Exodus 23

other place, it made no difference: but the field is mentioned, because there commonly such things happen. Ye shall cast it to the dogs. R. Solomon saith they might sell it to the gentiles, whom the Jews counted no better than dogs. Which agrees with the decree in the Misna, (Bava kama, cap. 7. sect. 2.) that though it appeared afterward a thief had stolen what was torn, yet he was to make the legal restitution: contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon, who absolved such a thief, because he might not eat it, and consequently have no benefit by it. But most thought he might sell it; and therefore was liable to make satisfaction. If any Israelite did eat of it, he was to be scourged. Sir J. Marsham quotes the like precept out of Phocilides’s verses, which end thus: &n?vv a-rb SvotG tdvvrai. Let beasts be eaten by beasts. (Chron. Egypt, sect, ix.) Vcr. 1. J. HOU shalt not raise a false report.) The Hebrews think this law peculiarly concerns judges; who are not to suffer their minds to be prepossessed with false reports. For that word we translate raise, signifies also to take up, i\ e. to entertain, or receive (as we have it in the margin) and give credit to reports. And, consequently, they were not to hear any man’s cause unless his adversary was present; but to look upon all as false, which was said by one party alone without the other. So R. Levi of Barcelona. Yet he confesses, that the law hath respect also to him who brings an action against another; that he should not lay his cause before the judge, in the absence of him that is to answer, though the judge would hear it. And he also adds, that the rabbins take it to comprehend such as report a calumny, or that receive it; or givo a false testimony. And Pliilo thinks the Greeks from thence took that law, fiy) fiaprvpuv ajcor>, not to make a proof of a hearsay; which was in the Attic law, as Mr. Selden observes, (lib. ii. de Syncdr. cap. 13. p. 57G.) And it seems to me most rational to take this to relate to witnesses (as the following clause doth), that they should neither calumniate any man, nor bring ungrounded reports to carry a cause. Put riot thy hand with the wicked te be an unrighteous witness.’] This the Hebrews likewise think concerns judges; who are required not to receive the testimony of a wicked man, nor do any thing upon his suggestions. And here they mention ten sorts of persons whose testimony was not be received. But the last words in this clause incline one to think it rather concerns witnesses than judges. For to put one’s hand with another, is to help and assist him; to be confederate with him: and therefore to put the hand xuith the ivicked, is to help a w r icked man in a bad cause, viz. (as the last words interpret it) by giving a false testimony in his behalf. Of the Hebrew word chamas, which we rightly render unrighteous, or unjust, Bochartus hath a long discourse in his Hierozoic. par. ii. lib. ii. cap. 15. Israelite, or on (he contrary; what is to bo done? And if they meet with two beasts belonging both to Israelites, and labouring under burdens; but one (he beast of a friend, the other of an enemy; which is he bound to help? In which they resolve, that he is by this precept to have regard to the beast of his enemy: that he may subdue.his evil affection, which would persuade him otherways. How far also the word see extends, is a question among them: that is, how far they were to go out of their way to lend their help: with such-like niceties, which I shall not trouble the reader withal. And tvonldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.] The sense is clear enough: but the construction of the words, in the Hebrew, is not so plain. For tho word azab, which, we translate help, signifies»to leave or forsake: and so the Chaldee here interprets it; Thou shalt in that moment dismiss or forsake thy enmity to him, and go and help him. And L. de Dieu to the same purpose; Rather than leave him tinder his burden, quit thine enmity to him, he. A great many other ways there are to make out the grammar of the Hebrew words; but Bochart thinks all in vain: unless, instead of the particle lo with a van, we admit it with an aleph: and then it runs clearly in the * Hebrew in this manner, Tliou shalt cease (or abstain) from leaving him (i. e. not follow thy own inclinations,to,pass, by him); leaving thou shalt not leave him (i. e. by no means leave hira), viz. to raise up his beast himself, as if it nothing concerned thee. Or, Thou shalt abstain from leaving it (i. e. (he ass labouring under his burden); I say, thou shalt, by 710 means leave it. The same thing is repeated, because. it is a command so opposite to men’s depraved affections;. and therefore was fit to be inculcated, that they might not lightly pass it over. (See Hierozoic. par. i. lib. ii. cap. 40. p. 39D.) 26S.A COMMENTARY [chap.?CX1IT. names of months being not yet used among the Hebrews: who spake of them before the captivity of Babylon, according to the order and number wherein they stood, viz. first, second, third, &c. month. (See Demonstr. Evang. prop. it. Cap. dc Libro Joshua, n. 2.) And none shall appear before me empty.] The phrase in the Hebrew (which we translate appear before me) is very remarkable, viz. None shall see my face: which does not signify that they beheld the external symbol of his presence; but that they looked directly that way where it was; and that they should not bo accepted by God, unless they brought some present with them. For none approached to an earthly majesty in those countries without a present (as we read in the sacred story), which was a token of love and affection, as well as of respect and honour. And therefore this precept did not belong only to this feast, but to all the three mentioned in the verse before, as appears from Dcut xvi. 16. And accordingly there were special oblations ordained by the law itself, which were then to be made. At the Passover, when their harvest began, they were to bring a sheaf of the first-fruits of their harvest, and might not eat any corn till this was done, (Lev. xxiii. 