the Idol of the Ammonites, to the worshipping of which the Israelites fell afterwards, notwithstanding this prohibition, as they are charged in the places before named. Some think it was the image of Mercury, the messenger of the gods, some of Saturn, the highest of the Planets; some of Jupiter, and some of the Sun, which is the king of the Planets, upon which I have touched, Act. 7. 43. It was the same most probably, which is also called Baal, so often spoken of, for to Baal they offered their children, Jer. 19, 5. c. 7. 31. c. 32. 35. It was an image with a stone in the forehead of it, like a Star, whereupon Amos speaketh of a Star, that they worshipped. In an Hebrew Comment called Jalcut upon Jer. 7. it is thus described: It had the face of a bullock, and the hands of a man opened to receive somewhat, and within it was hollow, and under the hollow of it fire was put, till it was made burning hot, then the Priest took the son offered, and put him into his hands, and that the cry of him burning there might not be heard, they did beat up tabers, and thereupon the place where this idol stood, was called Tophet from toph a taber. For whereas all other idols were set up in the City, this stood without in Tophet in the valley of Benhinnom. And to Molechs Temple there were seven chapels, into the first of which he came that brought a dove for an offering, into the second he that brought a Lamb, into the third he that brought a ram, into the fourth a calf, into the fifth a bullock, into the sixth an ox, and into the seventh he that brought his son. That whereby they were moved to this, was a superstitious opinion, that they and all the rest of their children should prosper the better, if they sacrificed one thus.
And not only the Ammonites did thus offer their children to idols, but the Carthaginians sacrificed the best of their sons to Saturn, and the Phoenicians did likewise. And amongst the Africans there was an im •• e of brass made to Saturn, to whom they burnt their children, and Ludovicus Vives, that writeth this, saith, in his time there was an image in an Island newly discovered, to which they did likewise human sacrifices, and to this it is alluded, Mich. 6. 7. The Devil that delighteth in bloodshed, being a murderer from the beginning, taught them to abuse that place touching Abraham's being commanded to offer up his son Isaac in sacrifice, for a ground of this abominable and most bloody superstition. But here not burning, but causing their seed to pass through the fire is spoken of, and again, Deut. 18. 10. where for seed in way of explanation of this are sons and daughters, but burning of them is also spoken of, 2 Chron. 28. 3. Ierem. 7. 31. Ierem. 19. 5. Psal. 106 37, 38. And as some are said to have burned their sons and daughters, so some to have caused them to pass through the fire, 2 King. 11. 3. 2 King. 23. 10. Whereupon besides the burning of them in the hands of Molech before spoken of, the Rabbins speak of another practice of some; yea they deny any such burning to have been to Molech, affirming, that such as burnt their children, burnt them to other idols, and to Molech they only made them to pass through the fire, which was thus: The father brought his son to the priests, and they put him into the fathers hand to lead him through a great fire there kindled by them, and he led him upon his feet through the midst of the flame from one side to the other, which how it could be without burning yet I cannot see. Cajetan and others are wide here, who by seed understand not their children, but the seed of generation coming from them, for Moses himself expoundeth it, Deut. 18. 10. If it shall seem unfit to bring in this touching idolatry here; unless in such a sense it is very fit, saith Hesychius, that adultery being impugned before, now the spiritual adultery should be spoken against, which is idolatry, and by seed he mystically understandeth our thoughts and actions, which we must not give to idolatry by covetousness. Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God. As the name of God is sanctified by suffering death rather then going from God to idols, as by Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, so it is said to be profaned, when for fear of death any go from him after idols; so Maimonides. But profaning of the Name of God is put here for any abusing of the Word or service instituted by God to the honor of his name, to idolatry, and therefore this clause is properly added here after the idolatry with Molech forbidden, but Hesychius applieth it generally to all the laws hitherto set down in this Chapter, and indeed by such wickedness amongst his people God's Name is blasphemed, but it doth more properly belong to this particular law against idolatry.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankinde. This was the sin of Sodom, Gen. 19. and excludeth out of the Kingdom of heaven, 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10. a sin coming from a reprobate sense, Rom. 1. and to be punished with stoning to death, Levite. 20. 13. And yet many of the heathen followed it, yea the wisest amongst them, as Socrates, Solon, Zeno, Minos, Radamanthus, and Emperors, Nero, Vespasian, Caligula, Trajan, Vitellius, Julius, and Augustus Caesar, and Adrian, who made Antinous his Minion a god. Rupertus thinketh that herein lay the evil report of his brethren brought by Joseph to his father. Of this also read, 2 Machah. 4. 10. and this is said by Jude to be a going after other flesh. Emstuosus a Bishop, saith Lorinus, to prevent such unnatural lusts, made this law, If any Clergy man or Monk be found but kissing of young boys, let him be made bald, and spit upon by all, and openly beaten and bound with iron chains six months. Thus he. But some of their holy Fathers of Rome contrariwise are reported to have been most notorious for this sin, and for tolerating it, as Paul 2. who whilst he was in acting this sin, was killed of the Devil; and Julius 3, who used Innocentius thus, and for a reward made him a Cardinal, and Sixtus 4 allowed the Cardinals this pleasure for the three hot months of the year.
Thou shalt not lie with any beast, &c. This is a most abominable sin, and yet such is the wickedness of men and women, as that some have offended this way, as Mahomet, who is said, being refused by a Saracen woman, to have lien with an asse; and the Hebrews say the like of Balaam with his asse; Plutarch writeth of a boy begotten by a man of a mare, and of a girl by a man of an asse, and Aelianus telleth the like of a man and a goat. Women also have prostituted themselves to beasts, Aelianus telleth of an ape that got a child of a woman, and Olaus Magnus of a bare begetting a child of a woman, of whom a great family came in Denmark, called Ursi, &c. For the punishment, see Chap. 20. 16. and before, Exod. 22. 19.
Defile not yourselves in any of these things, &c. By these things, the Hebrews understanding the degrees before prohibited, say, that by tradition they have learned, that 20 degrees more are forbidden by the like reason. 1 The mothers mother, and her mother, &c. without end. 2 The mothers fathers mother. 3 The fathers mother, and her mother without end. 4 His fathers fathers mother. 5 The wife of the fathers father, &c. without end 6 The wife of the mothers father. 7 The wife of the fathers brother. 8 The wife of the mothers brother. 9 His sons daughter in law, and her daughter without end. 10 His daughters daughter in law. 11 The daughter of his sons daughter. 12 The daughter of his sons son. 13 The daughter of his daughters daughter. 14 The daughter of his daughters son. 15 The daughter of his wives son. 16 The daughter of his wives daughters daughter. 17 The mother of his wives fathers mother. 18 The mother of his wives mothers father. 19 The mother of his wives mothers mother. 20 The mother of his wives fathers father. Thus Maimonides, neither do others dissent here from, but hold, that in the line ascendent and descendent, that is, betwixt children, and fathers, and mothers marriages are unlawful in infinitum, in the lines collateral, as is expressly forbidden only. Or by analogy in such degrees, as are forbidden to some, in the same they are forbidden to others. But by all these things, here not only marriages prohibited are meant, but also other foul sins beforementioned also in this Chapter. For in all these the Nations are defiled, &c. The Lord here speaketh of the inhabitants of Canaan, as already cast out for defiling themselves in these things for the certainty of it, and hereby warneth his people, that they commit not the like abominations.
And the land is defiled, and I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, &c. As the inhabitants, so the land is said to be defiled, because in fleshly uncleannesses filthiness cometh forth in the land, and in idolatries there is pollution by images set up, as in murders by blood impiously spilled upon the ground: for these are the three sins chiefly, which are said anywhere to defile the land. And where such wickednesses are committed, the land is sick as it were of the inhabitants that do them, it reeleth as over-burdened, and as a drunken man over-laden with wine which maketh him reel to and fro; finally, spueth so such a land spueth out the inhabitants, casteth them out, as being much eased, when it is disburdened of them. And as the Canaanites were loathed and spewed out by that land for their sins, so were the Jews afterwards, 2 King. 17. 18. 2 Chron. 36. 21. Whereby we may see how odious sinners are, seeing the very senseless earth cannot brook them, but spueth them out. [Note.]
Here and forth on to the end of the Chapter the charge of keeping these laws is inculcated both by the Israelites and strangers amongst them, they being threatened with the like spuing out that transgressed, or cutting off, if they were but some particulars.
CHAP. XIX.
YE shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy. The Lord having hitherto delivered sundry laws both in this Book and in Exod. now repeateth divers of them, adding some further explanation, and both for a conclusion of the foregoing laws against bodily uncleannesses, addeth these words, Be ye holy, as I am holy, and as a preparative to the laws to be further inculcated here. As the Lord our God is, so must we be both in body and soul, that we [Note.] may be acceptable before him, and our holiness standeth in refreining from the sins by his laws forbidden, which as filthiness make us impure, and in doing the good commanded. See the same urged before, Levite. 11. 44. 1 Pet. 1. 14, 15, 16. But such a pitch of holiness is propounded, as we can by no means attain unto, that we might be humbled for our failings, and flee to Christ for perfect holiness by faith alone. The Papists, saith Brenz, hereupon speak against marriage in spiritual persons, as if being married they could not be holy, and so fit to minister so near about the Lord: but they seem herein little to attend to this, that these words are not spoken to the priests, but to the Congregation of the children of Israel, so that by this reason marriage should be unlawful for all Christian people, which they would be ashamed to hold.
Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father, and keep my Sabbaths, &c. The Rabbins note, that as we are commanded to honor God, Prov. 3. 9. and to fear God, Deut. 6. 13. and he that blasphemeth God is stoned to death, so we are commanded to honor father and mother, and to fear mother and father, and he that curseth father or mother shall be stoned to death, Exod. 21. 17. to show, that these things are as much stood upon towards parents, as towards the Lord. But in speaking of honor, the father is named first; of fear, the mother, to show, that honor and fear are alike to be given unto them both. And to fear, is not to stand or sit in his place, or to oppose her words, or to carp at them, or to call him by his name, but always, whether he be alive or dead, to entitle him Sir, my Lord, or my Father; so Maimonides, and certainly all due reverence is here meant, and that not only outward, but inward of the heart. Some say the mother is placed first, because commonly least feared, and some because the child is first under the mother, and therefore according to that the mother is first named, as under whose government the child first is. But why is this charge given here? Answ. It cometh [Quest.] most aptly in after the laws against incest, Chap. 18. because by incest it is most transgressed against the reverence due to parents. But here is together added another precept, keep my Sabbaths, why is this so? Some say, because [Quest.] parents instructed their children chiefly upon the Sabbaths. Some that the placing of this charge touching Sabbaths here is with reference to that which followeth, containing precepts about the worship of God, because this only is to be attended upon the Lord's Sabbaths. Lastly, some respecting that which followeth also, because divers sins are forbidden, that the Lord in giving a charge of his Sabbaths, and then forbidding these sins, intimated, that the true Sabbath-keeping is to rest from sin, the work of the flesh. By Sabbaths are meant the seventh day, and others, Exod. 23. and Levite. 16. for which he speaketh in the plural number.
Turn not to idols, neither make any molten gods, &c. For idols Hebr. is Elilim, things of naught, as the word is used, Job 13. 4. Jerem. 14. 14. Esa. 2. 20. And according to this the Apostle saith, An idol is nothing. Of this see before, Exod. 20. 23. In that it is said, Turn not, the Rabbins note, that it is unlawful to look attentively upon an image; and they say further, that as idolatry, so to entertain a thought in the heart contrary to any fundamental point of the Law is here forbidden. And they are aptly forbidden to turn to idols, because they had served them before.