10. 14.) At the next feast they brought tivo wave loaves, for a second first-fruit, of their wheat harvest; (Lev. xxiii. 17.) and at the feast of tabernacles, they offered the first-fruits of wine and oil. (See Mr. Mede, Discourse xlvi. p. 355.) Besides all which, good men brought free-will offerings; which are often mentioned in the law. Ver. 1G. And the feast of harvest.] Called also the feast of weeks, (xxxiv. 22.) because it was seven". weeks after the Passover. Mr. Mede, in the place now named, thinks this was called the harvest-feast; because, as harvest began at the Passover, so it ended at Pentecost. And thus Bochart also: " At the Passover they first put the sickle into the corn; and about Pentecost harvest was finished, and all brought into the barn/’ (Hierozoic. par. i. lib. iii, cap. 13.) But this seems not to be true; for now only the first-fruits were brought: which were not offered in the end, but in the beginning of harvest. And so it follows here. The first-fruits of thy labours which than hast sown in the field,] Which is not to be understood of all their labours, but of those fruits which were first sown in the ground. It being therefore called the harvest-feast, because the principal part of harvest, viz. tlte wheat-harvest, (as it is expressly called, xxxiv. 22.) then began: which sort of grain was sown before barley, as that was before flax; and therefore here called the first-fruits of their labour sown in the field. And the feast of in-gathering.] Called also the feast of tabernacles, Lev. xxiii. 34. Wliich is in the end of the year.] By this it appears that their year anciently began in the month Tisri, about autumn; atw T hich time the world itself began, as Scaliger, and a great many other learned men assert, with such reasons as are not easy to be confuted. When thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field.] At this feast their harvest was completed; the fruits of the earth being not only ripe, but gathered into their barns. Which was the foundation of the great rejoicing we read of at this time; because God now gave them some rest and respiration, as Maimonides speaks, from their employments, (More.Nevoch. par. iii. c*p. 43.) where he observes that Aristotle himself, in his eighth book of Ethics, mentions such a feast among the gentiles, and upon the same ground, in these words, as he recites them: “Anciently, sacrifices and public assemblies for the sake of sacrifices, were in the gathering of the fruits and products of the earth: as if the sacrifices were offered for their respiration.” The Israelites dwelt in booths at this feast for another reason: and their dwelling in booths was now most tolerable (as the same Maimonides there notes), because the weather was moderate at that time; when they were not wont to be troubled either with heat or with rain. not to reserve the fat of the offering till the next day; for that was not for the honour of the sacrifice; flesh being apt quickly to corrupt in those hot countries, and to offend the palate, or the nose, which had been against the dignity of the sacrifice. Which is the reason the Jews give why the flesh of the peace-offerings was not to be kept till the third day, (Lev. xix. 6.) It was to preserve the magnificence of the sacrifice; things kept so long being apt to’ stink. Whence Za>\a, yesterday’s meats, in Hippocrates, is the same with aairpa, corrupt: and Galen expounds lb)\iZ>ziv by the word Tr$oar\Tcuv, to tend to corruption; as Pet. Castellanus observes, (lib. i. de Esu Carnium, cap. 5. p. 42.) power, and sustains my person, -who am present where he is. For the name of God is said to be there, where he is present after a singular and extraordinary manner, (1 Kings viii. 1G. 1 Chron. vi. 5, G.) Maimonides expounds it, My word is in him, i. e. saith he, God’s will and pleasure was declared by the angel, (par. i. More Nevoch. cap. G4.) In which he seems to follow the Chaldee, who translates it, for his word is in my name; i. e. what ho speaks is by my authority. were assaulted by these hornets, which flew in their faces, and so sorely pricked their eyes (as Kimchi and R. Solomon take it) that they could not sec to strike a stroke. Whence those words of Joshua, (who expressly saith this was fulfilled, xxiv. 12.) that the Amorites were not driven out by the sword and bow of the Israelites, but by the sting of these hornets. Which seem also to have pursued them when they fled away, and killed them in their lurking holes, where they hid themselves after the fight, (Deut. vii. 