If ye offer a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the Lord, ye shall offer it at your own will, &c. The words translated, at your own will, may otherwise be rendered, for your favorable acceptation, as Solomon Jarchi noteth, and Cazchuni following the former, alloweth of this also, and if thus, then the meaning is, offer and eat it so, as that ye may be favourably accepted, if otherwise then the meaning is, offer it willingly as your heart moveth you, and not being drawn on by others for shame, because ye see them do thus, but it cometh grudgingly from you; what peace-offerings are here meant, which must be eaten before the third day, see before, Levite. 7. 18, 19. where both the reason of this charge is laid down, and why it must be burnt that remained to the third day. Touching the punishment of him that transgressed herein, he should not be accepted, this act of his should be abominable, and he should bear his iniquity, all this is also added, Levite. 7. 19. But here further it is said, that he should be cut off, which was before wanting, and therefore to set down the punishment, the same Law is here again repeated.
And when ye reap your harvest, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, &c. This is only a general precept for the good of the poor, but how much in each field must be left, and what is to be done if none be left, &c. is not here determined; but the Rabbins speak well hereupon thus, If any be left standing at the end of the field, although it be but one ear, the Law is fulfilled, but it hath been thought fit by them, that the sixtieth part be left at the least, and if the field be little, because this will be too small a matter for many poor to come together for, they would have more left, and so in other fields, as God's blessing upon the crop hath been the more, and the poor who are to gather it, are the more. Again, they say, that it must not be left in one field for two, but a corner in the end of each field must be left. 3 If divers grains be sown in one field, then there must be one corn of each grain left, but not for having two threshing-floors in the same field, where only one kind of grain groweth. 4 They set three times of the day, in which the poor should come for their corner, either in the morning, at midday, or at the hour of the evening-sacrifice, and the corner is always at the end of the field, that the poor may know when and whither to come, and if any come at other times, they are not suffered to gather till the hour appointed, that all might partake alike. 5 If any man reaped his corn and left none, he must part out some for the poor in the sheaf, or being ground, in bread, and if fire burnt it before this parting, he must be beaten, because he had transgressed the Law. Neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest, that is, the ears of corn which fall away in the reaping, as the Septuagint render it. But here the Rabbins limit it thus, if it be but an ear or two that fall together, it is gleaning for the poor, and the owner may not gather it; but if three ears, it is the owners, and if any ear be left standing, unless it standeth so high and so near to the standing-corn, as that it may be reaped together, it must not be gathered, but if so, it may. If the owners corn be scattered by the wind amongst the gleanings, it is estimated how much was for the gleaning, and the other being taken away again, that is left for the poor. If any left no gleanings, the same order was observed that was about the corners of the fields. The Vulgar Latin for these words, Thou shalt not wholly reap the corners, have these, Thou shalt not shear it down to the ground, as if the straw were appointed to be left in part for the poor, but erroneously, because it is not the straw, but the corn, which God would have left for the poor. Besides the corners and gleanings spoken of here, and Levite. 23. 2. that which is forgotten and left behind also is spoken of as belonging to the poor, Deut. 24. 19. and Deut. 23. 24. there is a law for a man to go into a vineyard, or corn-field of his neighbor, and to eat his fill, but not to carry any away. And alike law was made by Justinian, that he which went into his neighbors vineyard or orchard should be free, but if to steal and carry away, he should be beaten, and have his garments taken from him. From this law it is to be excepted, which is here set down touching the gleanings and corners left, which might be carried away. By the equity of this law [Note.] it appeareth, that the poor should partake with the rich in their harvest, as they do everywhere at this day, although not fully according to this judicial law of the Jews, which tieth not other nations, but only in the equity thereof. It is an injury then in any to keep out the poor, and not to suffer them to glean in their fields, and if the poor abuse this liberty, where it is granted them, to stealing, they are worthy to be well punished for it. The examples of Pisistratus and Cimon herein were singular, for they had no keepers for their orchards and fields. And Pericles would have all men to have free access to partake of his fruits: And Anaxagoras left one pasture for other men's cattle to feed upon. O what goodness and charity was here in Heathen men, for the condemning of the churlish and hard-hearted now!
Thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, nor gather every grape, but leave them for the poor, the stranger, &c. For these words, Thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, Hebr. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Thou shalt not gather the single grapes, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are single grapes, Esa. 24. 13. Obad. verse. 5. and not clusters, which are set forth by another word, Mich. 7. 1. and for these words, nor gather every grape, Hebr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Thou shalt not gather the grapes that are broken off. The Chaldee rendereth it, Nithra, berries broken off, and the Septuagint, Rogas, of the like signification. The Hebrews describe the single grapes thus, they are little clusters with grapes not joined one upon another, but dissevered, so that they touch not, being called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by a diminutive, because they are to other clusters, as a child is to a man, and all single berries are meant hereby, so that if a vineyard beareth none but such, they all belong to the poor. But if a branch with a cluster hath single grapes on the top, so that they are gathered together with the cluster, they are the owners. And for the grapes broken off, they say one or two only falling off are meant, and if three fall together, the owner may take them, but not if they fall to the ground, although it be half a cluster, or an whole cluster, neither may he hold a basket under to receive them, for this were to rob the poor; so that it seemeth, that their falling may be prevented only with their hands, and not otherwise. But these, as that before of three ears of corn falling together, are curiosities of the Rabbins. Deut. 24. 20. besides these laws about corn-fields and vineyards, it is ordained, that the Olive-tree must not be beaten twice over, but some must be left for the poor.
From hence the Hebrews also gather, that not only of these increases nominated, but of all other growing things, that grow out of the ground yielding sustenance for man's life, the Lord would have some left for the poor, as of Almonds, Nuts, Pomegranates and Dates, &c. and onions and garlic, &c. because they are as harvest, and are gathered and brought in for provision, a corner must be left, but not of herbs, which are not thus used. And therefore summing up the parts of the poor, they say, they must have four from the vineyard, the single grapes, the broken off, the corner, and that which was forgotten; three from the field of corn, the gleanings, the corner, and the forgotten; and two from trees, the corner and the forgotten But because it is said, thou shalt leave them, a poor man may not come to take them, till they be left him by the owner: being once left, the poor may come and take them even against the owners will. But that which remaineth, when the poor have done gathering, any man may take, for they are not commanded to be left for the beasts, or birds. The poor they also define to be such, as are not worth 200 zuzims, that is, 50 shekels of silver, and if he hath so much, but it is pawned to a creditor, or is his wives dowry, he is poor, and may come. And the stranger they define to be a Prosylite, one of the true Religion, yet heathens that are poor, are not withheld from them. And so great is their care, that the poor might have them without all fraud, as that if a man had sanctified his field or vineyard to the Lord, yet the poor must have his part, and in everything, the poor's part must be left before the first fruits, or tithes due to the priests and Levites, and before the second tithe of the third year, with which the owner and his might feast before the Lord. And of this tithe also the poor must partake, Deut. 14. 28. whereby we may see, what a care the Lord hath always had of the poor, that we may be [Note.] stirred up to the more charity towards them. He could without the rich have provided for them if it had so pleased him, but he ordered it thus for the good of the rich, who may by this means lay up for themselves a treasure in heaven. Mystically saith Hesychius by the field we may understand the world, and by the vineyard the Jewish Church. In bidding that they should leave corners, &c. for the poor and strangers, is meant the leaving of the mystical things in the Law touching Christ to be expounded by Christian doctors, the Jewish expounding only the moral Laws, for we Christians were strangers and poor. And for the single grapes of the vineyard, they were the Prophets and other holy men amongst the Jews, which were very rare, even as single grapes, their leaving of them for the stranger did set forth, that we Christians of the Gentiles should most honor them and make best account of them, as being ours in their faith and Religion, and not theirs, because they reject and persecute the saith, for which they stood.
Ye shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor liv one to another. Stealing was before forbidden in the eighth Commandment, and lying in the ninth Commandment, but now they are repeated again and put together, because they commonly go together. For he that will steal, saith Hesychius, will lie, to hide it, yea lying goeth with any kind of sin, as Ammon to cover his adulterous intention with Tamar told a lie to his father. And our English word stealing seemeth aptly to come of the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to hide, both because he that stealeth hideth it by secrecy and by lying. The Latin fur seemeth to come of fero to carry away. Because it is said in the plural number, ye shall not steal, Chazchuni noteth, that he who seeth one stealing, and discovereth him not, is also guilty of his sin. Lying, which is here forbidden, saith Maimonides, is to be understood of denying the thing stolen, and another man's goods being in his hands, as Levite. 6. 2. dealing falsely, of violating Covenants, swearing falsely. &c. How theft is to be punished by the divine Law, see Exod. 21. 16. Exod. 22. 1. Amongst men some have held robbing commendable, as the Scythians, and some have punished it with death, as Draco, and some appointed the thief to be sacrificed to Ceres, as the twelve tables of the Romans, if he fed or cut up corn in the night.
Thou shalt not swear by my name falsely, nor profane it, &c. Because stealers and liars and deceitful persons are ready also to swear falsely, this is next forbidden here. He sweareth, say the Hebrew canons, by the name of God, that sweareth either by his proper name, or by any of his sirnames, as if he saith, by him, whose name is gracious, &c. Again an execrating is a swearing, as if he saith, Cursed be he of the Lord, or of him, whose name is gracious, and to say yea yea, or nay nay, mentioning God's name also, is to swear, and promise anything with a mention of God. Of swearing falsely also they say, that he, who hath done thus, although he be beaten for it by the Magistrate, and bringeth his sacrifice to the Priest, yet his sin is not done away, because it is said, the Lord will not hold him guiltless, he must therefore, notwithstanding all this, have his punishment from God, because howsoever death is not appointed to be inflicted for it, yet it is a profanation of the holy name of God, which is greater, then all iniquities, and therefore this is more to be taken heed of, then all transgressions: wherefore children would be taught by their parents and Schoolmasters to speak the words of truth without swearing lest they fall into a custom of swearing commonly like the heathen. For it is a great good thing for a man not to swear at all. For, nor profane, Hebrew is, and profane, so Junius also, as if nothing else were meant here, but that false swearing is a profaning of God's holy name: but according to the phrase usual amongst the Hebrews, and, is put for, nor, this being another branch of the Law, not to profane the name of God by light and common swearing.
Thou shalt not defraud or rob thy neighbor, the wages of him, that is hired, shall not tarry with thee all night. In robbing a man's neighbor by oppression and wrong it is transgressed, saith Maimonides, against three prohibitions, for in coveting in the heart he transgresseth one, in importuning and uncessant desiring, two, for it is said, thou shalt not covet nor desire, in robbing and taking by rapine, three; and to rob a man, although but of a farthing, is as much as to take his life from him. And he that taketh not away by open violence, but by fraud, is guilty of the same sin of robbing. For paying wages to the man hired, and not suffering his hire to rest with thee all night, Hebrew it is, his work shall not rest with thee, but the wages of his work is hereby meant, as Job 7. 2. Esa. 49. 4. See the like precept, Deut. 24. 15. and how this sin shall be punished, Mal. 3. 5. Jam. 5. 1. which yet is not to be understood, but against his will, his necessity requiring it presently, and the want of it, because he wanteth sustenance, making him to cry to God. By the Law of Plato double was to be paid to him that had not his wages paid him in due time. And Parthen. telleth of Alcynoe the wife of Amphylocus, that she was so troubled in mind, because she had defrauded Nicandra of her wages, when she had wrought an whole year with her, that she became mad, and cast herself headlong into the Sea.
Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind, but fear thy God. A man may not curse any man, Rom. 12. 14. but cursing the deaf is specially forbidden, because he cannot hear, so that although a man cannot hear to be grieved at it, it is a great sin to curse him, he that cursed any man therefore amongst the Hebrews, was beaten, and if he cursed a Judge, he was twice beaten; if the Prince, thrice; if he cursed himself also, he was beaten, as if he cursed another man. And unto the deaf the blind are joined in the Lord's care, a stumbling-block must not be laid before such, he must not be made to go out of the way, Deut. 27. 18. It is against reason, that the deaf should be cursed or checked for their deafness, because they cannot help it, nor other imperfections that come by reason hereof, and as much against reason is it that the blind should have a stumbling-block laid before him, because he cannot see to avoid it, wherefore an apparent injury is herein done to him: so Hesychius. Moreover, it is afflictionem addere afflictis: so Calvin. And as the deaf and blind in body, so they that are thus in soul, because they hear not yet to obey, and see not to understand, and to be converted, must not be cursed or scandalized, whereby they should be more hindered from conversion, but prayed for, and furthered towards repentance and saving knowledge, as much as we can. Thus also Hesychius and Lyranus. And Solomon Jarchi saith hereupon, To him that is blind in a matter do not give such counsel, as is unmeet for him. If to lay a stumbling-block before the bodily blind to make him fall and hurt his body be a sin, then much more to scandalize the weak and ignorant to the hurt of their souls.
For the clause added, Thou shalt fear thy God; this is, because there is no power in the deaf or blind to help themselves, or to be avenged, yet for the fear of God, who will take their part, they must not be injuried.
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, &c. From the sins of private persons spoken against before, as stealing, swearing falsely, cursing, &c. the Lord proceedeth here to the sins of public persons, viz. the Judges, as Hesychius well noteth. Their sin is to judge unjustly, either by respecting the person of the poor, that is, by being unjustly partial, being swayed through favor or pity to the poor by his tears against right, for in this ill sense respecting persons in judgment is always taken, as Deut. 16. 19. Prov. 18. 5. Job 13. 10. Psal. 58. 3. Jam. 2. 1, 9. although in other cases it is sometime spoken in a good sense, Gen. 19, 21. 2 King. 3. 14. Lam. 4. 16. Or by honoring the person of the rich for favor or reward expected: for in giving judgment no man's person must be looked at, but only the cause. If a Judge be swayed by respect to the poor, injustice deceiveth, saith Calvin, under the color of virtue. And as for the mighty, Wilt thou yield anything, saith Hesychius, to the person of the mighty, then yield to justice, because so thou yieldest to God who is most mighty. If the matter be doubtful, Ambrose his rule is to incline to the part of the poor. And in the Emperor Trajans time they commonly gave sentence with the poor in doubtful cases.
Thou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer, nor stand against the blood of thy neighbor, &c. This may concern a Judge, and therefore is aptly placed here, where judging righteously is commanded. For if when divers Judges have sitten upon a cause together, and one of them cometh out and saith, I am he that doth acquit or condemn, but my fellows are against me, but what can I do, seeing they are more then I? he hath transgressed against this, to say thus is a tale-bearing, bewraying secrets, Prov. 11. 13. Prov. 20. 19. or Councils, alluding to the secrets of the Synedrion, or great Council of the Jews, so Maimonides. Yet not only this, but all tale-bearing is here forbidden. Who is a tale-bearer, saith Maimonides, but he that is laden with words, and goeth from one to another, and saith, Thus said such a one, or thus have I heard of such an one, although it be true, he marreth the whole work? In Hebrew a tale-bearer is Rakil, rendered by Aquila, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a devil, and so the backbiter is called, 2 Tim. 3. 3. 1 Tim. 3. 11. and rightly, because the devil hath his name from accusing, Revel. 12. 9. Rakil properly signifieth a Merchant, but a tale-bearer is called thus, because he as a merchant of words goeth up and down and traffiqueth with them, uttering criminations of others. Although the tale-bearer be not beaten, yet it is a great iniquity, and occasioneth the killing of many souls in Israel, saith Maimonides, for which it is added here, Thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy neighbor: and this is confirmed, Ezek. 22. 9. where tale-bearing for the shedding of blood is condemned. The tale-bearing tongue is rendered by the Chaldee, a threefold tongue, Prov. 20. 19. Psal. 101. 5. Psal. 140. 12. so Targum Hierosolym. also, and the reason hereof is given by the wise men, such a tongue killeth three, the speaker, the receiver, and him that is spoken against. The tale-bearer stirreth up strife, and from strife cometh bloodshed, so that it is no small but an abominable sin to be a tale-bearer, yea a very devil. And therefore to deter herefrom the Hebrews refer us to Doeg the Edomite a tale-teller against Ahimelech the priest, to consider what befell him. For in that example it appeared notoriously to be to the shedding of blood, which should make all Christians to abhor from being such. And thus these words, Thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy neighbor, are expounded also, they are added, because tale-bearing tendeth to the shedding of blood, and especially to tell anything in the time of judgment against a man, for which he may be unjustly condemned: against backbiters Augustine had this posy written upon his table.
But Maimonides applieth this law also to the standing for one pursued for his life, for everyone is bound to stay the pursuer by this law, and if he cannot otherwise, he must do it by maiming or killing him, that the pursued may be rescued. Or in case that one is in danger by such as lay wait for him, thou must reveal it, if by thieves and robbers, or being in the water ready to drown, thou must help him what thou canst, otherwise thou transgressest this law, Thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, but rebuke him, and not suffer sin upon him. He that hateth his brother is a murderer, 1 Joh. 3. 15. wherefore after that law against blood this against hatred followeth well. And because hatred ariseth from offenses, he commandeth not to hate, but to rebuke for them, as Christ afterwards did, Matth. 18. 15. Luk. 17. 3. By a brother he meaneth any other man, because none are to be hated, but loved, yea even our enemies. And hating in the heart is spoken of, because a man that maketh a good show outwardly, ofttimes hateth in heart; His words are smoother then oil, as Daved saith, but war is in his heart; or when he saith nothing he hateth in heart, as Absalom did Ammon his brother. The Hebrews expound it thus; When one man sinneth against another, he must not hate him inwardly and keep silence, as wicked Absalom did, but he must make it known unto him, and say, Why hast thou done thus to me? And for colouring over inward hatred with fair speeches, Cain may be an example, and Joab towards Abner. The word translated, rebuke, signifieth rebuking with conviction by reasoning, as Job 13. 3. Esa. 1. 18. in Hebrew it is, Rebuking thou shalt rebuke. And a brother sinning is to be rebuked, as the Hebrews note; whether his sin be against his brother or against God. But he must, say they, speak unto him alone, and with mildness, letting him know, that he speaketh not to him but for his good, to bring him to the life of the world to come. If he take it well and reform, it is well; if not, let him rebuke him the second and third time, and so continually, till the sinner resisteth him, and saith, I will not hear thee. Rebukes must always be private, lest he that is rebuked be put to shame: for it is an odious thing counted amongst the Hebrews to put an Israelite openly to shame, insomuch that they say, He that maketh his neighbors face ashamed publicly, shall have none inheritance in the world to come, be the man put to shame small or great, and he must not call him by a name whereof he is ashamed. But this is in matters betwixt a man and his neighbor, for if in matters of the God of heaven he convert not secretly, he must be made ashamed publicly, and his sin divulged, and he must be reproached and set at naught, till he returneth to well-doing. And this may serve partly for a Comment upon that, Matth. 18. 15. but that there after a third admonition in case of sinning against a brother, it is said, Tell the Church. Touching these words, not suffer sin upon him, are rendered by Maimonides, Bear not sin for him, by speaking harshly to him, and in public to put him to shame, for this hath been already shown to be a great sin. The Septuagint also and the Chaldee render it thus, and Cazkuni alleging for proof of this reading, Psal. 44. where the like words are used, For thy sake we are killed all the day, &c. see the like, Levite. 22. 9. Numb. 18. 32. and the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may well be thus rendered, for him. And he that rebuketh not for sin becometh himself guilty thereof, because one ought to endeavor the conversion of another, and therefore not doing so, he faileth of his duty, and it is sin in him. To this effect also Gregory saith, He that can amend another, and doth not, maketh himself partaker of his sins. And there is another saying, Qui non vetat peccare, cùm possit, jubet. This reading, Bear not sin for him, is also followed by Borrhaeus. But Junius and Tostatus follow the former reading. Calvin, Raise not up a crime of him, referring it to the ninth Commandment, because Nasa, the word here used is to lift or take up, and he severeth the first part of the Verse, as belonging to the former law, Thou shalt not stand up against the blood of thy neighbor, nor so much as hate him in thy heart. And indeed, howsoever we join this and the words following by this word, but, yet in Hebrew there is no such conjunction. But be it that they are not joined, yet both being in one verse, argueth, that not to reprove, but to remember silently offenses done, is to hate in the heart. And if any man had rather follow Calvin's Exposition upon the last words, the sense will be good any way, but because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, for his sake, I prefer the first exposition, Bear not sin for him. Of partaking of other men's sins, it is also spoken, 1 Tim. 5. 22. for against raising a crime against him is the law, v. 16. where going about as a tale-bearer is forbidden.
Thou shalt not avenge, or bear any grudge, &c. but shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. After the forbidding of hatred for offenses, revenge is also forbidden, so likewise, Rom. 12. 19. and Prov. 20. 22. The Hebrews are very strict in setting down, what revenge is, for they say, if thy neighbor being entreated yesterday by thee to lend thee an axe, denied thee it, but cometh to borrow one of thee today, if thou deniest him, because he denied thee, this is revenge, and a great evil. And to this agreeth the description of revenge made by the Lord, Jer. 50. 15. Take vengeance on her, as she hath done, do to her. and Psal. 7 4. for this is to requite evil with evil, contrary to that, Rom. 12. 21. Overcome evil with goodness, and be not overcome of evil, as he is, that taketh revenge by doing the like forbidden immediately before. A man may avoid the company of a brother, that liveth in sin, for this is commanded, saith Hesychius, 2 Thes. 3. 6. but he must not hate him, or seek revenge upon him, for his avoiding of him must be to his good, and not to his hurt, he admonishing him as a brother, verse. 15. And this law against revenge is to be understood of private revenges: in Courts of Justice it is not to be doubted, but that revenge may be sought against malefactors, or wrong-doers, yet not ex livore, out of malice, but ex amore justitiae, out of the love of justice, as Lyranus speaketh. And according to this is the direction of Hugo upon this place. Seek not revenge personally, but for the common good, if thou beest a private person, or a Judge. And it was a notable saying of Cicero, although I could revenge injuries, yet I had rather forget them. Tostatus here objecteth the permission of revenge upon the shedder of blood by chance, if he could take him out of any of the Cities of revenge; and answereth, that this Law is not contradicted by that, for this the is Law in the Court of conscience, showing simply what is evil, but that in the judicial Court, wherein something is permitted to be done, although evil for the hardness of men's hearts, as in the Law of divorcements: or bear any grudge, Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thou shalt not keep, that is, what he hath done to thee in memory, whereby thou shouldst be stirred up to revenge; the Chaldee, thou shalt not keep enmity, this is against those, that will not be revenged, but they will never forget injuries. The Hebrews exemplify it thus, Simeon cometh to borrow of Levi an axe, or prayeth him to hire an house for him, but he denieth, yet sometime after Levi cometh to entreat the like of Simeon; now if he saith, I will do it, but thou refusedst to do the like for me, I will not deal by thee, as thou hast dealt by me, he transgresseth this Law, because he beareth in mind the injury, forsomuch as he is thus in danger at some time or other to be stirred up to revenge. Thrasibulus made a law amongst the Athenians to the same purpose, and called it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the law of forgetting. And this was revived by Aurelianus and Severus amongst the Romans. And the Emperor Aurelianus was admirable for refraining himself from revenge, when in the evening certain idle fellows followed him railing home to his house, he did nothing else to them therefore, but sent back a servant with them with a light to guide them back again. Cicero saith of Julius Caesar, that he used not to forget anything, but injuries. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, this, say the Hebrews, is the great universal precept in the law, much like to that of Christ, Mat. 22. 37, 40. And therefore although a man be despised of his neighbor, he must not despise but love him, because he is made after the image of God, and he that loveth his neighbor therefore, loveth the great God himself and honoreth him. Rab. Menahem. Another Rabbin saith thus, To love his neighbor as himself is to speak in his commendation, and to spare his goods, as he would his own, and he that honoreth himself by the dishonor of his neighbor, hath none inheritance in the world to come. Maimonides. To love a neighbor, as myself, is to rejoice at his good, saith Hesychius, as at mine own: as, is a note of similitude not of equality, for a man's self is the pattern, according to the love unto whom, the love must be to a neighbor: so Burgensis. By neighbor who is meant, was shown before, verse. 13. i. e. Every man, even an enemy.
Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind, thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed, neither shall a garment of linen and woollen come upon thee. The reason of these prohibitions, as the Hebrews have it, was first, because God in the Creation made everything after his kind, and perfect, as it should be for the best good of man, but he that causeth gendering of divers beasts, doth, as if he thought that the holy blessed God had not perfected whatsoever is needful, but himself would add more creatures and help in the Creation of the World, and in the mixture of seeds he altereth the order of the Creation, when everything was brought forth apart after his kind. And therefore the first words here used by way of preparative to these laws, ye shall keep my Statutes, are by them expounded of Statutes or bounds, as the word signifieth, whereby God bounded the world in the Creation, and these bounds, wheresoever they are spoken of, are as a Kings decrees, and as the Kings come, so that he which mixeth divers kinds, as a falsifier of the Kings coin: so Rab. Menahem. And therefore if any man caused his beast or any wild beast or fowl to ingender with another kind although most like unto it, he was beaten, yet they held such cattle, as came of these mixtures to be lawful for use, and if of both clean beasts, for meat also And for such as came of divers kinds, if the dams of them both were of one kind, they might gender together, as an he and she-mule, that were both brought forth by asses, or mares, but if one came of a mare and the other of an asse, it was unlawful: so Maimonides. And there might be a reason of this also taken from the first, that sinned herein, Anah one of the posterity of Esau, whom it was impious for an Israelite to imitate. Touching the sowing of a field with divers seeds, and Deut. 22. 9. the sowing of divers seeds in the vineyard, the Hebrews teach▪ that not only the sowing of divers grains together, but the grafting of one tree into another that is of a divers kind, is forbidden, because if in a vineyard it may not be so, by the like reason it might not be so in any other kinds of trees. But the seeds of trees and grain they say may be sown together, because this is no mixing. And for grains, they say, that the mixing of such only is forbidden, as were for the food of man, not seeds for medicine or the like use. And if there were any roots of corn growing in any man's field, where be intended to sow another grain, he must first purge the ground of them. And such care was had hereof, that Proclamation was made for it yearly the first day of Adar, that is, February, and the 15 day officers were sent by the Magistrates to search. Out of their own land, they held that they mightsow divers kinds; notwithstanding mixing of divers seeds they determine to be, when one peck of wheat is mixed with 23 pecks of barley, for if Jess wheat be mixed with it, then it is not unlawful.
For garments of linen and woollen, these they say, are such as be made of sheep's wool and flax only, not of wool and hemp, or any other thing, if a garment of woollen be sewen only with a thread of flax, it is a mixture and unlawful. But if a man putteth flax and camels hair together, or flax and hemp together, and the greatest part is camels hair or hemp, if he mixeth this with woollen, it is not the unlawful mixture, but only if the greatest part of the first mixture be flax: The word translated linsey-woolsey is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which in the Cabala, as Rab. Menahem observeth, is turned by transposing some letters into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Satan, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Idolater, for Satan, one of the high Rulers, they say, is clothed with Sagnatnez. The Chaldee rendereth it by the same word, the Septuagint Kibdelos, adulterate and imperfect. And the word may have another denomination, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , smooth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thread, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to twist, so Oleaster. And the Hebrews held only the wearing of such garments unlawful, because this only is forbidden here, and Deut. 22. 11. so that to make them to sell them, or to use them for carpets or hangings was not unlawful. Deut. 22. 10. plowing with divers kinds, as an ox and an asse is also forbidden. Such as offended against any of these laws were punished with beating. Most of these things may well be received, but if a woollen garment be sewed only with a thread of flax, it seemeth improbable that it should be linsey-woolsey for this, and I cannot see why there should not be the like reason of flax and of hemp, seeing one is linen as well as the other. But these laws being not renewed under the Gospel bind not us, to whom all things are now lawful, in respect of the use of the creature, especially seeing this is nowhere numbered amongst those precepts, the breach of which is threatened with death, as Ezech. 18. and Ezech. 22. For the mystery of all this (for chiefly for the mystery these laws are made) Hesychius saith, to mingle Circumcision and Baptism together is here forbidden by catteil of divers kinds, which must not gender together, and to impose the yoke of the Law together with the yoke of the Gospel, the one being heavy and importable, the other easy and light, by the Law against yoking an ox and an asse together. Again, by mixing divers kinds of seeds in the field, teaching doctrine divers from that of the Lord, Mark 7. 21. is meant, for this is unlawful. Lastly, by wearing garments of linsey-woolsey, or putting them on, the putting on of Christ is meant, and together of the Devil by idolatry, which is unlawful: and therefore Theodotion, as he found it in the Hebrew, to make the intent of the Lord more manifest, rendered it, Thou shalt not put on Satan. This mystery although I refuse not, yet whereas Hesychius seeketh to overthrow the literal sense, as if it were ridiculous to hold, that the Jews might not suffer such gendering of divers cattle together, &c. because they commonly used mules, and made garments of wool and flax, Prov. 30. 13. herein I must needs go from him, for the making of these, and the using of them is not here forbidden, but only the putting on of the one, and the causing of the other by confused ingenderings, as hath been already touched. Calvin and some others will have simplicity understood here, and that there should be no deceit, which is incident to things mingled, for to go a little from simplicity and singleness in our dealings, is to contract some corruption. Moreover, hereby, saith he, is shown that other inventions should not be brought into the worship of God, lest in time they pass for parts thereof; and lastly, that they should not live after the manner of the Heathen, but keep themselves even in these things distinguished from them, lest by doing as they did, they should come to be as one people with them, and follow their superstitions, for which cause it is prefixed, ye shall keep my statutes, these are the cancells or marks, within the compass of which ye must keep, and not go over to the Heathen. But S. Paul seemeth to allude to this law of cattle, when he biddeth, Be not unequally yoked with Infidels. The Jews making marriages then with the Heathen, and all confused conjunctions by incest, &c. saith Brenz, were hereby forbidden. And divers seeds could not be sown together without loss, because both the ground and the husbandry must differ for divers seeds, that they may prosper best, whereby was taught, that following divers doctrines is to be avoided, attending not to edification, but to confusion. Lastly, mingled garments were used by the Heathen, from whom the Lord would have them distinguished, as was before said. So Brenz, and most rightly. Some, saith Calvin, by the first law here understand chastity, by the rest simplicity to be commended unto us. One noteth, that the Egyptlans offered beasts of such confused ingenderings to their Idols, as mules, &c.
Whosoever lieth carnally with a bondwoman, bitroathed to an husband, she shall be scourged, they shall not be put to death, &c. Hebr. If a man steepeth with a woman by the sleep of seed, and she be a bondwoman. But the translation is according to the sense, but the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , tendered, betrothed to an husband, hath more difficulty in it, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to publish or to reproach, whereupon some think, that one publicly betrothed is meant, Maimonides saith, one espoused to an Hebrew servant, which espousall yet is not complete till the time of her liberty, when it was perfected, being in the mean season but as the espousals of a girl, that one betrothed is meant, a stranger bond to an Hebrew, holdeth also Rab. Solomon, Hesychius, Lyranus, Calvin and Pelican. Others expound it of one reproached or infamous, being made so by another man, her master, or some other, as Vatablus, Junius, Cajetan, Oleaster, and therefore Junius rendereth it, despecta cuique; and Brenz, ancilla à viro corrupta, vel viro unita, non ut uxor, sed ut concubina. And this is followed by Willet, because Deut. 22. 23. death is appointed for a punishment, if the woman be betrothed; but from the same reason I think it may be gathered, that one betrothed is meant, because it is said, they shall not die: for why is this spoken of, but because according to the general law in this case they should be put to death; but when she is a bondwoman that is betrothed, forsomuch as her bondage hindereth a perfect betroathing, as hath been already said, not death, but another punishment shall be inflicted; for in all other incontinencies punishable by stripes, as the Hebrews observe, both the woman and the man were punished alike, but not in this. For betrothed, the Vulgar Latin hath nubilis, and by a corruption of this word, Hesychius and Tostatus, non nobilis, but these are errors. She shall be scourged, Hebr. Bickoreth, of Bacar, an ox, her scourging is set forth by this word, because the whip was made with thongs of an oxes skih, the stripes were but forty at the most, Deut. 25. 3. and because they would be sure not to exceed, they gave but thirty and nine, whereupon S. Paul speaketh of his stripes, being forty wanting one. Here although it be plain, that the woman only should be scourged, so likewise the Chaldee, and the Hebrews, yet Tostatus and Pelican, &c. refer it to both; but the word being a feminine, proveth the contrary. No sacrifice is appointed for her, because she is a servant, and hath nothing, and haply a stranger, not an Israelite, but he must bring a ram to be sacrificed for his trespass: Of this kind of offering see before, Chap. 5 15. and Chap. 6. And hereby was shown, although he had none other punishment, that he was worthy of death, but his ram is killed for him, by the blood of Christ he is delivered. Hesychius by the maid-servant understandeth the Jew espoused to the Law, as to an husband, till Christ's coming, lying with the Jew is embracing his doctrine without the right understanding of the rites of the Law, for the Jew under the Law is as the issue of Hagar, in bondage. If any man before Christ's time did thus join with the Jew, although he erred, he should not die, but they shall be visited, for so he rendereth the word translated scourged, as if hereby were figured out visiting in mercy at the coming of Christ, who as the ram, should be offered to make atonement for him. But of this mystery let the Reader judge.