20.) JVJiich shall drive out.’] That several nations have been driven out of their country, by contemptible creatures, such as frogs, mice, snakes, and gnats, is made good by Bochartus out of several authors. And’ he hath particularly shewn, that by these very creatures, wasps and bees, people have been forced to forsake their country, as Herodotus, Appianus, and Strabo testify: (sec his Hierozoic. par. ii. lib. iv. cap. 13. p. 539, &c.) where he shews the sting of this sort of wasp (called a hornet) is of all other trie most pernicious: for it is bigger than the ordinary wasp, and fiercer; seldom stinging, as Pliny saith, without putting men into a fever. (lb. p. 543.) And of their flying at men’s eyes, see what he alleges out of good authors, p. 535. TIieHivite, the Canaaniie, and the Hittite from before thee.] These three nations, it seems, were principally infested by the hornets; among whom, perhaps, they were more venomous than elsewhere (for so R. Solomon saith, their poison was deadly), though the rest of the nations also felt their sting, as we read in Josh. xxiv. 11, 12. Vcr. 29. I will not drive them out from before thee, in one year.] All the reasons of which are not here declared, (as they are elsewhere, Judg. iii. 1 — 3.). because he would not dishearten them. Lest the land become desolate, &c] i. e. Lest some part of the land should be left without inhabitants, and so be possessed by wild beasts: which. might have been very dangerous to the Israelites in other parts where they were settled. For if all the people of the seven nations had been destroyed at once, the Israelites were not yet numerous enough to people the whole country; especially, when two tribes and a half were settled on the other side of Jordan. Vcr. 30. By little and little I will drive them out before thee.] Diminish them, by degrees, till they were wholly expelled. Until thou be increased and inherit the land.] Until the Israelites were grown so numerous, that they were able to stock the whole country. Vcr. 31. And I will set thy bounds, &c] This was the utmost extent of the country which he intended to bestow upon them, (see Gen. xv. 18.) but they did not enjoy it till the times of David, (2 Sam. viii. 1. 3, &c.) and Solomon, (1 Kings iv. 21. 24.) when their dominion seems to have been enlarged not only to Euphrates, but even beyond it, Ezra iv. 16. 20. (see my paraphrase upon Psal. lxxii. 8.) Before these times, it appears by the book of Joshua, and those that follow, that many of the old inhabitants remained long after his death. From the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines.] These were the bounds from cast to west. For though the Red Sea was towards the south, yet the farthermost part of it lay cast. And the sea of the Philistines is that now called the Mediterranean, which was full west. And from the desert.] Of Arabia, called Shur, (xv. 22.) Unto the river.] i. e. To Euphrates: which made the southern and northern bounds of the country God promised to them. For I tvill deliver the inhabitants of the land into thy hand.] This seems to relate to that land which the seven nations inhabited: for as far as Euphrates they never drove out all the inhabitants, but only made them tributaries. And thou shalt drive them out before thee.] In such manner as is mentioned in the foregoing verses.: Ver. 32/ Thou shalt make no covenant with them.] i. e. “With the people of the seven nations. But with other gentiles they might make covenants: only not suffer them to live in their land, unless they renounced all idolatry. Nay, Maimonides is of opinion, that such of the seven nations as renounced idolatry, were to be received into their friendship: for that law in Deut. xx. which requires them to send a Summons to every city before they besieged it, with an oiler of peace, he extends even to them; and grounds his opinion upon Josh. xi. 19, 20. As for that objection which seems to lie against this, about the Gibeonites, who needed not by^craft to have obtained a league with the Israelites, if this were true doctrine: his answer is, that Joshua had sent a summons, with offers of peace to them and all the rest, which they rejected; but would afterward have gladly accepted, and then it was not to be admitted: and therefore they contrived that cunning way to be received into friendship with the Israelites. See P. Cunaeus, lib. ii. de Rcpubl. Hebr. cap. 20. And Seldcn, lib. vi. de Jure N. et G. cap. 13. where he quotes a passage out of the Jerusalem t Gcmara, which says, that Joshua sent three letters to the Gibeonitcs. But he shews withal, that other Jews contradict this; and expressly declare the seven nations were not to be invited to peace. What the terms were on which others were invited, see there, cap. 14. All this considered, I am inclined to think Maimonides’s opinion to be true; which that place in Joshua very much favours; and so doth the story of Rahab, and the practice of Solomon; who.only put the remainders, of these nations under tribute, (1 Kings ix. 20, 21.). Nor with their gods.] This prohibits them to suffer any of the seven nations to exercise idolatry among them, as R. Levi of Barcelona interprets it.,Or rather, he forbids them to make any vows to their godi, or oblige themselves to perforin any act of worship to them..

Exodus 23:2

Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. This may well bp thought to respect judges, as the foregoing ver.se doth witnesses. And the most obvious meaning is, that no judge “should condemn an innocent man, though the whole court, besides himself, gave sentence against him. But many of the Jews say, that they should not condemn one, whom they thought guilty, if he was cast only by one voice: if there were a majority of two, then, - indeed, they say, a judge was bound to join with them. See Mr. Selden, lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 5. p. 229: and cap. 6. p. 259. where he shews they take the word evil in this place to signify the evil of punishment. (See also cap. 12. p. 525.) But this seems to be only a subtlety. Their opinion is more reasonable, who, by the Hebrew word rabbim here, understand, not a multitude, but great and potent men: to whom a judge was not to have respect in judgment, no more than to a poor man; who (ver. 3.) is opposed to those men of might. But what follows I think will better interpret this. Neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many. to wrest jtidgment.] This is interpreted by Maimonides to signify, that no judge was to give his sentence in a capital cause, either for absolving or condemning, according to the opinion of the rest, if he were not able to deliver any opinion of his own. (See Mr. Selden, lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 13. p. 529.) Other fancies they have about the word rabbim in this clause of the verse, which he notes there, cap. 9. p. 421.: But the sense I think will be most plain and easy, if we take rabbim in the first part of the verse (as we do) for the multitude; and in this latter part, for the great and potent, or ruling men, who are generally attended by a multitude; and expound the whole thus: that the judges were not to be deterred, either by the people or by mighty men, to pronounce a false judgment. This agrees with what follows, and with Ley. xix. 15. Vcr. 3. Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his* cause.] So as to give a wrong judgment in his favour. The word we translate countenance (in Hebrew tehedar) signifies to adorn, or honour: and so we translate it, Lev. xix. 15. And so it may be translated here, Thou shalt not adorn, or set off a poor man’s cause, with fine words and plausible colours, to make it look better than it is. (See Deut. i. 16, 17.)

Exodus 23:4

If thou meet thy enemy’s ox or ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. The Samaritan copy adds (after ox or ass) or any other beast. And Moses himself extends it to all sorts of goods that are lost, (Deut. xxii. 3.) But the Jewish doctors as (R. Levi of Barcelona confesses) restrain the word enemy to an Israelite: as if they thought not themselves bound to any such kindness for one of another nation. This, perhaps, they gathered from Deut. xxii. 1, 2. where, instead of the word enemy, we find Moses uses the word brother. But this should have taught them, to look upon all men, even enemies, as brethren; having the same common original, and bearing the image of the same God. This verse may be connected with the foregoing in this manner: Jf you be inclined to shew pity, do it in such’ instances as these, but not in judgment. *•

Exodus 23:5

Jf thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden. His ass is only mentioned, but oxen, and other like creatures, are intended; as appears from the former verse. Yet this likewise the hard-hearted Jewish doctors would have belong only to an Israelite who hate! them. And they put several cases upon this law: as, what if the beast be a gentile’s, and the burden belong to an TOL> i.