Here they are commanded to count the fruit of the trees planted by them in Canaan uncircumcised three years, and the fourth year to praise God with it, and the fifth year to eat it. The Rabbins upon this law teach, that it holdeth only in Canaan, not in any other Country, and for trees planted by the Hebrews, or by any other for them. The fruits of these are said to be uncircumcised, that is, unclean, and so unlawful to be eaten, as other unclean meats, until that in the fourth year they had sanctified. And if any man in three years did eat so much as an olive of these fruits, he was to be beaten. But in speaking upon this they have some over-curious distinctions, as if a man planted fruit-bearing trees, not intending them for fruit, but for fencing of his garden, they were not subject to this law, or if he intended them for timber, or if at the first he planted them for fruit, but by and by changed his mind, intending them for such uses. But if at any time he intendeth them for fruit, which he first planted for other uses, although three years be past, they are not sanctified till three years fulfilled from the time of that his intention. A tree transplanted is subject also to this law. The first day of the month Tisri was counted the beginning of the year for these fruits, and this answered to our September. For the fourth year, in which the fruit was sanctified, they also hold, that this was by bringing it, or the price of it to Jerusalem to the Temple, there to eat it to the praise of God with the Laevite, the stranger and the poor, as the second tithe of the third year: or if any man would, he might redeem it by giving the price, and adding a fifth part, as in the law of redeeming tithes, Levite. 27. 30. but the fruits of the vineyard the fourth year must either not be redeemed, but carried up, and if they were redeemed, the price must be carried up to be eaten at the holy place. If the fourth year happened to be in the seventh year, which was a year of freedom for all to come and eat in any man's ground, the owners of such trees must mark them with clods of earth, that they might not be eaten of till they were redeemed, and all trees within the three years must be marked then with potters clay, lest any should unawares eat thereof: so Maimonides, and Talmud Babyl. But Ibn-Ezra alone will have their sanctifying to be by giving them the fourth year to the priests, as the first fruits, Numb. 18. 12, 13. The fifth year everyone might freely eat of his fruits as of other things, and in counting these years, they went by the time of their planting, whereby we may gather how great the fruitfulness of that Country then was, because amongst us the fruit of trees, after their planting is little or none, of most trees for three years after their planting. If they observed duly this law, it is promised, that their trees should yield them great increase.
For the mystery; Hesychius by fruit-bearing trees understandeth men having the Word of God taught amongst them, but they brought no fruit for God in three ages, set forth by three years, that is, 1 From the beginning to David. 2 To the captivity of Babylon. 3 To the time of Christ's incarnation, but in the forth age, Christ being come they were sanctified, and God was praised and glorified for his miracles, and in the fifth of the Apostles preaching, fruit was yielded abundantly in every Country. But this is far fetched, and not so probable. Rather the Lord would hereby set forth the curse upon the earth for the sin of Adam in eating of the forbidden tree, and that all fruits and meats must be sanctified unto us, before we can lawfully eat thereof, and this sanctifying is by the word and prayer, and when by grace we are sanctified that eat, because to the impure all things are unclean. Chrysostom saith, that the fruit of trees newly planted is not so good but weak, small and unpleasant; and therefore not fit to be brought unto God, till the fourth year, before which bringing and offering, it was impiety to eat it. Brenz saith, that God hereby provided for the good of posterity, because trees suffered to bear fruit the first three years do soon decay again, but being pruned, and the fruit plucked off, they take the deeper rooting, are the more fruitful afterwards, and last the longer, but the fourth year he would have the fruit sanctified, that in the fifth they might gather and eat, to lead them hereby to acknowledge all fruits to come of the gift of God. Lyranus saith, that the Heathen offered their first fruits in these years unto their gods, wherefore God would have his people in detestation of their manners to count them unclean then. But these may be moral and natural reasons the other before-going the mystical.
Ye shall not eat anything with blood, nor use enchantment, nor observe times. Against eating blood, see Chap. 17. The blood must all be let out, before that any flesh be eaten. But this is here again repeated, saith Baalhatturim, nor observe fortunes, being added, because such as were given to enchantments or fortunes did use to eat bread over the murdered body, that the revenger of blood might not pursue them, thus also Cazkuni, and the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by blood, or over blood, maketh this the more probable, and thus understood, there is the better coherence of that which followeth in this Verse with it. But some will have nothing else but the eating of flesh, before that all the blood is run out, and thus these words are used, 1 Sam. 14. 33 or a thing strangled, and not having the blood let out in the killing of it, and so it will be a different precept from that, Chap. 17. 10. For eating with blood here forbidden, the Septuagint have, Ye shall not eat upon the mountains, mistaking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , blood, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , mountains. This is indeed a sin also, Ezech. 18. 6. but not here forbidden, but under idolatry. Nor use enchantment, Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to conjecture, and therefore Junius rendereth it conjectation, divining by looking upon the entrails of birds or beasts, or by any accident: Cajetan restraineth it to divining by serpents, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth also a serpent, but it is more general, and therefore the Septuagint restrein it too much also by turning it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to divine by birds. Heathen men, saith Willet, divined either by things without life, by unreasonable creatures, or by human actions. Things without life were either the earth, divining by which was called Geomantia, or water, Hydromantia, or fire, Pyromantia, or air, Aëromantia, or pictures, for so it is thought that Laban used to divine by his idols, which Rachel stole away. The creatures unreasonable were either birds flying, the divination whereby was called Auspicium, or by birds chattering, Augurium, ab avium g •• ritu, or by birds dead, as Ornimantia, the inspection of the entrails of hens, or by beasts dead being killed for sacrifice, by looking into their entrails, and this was called Aruspicina. Touching men, the divination by their actions was by their speaking, passing by or going away, as Hesychius noteth, and by them, dead consulting with them, as Saul by the witch of Endor with Samuel, this was called Necromantia, or by looking into the entrails of children, called Paedomantia, as Tostatus hath it. Now all these ways of divination are unlawful, and because one word only is used here, whereby it may seem that other kinds are not forbidden; many more are also used, Deut. 18. 10, 11. but another word is there put for divination, and this is rendered, as here, Use enchantment, but by Junius, Conjector, but it is the word used by Joseph, Gen. 44. saying, Know ye not that such a man as I can divine? of this see more, Exod. 7. 8, 9. and Deut. 18. 10. Such divinations have been often proved to be vanities, Crassus was hereby certified that he should have an happy end, but he died shamefully near Euphrates; and Pompey, but he was slain in Egypt; and Caesar, but he was slain in the Senate: so Cicero, who hereupon derideth divining by birds, saying, that the Augurs moderated in matters of life by the crying of Ravens and Jackdawes. And Cyprian, telleth the like of Regulus and Mancinus taken captives, and Paulus slain at Cannas going out by their Augurs counsel. Yet most highly were these wicked Diviners honored in Rome, where they had a College, and the Magistrates and all others were enjoined to obey them upon pain of death. The reason, saith Brenz, why the Heathen divined by birds, was because they thought the birds being nearest unto the gods, as their messengers, declared their will by their flying or singing, according to that of Ovid.
But one Messolanus a Jew being in the army of the successors of Alexander did notably declare the vanity of this: for the whole army standing still, as they were marching at the warning of an Augur: he asked the reason; it was answered, that they stayed to observe that bird, and to be directed thereby: but he presently shot the bird, and when they raged at him for it; he said, Ye see, that she knew not to fly most safely for her own life, & how then can she direct us for the best? And amongst the Heathen themselves there were some that saw well enough into the vanity of this divination, as Hector, who said, There was no reason to go by the flying of birds that want reason, for all is, at the disposing of Jupiter, there is one best augury, and that is to fight for thy Country. Appius Claudius, when the Augurs told him as an evil sign that the Pullen would not eat, said, Cast them into the Sea, and so they shall drink their fill, if they will not eat, thus slighting this divination; and Epaminondas before his first Leuctrian victory being warned not to fight, cited this example, and went on and prevailed. All things to come conjectured by birds or beasts are not here condemned, as touching the weather, but touching good or evil events, as if a Crow and a Pie be seen on the left hand, and a Raven and Eagle on the right, to hold it a sign of good luck. And not only, as Brenz hath well noted, is such divining here condemned, but from any other thing, wherein there is no reason of good or evil to come, as to put on the left shoe before the right, which Augustus Caesar held to be a bad sign, the falling of the salt, the going by of the heart on the right hand, or the fox on the left, &c.
Nor observetimes: this is the Septuagint render almost as the former word, as if by the first were meant divining by the chattering of birds; by this, by the flying of birds, but it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , either of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a cloud, divining about the weather being meant by Astronomy, or of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a set time, observing of times according to our new Translation being meant, as if one day were good and another bad to go about anything. As the first is an usurpation above the module of a man, because God only knoweth what shall come, so this is a derogation from his providence, who can make any day good to such as fear him; and hereby man is drawn from that trust, and gratitude which he oweth to God for any good.
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, nor mar the corners of your beard, nor make any cuttings in your flesh, &c. Chap. 21. 5. the like law is for the High Priest, when any near to him died; and so in this place, in the case of mourning for the dead, as is expressed, v. 28. because the Heathen used thus to do, the people of God might not do it, and so disfigure themselves out of extremity of sorrow, as being without hope in respect of the dead. The word rendered, round, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to compass, as when the head in cutting is polled round about, the hait at the temples and behind the ears being cut round off; for this is not the shaving of the whole head, saith Maimonides, but of the corners, leaving it like a round dish, as the Heathen used to do, Jerem. 9. 26. Chap. 25. 23. Chap. 49. 32. and the Arabians, saith Herodorus, in particular. Marring the beard was by shaving it off, as appeareth, Chap. 21. 5. for thus also the Heathen did, Esa. 15. 2. Jer. 48. 37. And if any man offended herein, he was beaten so often as he had corners on his head and beard shaven off. An exception from this law of not shaving is, Chap. 14, touching the leper that must be shaven for his disease, and Numb. 8. 18. touching the Nazarite, for the shaving after the manner of idolaters only is forbidden here. Upon this it is like, that David's men having their beards half shaven, were ashamed. Hesychius understandeth the prohibition here of nourishing locks to the honor of the Devil, or as if they would hereby add unto the form wherein God had made them; but herein he is wide from the charge here given, which is not against nourishing but cutting of the locks round. But this, saith Maimonides, is not with sizers to trim the head or beard for decency, but with a rasour to shave the corners off.
For cutting the flesh and marking it, this was also used by the Heathen, Jer. 16. 6. who when they had cut a place, would put stibium or ink into it, thus marking themselves to idols: so Maimonides And if the beard, according to the sentence of this law, be marred by shaving it off, and likewise the head by rounding it, so that a man may be ashamed that hath thus done; (yea it is said of Demosthenes, that he once shaved his beard purposely that he might keep in, and study two or three months, because it was a shame to be seen in that case;) it is strange that any should glory in rounding of their heads, and cutting in an affected fashion their beards, as is the manner of gallants in these times. For although this law bindeth not us, yet it showeth us what is decent, even touching hair, and what otherwise. And if cutting and marking the flesh be Heathenish, what else can be thought of those that cut their bodies with whips amongst the Papists, the scars whereof remain as marks long after, or of those that cause the name of Christ, or the sign of the Cross to be burnt into their hand or arm, as Lorinus saith some do? For even thus, Tostatus saith, the Heathen with a golden plate used to burn the name of their idol into their flesh, and in the festivals of Berecynthia, they gashed and cut their flesh, and some of the chief Priests spared not to cut off their privities to the honor of that idol: as also the Scythians are said at the Funeral of their Kings to have used to cut off their ears, launch their arms, and with arrows to pierce their hands. But this was unnatural, and an hurting and disfiguring of the body, which God made, and therefore justly forbidden, as detestable to God: to say nothing of the reasons of this law before yielded, that they might not be like the Heathen, or show to be without hope in respect of the dead.
Do not prostitute thy daughter to be an whore, &c. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here used, signifieth to pollute or to make common, and it is not strictly to be understood only that no man should do thus by his daughter, but not by any daughter in Israel: so Hugo, and according to this it is spoken, Deut. 23. 17. And to make her common thus, is not only by command or counsel, saith Hesychius, but by example, when the mother is an whore. Vatablus expoundeth it of spiritual whoredom following the Chaldee, but unfitly. This law is put here for further explication of the seventh Commandment, upon which see more against fornication. Amongst the Cyprians there was a common most wicked custom for maids by this means to get their dowry. And amongst the Locrians some used to vow when they went to war, if they prevailed, to prostitute their daughters in the temple of Venus. Yet some Heathens so detested fornication, as that they punished it with death; as an Athenian, who finding his daughter to have been corrupted, shut her up in an house, and famished her. And Aufidianus a Roman, his daughter being corrupted by Fannius Saturnius, by the treachery of her Schoolmaster, killed them both.
Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my Sanctuary. Of Sabbaths keeping he spake before, v. 3. but repeateth it again here, partly because he forbade whoredom, v. 29. whereby especially the Sabbaths were profaned by wicked people being then idle, and committing this sin: so Cajetan, and partly that reverencing the Sanctuary by attending upon the Divine Worship there, before omitted, might here be brought in, seeing the keeping of the Sabbath standeth chiefly herein: so Calvin. The reverencing of the Sanctuary was the reverencing of him that dwelt therein, saith Maimonides, and this was by not presuming to come into the mountain of God's house with a staff in his hand, shoes on his feet, or any dust, or in his working clothes, or with a bag of money about him. He might not spit in any part of it, but wrap up his spittle in his handkerchief, and not make the house of God a thorowfare, but come in only to worship there: when he had accomplisht his service he went backward by little and little, and then softly sidelong till he was out of the court, and he came and was there with fear and dread, considering that he stood before the Lord, neither might any man sit down there, but David's house, viz. the kings thereof only, for whom and for none else there was a seat. And no man might make an house like it, or any other thing like the things therein for reverence to God dwelling there. Compare with this Christ's whipping of the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, &c. Joh. 2. 14 and his not suffering a vessel to be carried through the Temple, Mark 11. 16. and something is said of going right on and not turning, Ezech 46. 9. and c. 8. 16. This sanctuary was a figure of Christ's body, Job. 2. 19. 21. and therefore mystically the reverencing of him is here pointed at, Joh. 5. 23. Heb. 1. 6. Phil. 2. 6. And withal we should learn from hence to use more reverence towards our [Note.] Temples, because wheresoever God is in a special manner, as he is there by his promise, the place is dreadful, as Jacob said of Bethel.
Regard not them, that have familiar spirits, nor seek after wizards to be defiled, &c. This followeth aptly the precept of reverencing the sanctuary, as Cazkuni noteth, because there were the Urim and Thummim to inquire by, and therefore they must not inquire by familiar spirits. The word translated, such as have familiar spirits, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifying bottles, because they speak with an hollow voice, as out of a bottle, in Greek they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , speakers out of the belly; for as Tertullian saith, a small voice came, as it were from their secret parts, they are also called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from uncleannesses, because this spirit, by which they spake was an unclean spirit keeping in corrupt and filthy places, as the word signifieth, such was the Witch of Endor, and the word is of the feminine gender, because women for the most part are such. The word rendered, Wizards signifieth knowers, and they are men that take upon them the like skill, touching secrets, but that they divine by the flying of birds, &c. as was said before. This law is had again, Deut. 18. 11. a promise of the Prophet, to whom they should resort, being added, v. 15. that is, of Christ Jesus. The punishment of such is death, Ch. 20. 27.
Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of the old man, and fear thy God, &c. By the hoary head the Hebrews understand one of 70 years, and by the old man one of 60. But Targum Jonathan expoundeth the old man, the wise man; the Chaldee, the skillful in the law, for the learned are to be reverenced, as the aged, and the elders: which were Magistrates, Deut. 22. 18. c. 25. 7. the not doing of this is threatened for sin, Deut. 28. 5. and lamented, Jer. Lament. 5. 12. as a great evil in Jerusalem. The honor due to the aged is to rise up, say the Hebrews, when they come within 4 cubits of thee, and likewise to others here meant, but other reverence in giving them place, and the priority of speech is here intimated also. Never was this law more practiced, then in Sparta of Lacedemonia, whereupon Lysander used to say, It is a most honorable house for old age, meaning Sparta; and it grew into a Proverb, It is good only in Sparta to wax old. So that even the Law of nature taught this Of honoring the aged, Ephraim giveth this reason, because they have served God a long time; Borrhaeus this, because old men are often wisest, and can moderate their passions; Hesychius this, because young men growing shall thus be honored in way of compensation; Plutarch this, because by using to honor old men, parents shall the more readily be honored. But most generally this, because they represent the ancient of days, God, the fear of whom is immediately here next spoken of, as if he had said, in reverencing them, thou shalt reverence God represented by them. Deut. 7. 9. Dan. 7. 9. But the aged most worthy of honor according to the first reason are the godly aged, a gray head in the way of righteousness, and yet simply the gray head of old men is called their beauty.
If a stranger sojourn with you in your land, ye shall not vex him, &c. of this, see before, Exod. 22. 21. but is again repeated here, that it might be added, he shall be as one born in the land, thou shalt love him as thyself, verse. 34. as was said before of a neighbor, verse. 18. vexing was by objecting to him his former unbelief, and uncircumcision.
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in mete-yard, in weight, or in measure. Against doing unrighteousness in judgment was, v. 15. but it is here repeated again, that a law against other unrighteous doings betwixt private men in their dealings might be added thereunto. The word translated mete-wand is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a measure by the yard or ell; weights were pounds, and the measure a vessel containing such a quantity, a bushel, peck or the like of things sold by measure, and therefore an Ephah is named and an hin, verse. 36. the Ephah being a measure of dry things containing a bushel, and an hin of wet containing 72 Eggs. Concerning weights and measures the Hebrews have these rules. 1 They must not use divers, some less, and some greater, to buy by the greater, and to sell by the less. 2 They must not keep such, lest another happen to use the false. 3 They might not make their weights of lead, iron or other metal, which might rust or canker, fret and so in time grow less, but of stone or glass. 4 Because there might be a deceit in the balances also, these must be just and right, verse. 36. Lastly, the Judges appointed officers in every City to go into men's shops, and to see to these things, and if they found any deceit, to punish the offender. And as amongst God's people of old, so amongst Christians, Theodosius and Arcadius would have weights and measures kept in every City, whereby all others should be tried. Justinian in Churches, and that offenders should be beaten 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , stoutly. The Council of Mainz imposed 30 days penance with bread and water upon him that used false weights or measures; and they are an abomination to the Lord but a perfect weight is his delight, Prov. 11. 1. Mystically, Hesychius saith, that here is forbidden the weighing and measuring of ourselves and others with divers weights and measures ourselves partially, and them exactly, against which see somewhat, 2 Cor. 10. 12, 13.
CHAP. XX.
DIvers Laws having been hitherto set down, in this chapter the punishments for offenders against them are appointed. And first such as sacrificed their children to Molech, against that, Levite. 18. 21. they must be stoned to death, and God saith that he will set his face against them to cut them off, yea although the people or Magistrate connived at it. Now because such heavy mulcts are appointed here for malefactors, some, saith Brenz, have held, that the old law came not from our gracious God, but some god, cruel and truculent, that delighted in bloodshed. But this is a fond conceit seeing without such severe punishments no Common-wealth can stand, as a body with putrefied sores cannot be made sound without cutting and launching. Of the divers ways of cutting of divers sorts of malefactors see before, Exod. 21. 12. The manner of stoning was thus, when the malefactor came within four cubits of the place of execution, he was stripped out of his clothes, his privities only being covered and if it were a woman she was stripped to her smock, the place of execution was high, and unto it the malefactor ascended his hands being tied, and with him the witnesses, whereof one struck him with a stone upon his loins, and the rest upon his heart, and then all the people stoned him: so Maimonides and Talmud. Babyl. This punishment for offending against God's laws is noted by some not to have been set down before in giving the laws, but here apart, because we should obey for love, and not for fear of punishment; but if any will not be so moved let them fear the punishment: and for the like reason the ten Commandments are set down without punishments annexed. In that corporal punishments are here set down, but none in the Gospel, but only eternal in hell, yet now tears and repentance will avert this heavy judgment, whereas then they prevailed not. Origen well noteth a great difference betwixt the Law and the Gospel, and that hereby is intimated a continual expectation now of the day of judgment. Here is but one kind of idolatry put. viz. with Molech, but all others are understood. And so grievous is this sin, as that if the idolater escapeth the hands of men, yet God threateneth, that he shall not escape his, but he will set his face against him &c.
Because he hath given of his seed to Molech to defile my Sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. Of the profaning of God's name see before, Chap. 18. 21. For defiling the Sanctuary by this means the idolater is said thus to do, because his offering to idols elsewhere was in effect a professing to hold it unclean and not worthy to have all divine service done therein, thus almost Tostatus. And generally, because idolatry is not without most foul pollution defiling all things about the place, where it is committed, and therefore the Sanctuary also in the midst of them, so Junius. As also, because they that served idols in other places, came sometimes before the Sanctuary to worship, which is a defiling of it. Jer. 7 9, 10. 2 Cor 6. 16. The Hebrews note, that there be 36 sorts of malefactors, which the Lord threateneth to cut off. And Chazkuni expoundeth this case, when he transgresseth without witnesses and evident proof: for how secretly soever this wickedness be committed, the Lord alone shall be witness, Judge and executioner to all such, for he seeth all things, Ezech. 8.
If others did see and would not, then both he shall be cut off, and his family, and all that go a whoring after him. The Chaldee hath it, he and his helpers, for they that see such wickedness, and seek not to have it punished, are helpers forward of it, and accessory. Thus then not only his particular family, but all Israel for not punishing him, as helpers herein should be cut off. And thus it is threatened, Jerem. 32. 28, 29. and where idolatry was committed, the whole City must be destroyed, Deut. 13. 16. partly that none any way guilty might escape, and partly to show the greater detestation of idolatry in the Lord, whose all are, and therefore even the guiltless might be dealt with as he pleased, and therefore if they fell together with others, they could not justly complain as wronged.
Here is the punishment of such as go after wizards, spoken of, Chap. 19. 31. God will cut them off. This was verified in Saul, 1 Sam. 28. in Ahaziah, 2 King. 2. in Jezebel, 2 King. 9. 22. in Nineveh, Nahum 3. 4. in Babylon, Esa. 47. 8. and in Jerusalem, Micah 5. 12. And Exod. 22. 18. the Judges are commanded not to suffer such to live, but the repeating of that is here spared, and God's cutting of them off which went to them before not spoken of added here. Constantine enlarged this law, and would have not only them, but their followers and sufferers to be put to death also. Yet, verse. 27. stoning to death of wizards is appointed.
Sanctify yourselves and be ye holy, &c. Here is repeated again that of ch. 19. 2. upon occasion of so foul an evil as witchcraft. To sanctify, saith Tostatus, is to begin in holiness, and to be holy, to persevere therein. But I think nothing else is meant, but that they should apply their minds to be holy, and separate from such wickednesses, that they might be holy. Whereas he concludeth, verse. 8. I am the Lord which sanctifieth you. The meaning is, that he had set them a part to be holy to himself from all other people's, as v. 26. and that they should seek power to live holy according & to his laws by his grace.
For everyone that curseth his father or his mother shall be put to death, &c. See the same before, Exod. 21. 17. where it hath been shown, that he must be put to death by stoning, and this is intimated in the words here added, his blood shall be upon him, for hereupon Maimonides noteth, that wheresoever this phrase is used, his bloods shall be upon him, stoning to death is meant. And this is joined to the law of being holy, by this word, for, as if he had said, for if ye will not be holy, but sin against my laws, ye shall die by the sword of the Magistrate, and none shall be therefore counted guilty, but yourselves who are the cause of your own ruin, as appeareth by the law against those that curse father or mother.
Here death is appointed for the adulterer and adulteress, and for the incestuous with his fathers wife. What death they should be put to that are adulterous is not here expressed, but Joh. 8. it is said to be stoning, yet Maimonides saith strangling, because whensoever putting to death is spoken of, and not the kind of death expressed, strangling is meant, but by that reason another of his rules would fall, viz. that when it is said, his blood shall be upon his head, stoning is meant, whereas putting to death with this addition is sometimes spoken of, but not what death expressed. Of the punishment of adulterers, see more in my Catechism, Command. 7. and of adultery with the betrothed woman, Deut. 22. 23. this answereth to Chap. 18. 20. and in Deut 22. 24. it is put out of doubt, that the Rabbins rule is false, because stoning is expressly mentioned, and therefore strangling was not for the adulterous.
The like punishment is for him that lieth with his daughter in law, it being doubtless meant both in this and in the former case, the first husband being dead, because otherwise it is adultery also, for which death is appointed, verse. 10
To lie with mankind also is death, according to the rule before-going, by stoning. By the Imperial Law such a man was to die by the sword, by the law of Theodosius and Arcadius by burning in the fire. Amongst the Athemans he must die, and the party abused never bear any office. In a Council at Vienna certain Templars being found guilty of this sin, were adjudged to the fire. Touching the impurity of the Popes of Rome in this, see somewhat before, Chap 18. 22.
If a man take a wife and her mother, he shall be burnt, both he and they, &c. This was forbidden, Lovit. 18. 17. but why is it more sharply punished, then to take a fathers wife? To this Hesychius answereth, because it breedeth the greatest confusion, they that are born thus being both uncles and sons, &c. But Tostatus better, because this sin was more common, therefore the punishment is made greater, to strike the more terror. But why must they be [Quest.] burnt also, seeing one that was first taken must needs be innocent? Tostatus answereth, if they be taken both together; and Calvin, by mutual consent; Junius, they, that is, the mother if she be thus taken after, or the daughter if she be taken after. Any of these ways the sense will be good. Of burning see again, Chap. 21. 9.
If a man lie with a beast, he shall surely die, and ye shall slay the beast, verse. 16. The like is also decreed for a woman, they must be stoned, beast and all for greater detestation.
If a man take his sister, &c. Here because her seeing of his nakedness is spoken of, Rab. Solomon saith, that the very seeing of the privy parts was death, although no further sin were committed: but this is improbable; to uncover the nakedness in man, and to see in woman are all one. Whereas cutting off before the people is spoken of, but not putting to death, the Hebrews understand it by the hand of God; and that by the Magistrate they should only be beaten, as always when cutting off is spoken of, say they, is to be understood. But God's cutting off is sometimes secret, and therefore cutting off before the people cannot set forth that, but stoning to death, as in other like uncleannesses. So also Tostatus and Oleaster.
If a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, &c. Of this law see before, Levite. 15. 24. and Chap. 18. 19. here the punishment threatened is, they shall be cut off, that is, by the hand of God, as Maimonides saith, and beaten by the Magistrate.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mothers or fathers sister, &c. Of this law see before, Levite. 18. 12, 13, 19. The penalty set down here is, They shall bear their iniquity, that is, as Calvin hath it, the punishment of their iniquity, death: so likewise Tostatus, Pelican, Procopius, Cajetan. But the Hebrews, They shall be beaten; and Pelargus and Brenz, Some punishment, according to the quality of their offense at the discretion of the Magistrate, to which I do rather agree, because death is not named. The Septuagint add further here, They shall die childless, but this followeth, v. 20.
If a man lieth with his Uncles wife, &c. they shall bear their sin, they shall die childless. Here is a strange exposition made by Junius, that they should be put to death, although the woman were with child, without staying, till she was delivered, for this were barbarous and inhumane cruelty. And not much better is that of Tostatus, They shall be put to death, and not suffered to live to have children; for it is not said, They shall be put to death, but die childless. Wherefore Calvin saith best, For corrupting the seed of Abraham they shall be barren: and Rab. Solomon, If they have any children, when they come together, those shall be taken from them. Augustine and Hesychius will have the meaning to be, that their children shall not be reputed unto them, as legitimate, but I rest in the former.
The like punishment is for him that taketh his brothers wife. Now it is to be understood, that although barrenness be threatened, as a punishment for sin, yet it is not so in all, but as other wants to the godly for chastisements or trials, or that the servants of God, who want children, may be the more free from worldly cares, and fuller of charity to the poor. And because here are greater punishments for some incests then for others, we may see that these sins are not all alike, but of them there are degrees.
Here it is concluded with a general exhortation to obedience, as Levite. 18. 26, 27, &c. spuing out of the land being threatened, if they defiled themselves in these things, as also there.
This land is said to be a land flowing with milk and honey, but of that see Exod. 3. 8.
The statutes to be observed in particular are said to be those of putting difference between beasts clean and unclean, &c. of which see, Chap. 11. Rab. Menahem saith, these are here spoken, because he that transgresseth by carnal copulations before censured, is as a beast and no man.
Because the punishment of Wizards, &c. hath not been yet set down, but of those that seek unto them, their punishment is here appointed to be stoning to death. And so, as Chap. 19. it was forbidden either to use enchantment, v. 26. or to seek to such, v. 31. they have both their judgments severally appointed here, and v. 6.
CHAP. XXI.
THere shall none be defiled for the dead amongst his people, but for his kin, that is near to him, &c. The Lord having given a charge for the people's keeping of themselves holy, Chap. 19. now prescribeth special rules of holiness, and avoiding defilements to the Priests. Baal Hatturim and Caskuni note, that this followeth immediately after the law against wizards, and such as use familiar spirits, and seeking to them, because the priests keeping themselves always from pollution, and so being fit to inquire for them by Urim and Thummim, they should not have any need to go to wizards to inquire in any case. And these laws are given to the sons of Aaron only, not to the Levites, nor to Aaron's daughters, and first to the whole company of priests, and then to the High Priest more strictly, v. 10. For these words, for the dead, Hebrew it is, for a soul, so likewise, Chap. 19. 28. but v. 11. it is further expressed, The souls of the dead: for a soul, then here is for a soul departed, for that one is dead, and polluteth, when his soul is departed. The Septuagint render it, for a soul; the Chaldee, for the dead, according to the meaning, amongst his people, that is, amongst the Israelites, of whom he is one. How a man might defile himself by the dead, is shown, Numb. 19. 14, 16. viz by being in the tent, where he lieth, by touching the corps, or the grave, or a bone, and this defilement lasted seven days. The Hebrew Canons also say, that whoso cometh within four cubits is defiled, and by the Analogy of that, Levite. 11. 25. he that beareth the corps, and by following the beer to the burial, as may be gathered, Levite. 10. 7. in that Eliazar and Ithamar might not go from the door of the tabernacle to the burial of Nadab and Abihu, wherefore Brenz summeth this up also as a means of defilement. And most of all did he defile himself that shaved or plucked off the hair of his head or beard, or cut his flesh in an heathenish manner through sorrow; for not only the Priests might not thus defile themselves, verse 5, but not the people, Chap. 19. 27, 28.
Those that are near of kin to the Priest for whom he may defile himself, are father, or mother, son, or daughter, brother, or sister dying a Virgin, and the Hebrew Canons add, for his wife also, because she must needs be understood as nearest to him, saith Rab. Solomon. And indeed in reason, if the Priest might mourn for any, because near unto him, for his wife especially, as nearest of all. Therefore Ainsworth and Willet subscribe to this, and bring that, Ezek. 24. 16, &c. for a proof, because Ezekiel was particularly bidden, being a priest, not to mourn for his wife, dying in an extraordinary case, which he would not doubtless have done, although this prohibition had not been given him: if generally the Priests might not have mourned for their wives, yet the common opinion is, that for his wife a Priest might not be defiled, but only for the particulars here named, being of his consanguinity, and therefore, Ezech. 44. 25. the same particulars only are repeated again. And to this I subscribe, because if God's will had been that the wife should be mourned for, be would have named her as well as others that were near. And that argument drawn from the charge given to Ezekiel 24 rather proveth this opinion then the other, because there is an instance of a priest forbidden to pollute himself for his wife, which that singular love which he bare unto her expressed, v. 16. would haply have made him to do, although unlawful, had not God interposed this special charge against it. If it be demanded, what reason that the wife may not be lamented after the manner of a mother or [Quest.] daughter? I answer, haply because the love of the wife exceedeth the love of all others, and therefore lest measure should have been exceeded, if a Priest had been permitted to mourn for her, he was not permitted in this case.
For the near kin then here nominated a Priest might defile himself, and for them only, that is, be in the room with them, provide for their Funeral, accompany them thereunto, and mourn for them, but this no longer then till the grave was covered, saith Maimonides; for thenceforth they were, as others dead, and the punishment of transgressing in any of these things was to be beaten. And he expoundeth this, for his near kin, as not a permission to mourn for such, but as a command: so that if any would not in these cases, he was to be compelled to it. For his sister a Virgin he might do this, because she had none husband to mourn for her, but being married, she was joined to another family, and therefore not to be mourned for in the family of the priests, but in that of which she was now a member.
For the reason, why mourning or coming near the dead should be counted a defiling, and yet permitted to the priests in some cases, but in all others prohibited, the legal was, because they ought continually to attend about the tabernacle, and to be fit to do the service thereof, but by ministering about the dead they were polluted, and so made unfit for seven days, yet because nature requireth these duties towards father or mother; &c. here being a greater necessity, the law of Ceremonies, by which they were bound to daily attendance, was to give way thereunto, lest the decent interring of the dead should be neglected, as also the law of Circumcision in the wilderness for 40 years, and of the priests eating the show-bread, when David was in necessity, &c. [Note.] was for that time dispensed withal. Thus it was under the law, but under the Gospel the son is not permitted to go and bury his dead father being called to follow Christ, to show, that no duty, how necessary soever, that standeth not with obedience to Christ's calling, can dispense therewith, but contrariwise all duties must give way hereunto. The mystical reason was, to show, that God's priests should not partake of other men's sins and so be defiled, as they are, if they admonish them not hereof, and do all that they can to reform them: for to be defiled by the soul of one dead, is to be defiled by one dead in sin, and therefore to point at this, the soul is here put for the dead, which is properly the seat of sin, and is dead by sin. For his being defiled for the nearest to him, father and mother, &c. hereby was shown, that although he be not defiled by the sins of the people, if he admonisheth them, yet by the sins of those of his family that be most near to him, he is defiled, because his exhortations, and charges, and admonitions to them should be daily & hourly, which if they were, it is presumed, that they would reform: and therefore a Bishop is described to be one that can govern his own house well. Indeed if his sister be married away, he shall not be defiled for her, because now she is not any longer in the same family, but during the time of her Virginity, and for others most near unto him, but are separated and gone out of the family. Thus Hesychius, and to this effect Procopius, and Cyril. Alexandrinus. And indeed for the most part they of the family of a faithful minister of God are brought to reformation by his godly endeavors, and yet sometimes in some particulars it is otherwise, as in Judas, one of the family of our Lord Jesus; wherefore we may best put the case thus: For his people in general, if any of them, over whom he hath a charge, be dead in sin, he shall not be defiled, so that he by his instructions and admonitions publicly doth his best endeavor to convert them; but if any of those that be more near unto him be dead, he shall be defiled, unless, besides the instructions given to them and to others together in public, he doth privately seek by admonishing and instructing to reform everyone of them daily.