Exodus 23:6

Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. As they might not favour a man because he was poor, (ver. 3.) so much less might they wrong him; or not do him right, because he wanted money \o prosecute it. There seems to be an emphasis (as Conradus Pcllicanus observes) in the word thy poor: importing that they had such a relation to them, that they ought to be as much concerned for them as any other member of their body. But the Jews, fancying this to be Sufficiently included in the precept beforementioncd, (ver. 3.) understand here by the poor, a bad man: who is pauper prceceptomm, non facultatum, one that wants virtue, not money. To whom a judge might not say he was a wicked fellow, and condemn him without any farther examination of his cause: for it belongs to God (saith the same R. Levi) to execute judgment upon the ungodly, and not to the judges.

Exodus 23:7

Keep thee far from a false matter. i. e. From a false judgment (for he seems to speak to the judges), and neither admit that which is false, nor pronounce it. And the innocent and righteous slay thou not.] That is, (saith the beforenamed R. Levi Barzcl.) beware carefully, lest thou takest away the life of him that may be innocent of that whereof he is accused. And therefore, he saith, the judges were to condemn no man, but by the testimony of two eye-witnesses. And they make this precept as much as, thou shalt not judge out of conjectures. Nay, if there were two witnesses that did not speak to the same matter, he was not to be condemned. As, if ono witness ^aid he saw such a man break the sabbath, and another said he saw hira commit idolatry; judgment was not to be given against him upon this testimony; because Moses saith, slay not the innocent. Another example of which is still more close, which is mentioned in the T. Sanhcdrin: if one said he saw him worship the moon, and another that he saw him worship the sun, the man was not to be condemned who was thus accused, because the witnesses did not speak to the same sort of idolatry. (See Selden, lib. ii. dc Synedr. cap. 13. p. 5G7.) By the same reason they were not to acquit him who was plainly convicted of such impieties. For I will not justify the tvicked.] i. e. Such an unjust judge.

Exodus 23:8

And thou shalt take no gift. No, not to absolve the innocent; or to condemn the guilty: as it is interpreted in Siphri. For a gift blindeth the tvise.] Such presents made to a judge are apt to cast a mist (as we speak) before his eyes, /. e. to corrupt his understanding; though he be otherwise perspicacious enough to discern between truth and falsehood, good and evil, (I Sam. viii. 3.) The word which we translate wise, is in the Hebrew piccehim, open or seeing; concerning which consult Bochart, lib. i. Canaan, cap. 1G. p. 470. And perverteth the words of the righteous.] By words seems to be meant the Sentence of those who might otherwise have been inclined to be righteous and upright judges. The* Hebrew lawyers say, that not only pecuniary gifts are here forbidden, but such words also (I suppose they mean promises of reward) as may win the affection: and that he who gave the present was guilty, as well as he that received it. (See Selden dc Synedriis, lib. ii. cap. 13. p. 570.) But especially Job. Coch. ad excerpt. Gem. Sanhedrin. cap. i. sect. 10. Annot. 4. where, among other things, he gives this ingenious derivation of the Hebrew word schochad, which we translate gift (out of the treatise called Chctuboth, where it is said to be as much as schechu chad, that is, whereby he is one): for the party who receives the gift hath his mind so drawn to the giver, that he becomes one and the same with him. And no man is fit to be judge in his own cause. Plato thought this so necessary a law, that he expressly enacts, (lib. xii. dc Legibus, p. Uu5.) that all men who servod their country in any office, should?w()wi’ x (0 P^ cWovtTv, perform their duty xvithout gifts.‘0?e firi 7T£tco/i£i/oc a7rXo>c TtBvarto aXovg t\j Sitcy. He that offended against this law was to suffer death. Which was the law of the twelve tables among the ancient Romans; " Judex qui ob rem dicendam, peenniam accepisse convictus est, capite punitor:” a judge that is convicted to have received money for giving his sentence, let him lose his head.

Exodus 23:9

Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger. This was said before, (xxii. 21.) but then it was a precept to all Israel; which is here applied peculiarly to judges; whom he would have to deal equally with strangers, and to make no difference between them and Israelites, remembering what they themselves were not long ago; and that they found by experience it was affliction enough to be strangers. That is the meaning of what follows in this verse. For ye knoiv the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.] Ye have felt what a distressed condition that is; how friendless and helpless. (See Deut.xxiv.17, 18. xxvii. 19.)

Exodus 23:10

And six years thou shalt sow thy land. There was the same reason for dressing their trees. And gather in the fruits thereof J] Together with the fruits of their trees.

Exodus 23:11

But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest, and lie still. Neither sow, nor reap, nor prune the frees, nor gather the fruit. TIte poor of thy pedple may eat.] And the Lcvitcs, and themselves aJso; who might take their share, not to lay up but for present use; though not as proprietors, but in common with the rest of the country. Whence it was that Alexander the Great, allowing them to live by their ancient laws, among other things gTaii ted to?]38ojuov hog avet&<popov ttvat, every seventh year should be tribute-free; (Jo’sephus, lib. ix. Archoeol. cap. 8.) For since they received nothing, it seemed reasonable to him they should pay nothing. And tuhat they leave the beast of the field shall eat.] This signifies Godsent such vast plenty, when they observed his laws, that so much sprung up of itself as would more than satisfy men, and afford food to the beast. In like mapner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard and olive-yard.] Under these two arc comprehended all other sorts of fruit trees, as the Hebrews themselves acknowledge, who give several reasons for this law. Which was ordained, saith Maimonides, (par. iii. More Nevoch. cap. 39.) in compassion to all men in general, that they might have some time of breathing and refreshment. But principally, say others of them, to be a memorial of the creation of the world, and the production of all things by the power of God in six days, and his resting on the seventh. Their exposing all things in common which that year produced, as well as letting the land rest, " put them in remembrance (saith R. Levi of Barcelona, Prsecept. lxix.)that God was their preserver as well as creator: the earth bringing forth fruit every year, not by its own proper strength, or of its own accord, but because it hath a Lord upon whom it depends; who, where he pleases, hath a right to dispose of its fruit to a public use.” This command also bred in them a trust m God and in his providence; and was a ciub to covetousness, and taught them mercy also and liberality. Philo adds, that this was a politic contrivance to let the earth rest; partly that it might have time to recruit its strength, that it might bring forth more plentifully; and partly that the people might grow stronger, and more apt for all employments, by so long forbearance or&eir labours. This Euscbius thought worthy to transcribe out of him at large, in his Prsepar. Evang. lib. viii. cap. 9. But this precept about the year of rest is more fully delivered in Lcvit. xxv. 2, 3, &c. where see what I have noted. •

Exodus 23:12

Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day fliou shalt rest. He would not have them imagine they should rest less on the sabbath this year than in others, because this whole year was a kind of sabbath; but keep it with the usual strictness. Which is the reason, perhaps, of the repetition of this precept in this place. That thine ox and thine ass may rest, *&c] This shews that one great end of instituting the observation of this day at Marah (xv. 25. xvi. 23.) was, that men and beasts might rest, in remembrance of the rest that God had given them from their burdens in Egypt. (See xxxv. 2.) It. Levi Barzelonita observes, that this precept is repeated in the law twelve times.

Exodus 23:13

In all things that I have said unto you, be circumspect. Be cautious, lest yon offend in any of the forenamed particulars; but especially in that which follows. And make no mention of the names of other gods.] Such cautions as these, to prevent idolatry, arc repeated no less than forty-four times in the law, as the same R. Levi observes. And the meaning of this is, either that they should not swear by other gods, or make any vows in their names; nor consequently enter into society with gentiles, as the best of the Hebrew writers understand it, and as the Vulgar Latin takes it, or that they should not so much as simply name the gods of other nations.’ They who are of this last opinion differ in their explication of it. For some of them say, only the calling them by such names as attribute some divinity to them, is the thing forbidden; not calling them by their’proper names of Moloch or Bell, or the like: and thus Tertiillian understood it. But there arc others who think it unlawful so much as to use any of their names in common discourse; though there be no mention of their divinity. For Chemosh and Milcom, arid such-like names, they say, are not mentioned in Scripture but with detestation and reproach (as the abomination of the Moabites or Ammonites), and therefore they think it unlawful to say, I invite thee on the feast-day of such an idol of the gentiles^ or the like. Yet some of those who imagine the simple use of their names to be forbidden, except the names of those mentioned in Scripture. So Maimonides; the names of the idols of the gentiles which are mentioned in Scripture it is lawful for us to name; as Peor, Bell, Nebo, Baal, &c. (See Selden, lib. ii. de Jure N. et G. cap. 13. p. 269, &c.) They say this precept binds men and women in all places, and at all times; and the punishment for its violation was beating. Neither shall it be heard out of thy inouth.] i. e. With any respect or reverence to them: otherwise, the simple pronunciation of the name was not unlawful. The sabbath being instituted partly to preserve them from idolatry, some think the reason why this precept is joined to that.