But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man amongst his people, to profane himself. The Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Lord shall not defile himself, seemeth to be rightly rendered thus. Yet Cazkuni saith, that the common rendering of these words is, he shall not defile himself for a chief man, no not for the High Priest, not being of his near kin, although for one near to him, being far meaner he might. Some say it is meant, he may not defile himself for the Prince, as Tostatus, Calvin, &c. because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth the Prince, Judge. 9 51. But against both these maketh this, that there is no word signifying for; howsoever Oleaster to avoid this, compoundeth the word of two, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 super, rendering it, for him that is above. But forsomuch as the Prince or High Priest is a father as it were of the Country, and near to everyone, I cannot think, that God would forbid a general mourning of all for him; and experience showeth, when Moses died, and when Josiah died, all mourned. Neither can it be taken in the nominative case, A Prince or High Priests shall not defile himself, as some expound it, for the High Priests charge followeth, v. 10. and with Princes and their duties it is not meddled here, but with Priests only. Junius rendereth it, An husband shall not defile himself, but in his Analysis he retracteth this, because it is contrary to the common opinion of the Hebrews, who held that the wife was to be understood, v. 2. as most near unto him. But according to that which I have already said hereupon, there was no cause of this retractation, especially forsomuch as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth an husband, Exod. 21. 3, 22. yet his other exposition may indifferently be received, A master shall not defile himself, that is, although for his near kin he may, yet for any other of his family, he being a Priest may not, for for a master is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 put also, Judge. 19. 23. viz. the master of an house, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Bagnelah, is for the mistress, 1 King. 17. 17. wherefore the Chaldee rendereth it here Rabba, a master; but of all the Septuagint err most strangely, rendering it, suddenly, but this is by mistaking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 suddenly, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 master; and therefore Hesychius herein doth but irritum opus, in applying his being defiled suddenly to a mystery. Whereas another word, profane, is here used; this was to show, that the polluted were made for the time profane persons, and so unmeet for the service of the Sanctuary.
They shall not make any baldness upon their head, or cut the corners of their beards, &c. of this forbidden to all Israel in their mournings see before, Ch. 19. 28. but rounding of the head is there condemned, here making it bald, but this was either by shaving or plucking off the hair for sorrow. When the Priests did defile themselves by mourning for their near kin, they might not thus do, because it was heathenish, and the practice of idolaters, 1 Kin. 18.
They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane his name, for they offer the offerings, &c. Here is a reason set down, why the Priests must not be defiled, viz▪ because they must be holy to God. All the people are charged to be holy. Levite. 11. 45. 19. 1. 20. 26. because God had peculiarly chosen them above all other people's, but because from amongst them the Priests were more specially chosen, they above all must be holy, and not defile themselves any way. And the reason is added, because if they should come polluted to offer sacrifices, God's name should be profaned, that is, himself and his service should thus come to be vilified, whereas all good care being had to come purely and reverently before him, a more reverend regard is wrought towards him and his worship in all that see it. How the name of God was profaned by others also being pollute, see Chap. 18 22. 19. 12. For sacrifices made by fire, Hebrew is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fires, and therefore Tostatus and Hugo render it incense; the Septuagint, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sacrifices by fire, and all fire-offerings most probably are meant, as Oleaster hath it, because next unto these bread is named, as the other thing offered by them also, that came not into the fire, as the show-bread, for by bread here Tostatus understandeth show-bread; some, flour and all things made thereof; and some, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth food, all other offerings, which are called the food of God, because he is delighted therewith, as with food. But I rather think a distinction to be made here of things burnt in the fire, and offered without burning, and therefore show-bread meant in the last place, and all other burnt-sacrifices in the first. As this verse is begun, so it is concluded, therefore they shall be holy, Hebrew holiness: that is, singularly holy.
They shall not take a wife, that is an whore or profane, or put away from her husband, &c. By whore the Hebrews understand one, with whom a man hath lien unlawfully, either by constraint or willingly on her part, with such a Priest may not marry: or profane, that is, a woman coming of an whore, or of one put away, and if of a Widow, she is the profane forbidden to the High Priest, verse. 14. so Maimonides, &c. for as the daughter of a Priest playing the whore is said to profane her father, verse. 9. so parents profane their children by their lewdness. A woman put away was one divorced, which was then practiced upon divers occasions. According to this law touching Priests wives, is that direction, 1 Tim. 3. But Junius by one profaned will have one forced understood, and by the whore, one willingly suffering this abuse, I rest in the former especially for the singular skill of the Authors in these laws. The mystical meaning of this law was to show that the priests under the New Testament should not meddle with any of the rights of the Jewish Synagogue: for an whore is that Synagogue often called, Esa. 1. Ezech. 16. Hos. 2, &c. and a woman put away with a bill of divorce, Hos. 2. Esa 50. and Christ, whom his Ministers do represent, was most aptly figured out by the priests offering the bread of their God, because he was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, that brought forth bread and wine: thus Hesychius, who also reasoneth from the plural and singular numbers joined together, they shall not take a wife, and then the singular, for he is holy, wherein must needs be a mystery. And for an whore or profane, he readeth scortum, & vile prostibulum, as if the last were worst, so also Tostatus, but Cajetan and Uatabl. contrariwise will have the prostituted whore meant by the first, and the secret by the other.
Thou shalt sanctify him therefore, &c. In concluding, verse. 7. he saith, for he is holy to his God, and here, thou shalt therefore sanctify him, that is, thou who art a ruler in Israel, shalt not suffer him to be thus defiled, but have a care in all things to keep him from such things as pollute, and hereupon it was, that the Magistrate provided, he should he beaten, that thus defiled himself. He shall be holy to thee, that is, thou shalt have him in high honor: for every man in Israel, saith Maimonides, must give much honor to the priest. And let him be first for everything in the Sanctuary, to open the law first, to bless first, and to receive a seemly portion first. Tostatus and Junius will have it spoken to Moses, Thou shalt sanctify him, that is, command him these things, that he may be holy. Here because that same that is before called holy, is bidden to be sanctified, Hesychius will have Christ pointed at, who is both holy in himself, and sanctified in his Ministers, and by them, when they keep the holiness by his grace given unto them.
The daughter of any Priest, who profaneth herself by playing the whore, she hath profaned her father, and shall be burnt. Not only the priests, but their wives and children must all be holy, because they also did eat of the holy things of the Lord, and therefore incontinency in a priests daughter must be more severely punished, then in another woman in the like case, she must be burnt with fire. Maimonides limiteth it and saith, only being under an husband she was to be thus punished: but in the text there is no such limitation, wherefore I hold rather with Lyranus, that although she were single she must die thus, for the reason rendered is, she hath profaned her father, that is, brought him into disgrace, whereas if a married woman were meant only, the reason would as well have been rendered from her husband, who was most abused: the man with whom she played the whore, say the Hebrews, must be strangled. For profaning her father, the Septuagint hath her fathers name; the Chaldee, her fathers holiness; Solomon Jarchi saith, she contemneth his honor, and men will now be ready to say, Cursed be the man that begat such a daughter, and cursed be he that brought her up. The Vestall Virgins amongst the Romans were buried quick, if they played the whores, because it was thought to be a disgrace to the gods, to whom they ministered. And under the daughter by the like reason, the son and the wife of a Priest also were to be understood by a Synecdoche, saith Calvin, whereby one is named, and the rest understood, so likewise Pelican. The Priests daughter is spoken of, saith Hesychius, in a mystery, the Jewish Synagogue being meant, for as that State is called an whore, so she is called a daughter, Esa. 1. and how she came to an end by burning, is notoriously known, under Titus and Vespasian.
And the high Priest, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes, &c. Because the High Priest came yet nearer to God then the other Priests, he must be yet more holy, and is restrained from mourning for father or mother, &c. he must not go out of the Sanctuary to follow any corps to the burial. The word high Priest, Hebr. is great Priest, or Priest greater then his brethren, not only one high Priest being meant hereby, but the second to him also, who if he by any accident were unclean at any time, served in his room, as was noted, Chap. 16. 33. and the Priest anointed for the war, Deut. 20. 2. so Maimonides, none of these might be defiled for any dead, or marry any other but virgins, as followeth, verse. 13. for they were greater then their brethren. Of the anointing oil see, Exod. 30. 25. and of the garments belonging to him, Exod. 28. If there were none oil, they were consecrated by putting on the garments only, saith Maimonides. Of uncovering the head and rending the garments in mourning, see before, Chap. 10. 6. By the Hebrew Canons beating is appointed for the High Priest, if he goeth into a tent where a dead body is, or any way defileth himself for the dead; but in case that he being alone upon the high-way findeth a dead body of an Israelite, he shall defile himself by burying it, unless he can forthwith call and appoint some other to do it. If another be with him, Priest or Nazarite, one of them shall rather do it, and he may not. For his not going out of the Sanctuary, this is expounded, in the time of his service, and at such time none other Priest might go out upon pain of death, see Chap. 10. 7. To go out now is said to be a profaning of the Sanctuary, because the service thereof is slighted for other occasions, the crown of the holy oil is upon him. The Septuagint, the holy oil, the anointing of his God is upon him. But it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the crown; but the holy oil may well be thus called, because the word signifieth also separation, and hereby he was separated from others of the Priesthood, having an higher degree of holiness upon him, and he ware a crown of gold, Exod. 29. 6. upon which the holy oil being poured, it might therefore be called the crown of the holy oil.
He shall marry a wife in her virginity, &c. Not only the women before forbidden to other Priests, but a widow also is forbidden to the High Priest. And she is counted a widow, after whose betroathing only her husband died, although she were not married to him. The virgin must be one of his own people, that is, of one of the twelve Tribes, and not of other people, although other Israelites might marry with other, so Ezech. 44. 22, they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel; and the Hebrew Canons, Priests, and Levites, and Israelites may lawfully marry one with another; but the issue is counted after the male, if the father be a Priest, the son is a Priest also; but if another Israelite marrying a Priests daughter, the son is but a common Israelite. If the High Priest transgressed herein, he is said to profane his seed, because a son begotten by him of a widow or whore taken to wife is unlawful, and may never serve, and therefore beating was appointed for High Priests and Priests in these cases, so Maimonides Issurei Biah, chap. 19. In speaking of the virgin here, whom the high Priest should marry, the Septuagint add, of his kindred, but this is not in the Text, and his liberty hath been shown to be more. A virgin he must marry, because this is a marriage more honorable, and whereas if he be old, it may seem unfit for him to marry a young maid; Calvin saith well; he ought to have respect unto years, and to choose one nearer to his own age. Whereas that, Ezech. 44. 22. forbidding all Priests to marry widows, may seem to differ from this forbidding the High Priest only, it may be easily answered out of the Text, where the widows of Priests are excepted, with whom they might marry, but the High Priest might not, so also Borrhaus. Of all applications of these laws, that of the Church of Rome is the worst and the most absurd: for from hence they gather, that no Priest under the Gospel may marry a widow, or go to the second marriage against that of the Apostle, A bishop must be the husband, of one wife, and therefore whoso hath done thus, say their Popes, let them be removed from all Sacerdotal dignity, and they condemn marriage in Priests, because it is here said, that the Priests must be holy, altogether from the purpose of this place, if here were a law for our ministers now, as there is not, but only for the legal Priests, so Brenz. By the high priest Christ was undoubtedly figured out, who had the oil of gladness poured upon his head above all his fellows; but how did not he uncover his head, according to these laws, rend his garments, or mourn for father or mother, or marry a virgin, and not go out of the Sanctuary? Hesychius saith, The Father was as his head, from whom he was never dis-joined; his human nature, his garments, which his divine never left, no not in death; the Jews, his father and mother, by whom he was not polluted, although dead in sin; and out of the Sanctuary he went not, because although he kept company with publicans and sinners, yet his Sanctimony remained always unspotted, the Jews, who were as an whore or wife put away, as was before shown, and as a widow in regard of true knowledge, of which they were deprived, he married not, as his Church, but took the Gentiles, as a Virgin, for thus the Apostle calleth