Exodus 23:14

Three times shalt thou keep a feast nnto me in the year. viz. At the Passover, Pentecost, and when they gathered all the fruits of the earth, and dwelt in tabernacles; as it follows iri the next verses. The first of which was plainly instituted, in memory of their coming out of Egypt. The second, some think, was in memory of their coming into Canaan, (rather of the overthrow of Pharaoh in the sea, and giving the law on Mount Sinai.) And the third, in memory of their dwelling so long in the wilderness; and of the wonders which God did there; as Maimonides observes in his More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 43. At these three great solemnities three things were to* be done: first, they were to make a feast: secondly, to appear before God in the court of the temple: and, thirdly, to rejoice. Besides which, they were to bring certain offerings unto God.

Exodus 23:15

Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread, &c. Sec xii. 17, &c. xiii. 6, 7. In tht time appointed of the moMhAbib.] Or in the month of Mw ears of cord. (See xiii. 4.)’ For many learned men (particularly IIuctiu3) think this word Abib not to’ bo a proper name, but an appellative (as they sperik), the proper 2M2

Exodus 23:17

Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God. This verse more fully explains what was said ver. 14. by showing where they should keep these feasts, viz. before the Lord; i. e. in the place where his most glorious majesty should settle; which was first in the tabernacle, and afterward in the temple: and then who should appear before him there, viz. all the males. Others were not bound to it; though some religious people carried’their whole families with them, as appears by Elkanah, (1 Sam. i,) This command is repeated, (xxxiv. 23.) and the true reason of it seems to have been this: that while they dwelt in the wilderness they ate no meat at all at their private tables, but what had been first offered up to God at the tabernacle, (Lev. xvii. 4, 5.) Which precept was dispensed withal w T hcn they came into the land of Canaan, and dwelt, many of them, so remote from the tabernacle, that they could not come up every day to sacrifice, (Dcut. xiL 21.) Instead of which therefore there wctc these three constant and set times appointed in the year: in which every male w r as bound to come up, and sec God at his tabernacle, and there eat and drink before him. Whence the sacrifice which was then offered, was wont to be called a sacrifice of seeing, as Dr. Cudworth hath observed in his little treatise of the Right Notion of the Lord’s Supper. But as the doctors interpret.it, they were not bound to bring their males to appear before the Lord till they were able to walk, in their father’s hand, up from Jerusalem to the temple.

Exodus 23:18

Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice. That is, the paschal lamb, as Jonathan in express words interprets; and as it appears from xxxiv. 25. That the Passover was a sacrifice, I observed before, xii. 27. With leavened bread.] There being three great solemn feasts appointed in the foregoing verses, (ver. 14. 17.) in this and the following he prescribes some rules how they were to be observed. And here, in this verse, ordains two things relating to the Passover: that it should not be eaten with leavened bread; nor any of the fat of it remain until the morning. Both which were ordained before, (xii. 10. 14, 15.) in its first institution: and here repeated, uj>on its being mentioned again with the other feasts. It may be fit for me hero to observe, that to move the Israelites to keep this Passover with the greater care, God calls it both here and in xxxiv, 25. after a peculiar manner, my sacrifice and my feast (as the latter part of this verse may be translated), being a feast of a most solemn nature; and a sacrifice then offered of singular use. For which reason he requires them, as not to offer it with leaven (which was at that time forbidden for special reasons), so

Exodus 23:19

The first of the first-fruits of thy land, thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.) This precept hath a respect to the next feast, that of Pentecost. And therefore, though there were several first-fruits, which were all to be offered in their time (which were of seven things, barley, wheat, figs, pomegranates, olives, dates, and grapes), yet here are meant only the two loaves or cakes made of their new wheat, which were to be offered at this feast, (Lev. xxiii. 17.) for till this was done they might not make use of their corn. (See more concerning this matter on Lev. xxiii. 10.) R. Levi of Barcelona, and others, rightly observe that this was brought as an acknowledgment unto God, that he was the giver of all good things. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.’] This precept hath a particular respect to the third feast, that of the in-gathering of the fruits of the earth, in the end of tlie year, mentioned vcr. 1G. And the Jews commonly take it to be a prohibition against eating a kid so boiled, or tasting of the milk: taking it to be a precept against cruelty. But here is not a word about eating, either of the kid or the milk; but only about boiling. The famous Bochartus mentions three other interpretations, but confutes them all: and taking the words simply, as we translate them, supposes there was some such custom as this among the gentiles, which Moses would not have them imitate. And so doth Maimonides, in his More Nevoch. (pan iii. cap. 48.) where he takes this, indeed, for a command not to eat flesh with such milk; but saith, that, besides it was very gross nourishment, &c. it seems to him it was prohibited, because it smelt of idolatry; the gentiles doing so in their worship, npon some of their feasts. He could not find indeed, as he confesses, any such rite in the books of the Zabii: but yet he was confirmed in this opinion, by the law constantly mentioning this only when it speaks of their feasts; for there are other places where we meet with it, xxxiv. 26. Deut. xvi. 21. in both which he speaks, as he doth here, of their three great feasts. At the last of which, Abarbinel expressly affirms, the ancient idolaters were wont, when they gathered the fruits of the earth, to seethe a kid in its mother’s milk, that their gods might bo the more propitious to them. But as he names no author for his opinion, so he doth not explain the manneT of it. Our most learned Dr. Cudworth was the first person who happily found this in a Karaite writer; who saith, “All the trees, and fields, and gardens, were sprinkled with this broth (of a kid seethed in its mother’s milk), after a magical manner, to make them more fruitful in the following year.” This Bochart also takes to be the truest interpretation, and quotes the forcnamed doctor for it, not having seen the author himself: (par. K Hierozoic. lib;ii. cap. &2.) See Right Notion of the Lord’s Supper, p. 25;’ To which may be added, that a goat was anciently used in magical rites; and that demons were wont to appear in* that form. But it must be noted withal, that in every oiie of the three places where this precept is mentioned, the LXX. translate the word we render kid, by apva, a lamb; though every where else they translate it epi^ov. And I make no question, but we are to understand here either a* lamb or kid boiled in its mother’s milk; and the Hebrews say, any other clean creature. Concerning which I shall add no more, but that nothing* could be more contrary to nature (and therefore agreeable to the institutions of the devil) than to boil any young creature in the milk of its mother, from whom it came. Which they first offered to their gods, and then ate some of it themselves, and the rest’ they sprinkled as beforesaid. Some relics of which custom we find even among the Romans themselves, who propitiated Sylvanus, with offering him milk, and Faunus with a kid: and every one knows both these were used in the worship of Bacchus.

Exodus 23:20

Behold,Isend an angel before thee. In the twentythird veTse he calls him mine angel: by which the Jews commonly understand Michael; there being but a very little difference between Malachi (which signifies my angel) and Michael. But a great many Christians think this was not a created angel, but an increated, viz. the eternal Son of God; who, they suppose, appeared to Moses in the bush," and conducted them all along to Mount Sinai. Which I am afraid to assert, because it seems dangerous to me (as I observed upon Gen. xlvii. 1G.) to call him simply an angel, i. e. a minister, or messenger, without any such addition as that in Mai. iii. 3. The angel of Me covenant* For so he was at his incarnation, of which he there speaks: before which I dare not ascribe to him such ministerial* works as these, of bringing the children of Israel out of Egypt, and going before them to lead them the way to Canaan. This was properly the work of an angel, to whom Moses attributes it, when he orders his ambassadors to say to the king of Edom, (Numb. xx. 16.) " When we cried unto the Lord ho heard our voice, and sent an angel,’ and hath brought us forth out of Egypt," &c. But this angel was a prime minister in the heavenly host, by whom he was accompanied. So he saith to Joshua, (ver. 14.) “lam come as captain of the host of the Lord:” which is the title of Michael in Dan. x. 13. 21. But though’we thus understand it here, this doth not exclude the presence of God himself, but rather proves it: for this angel and his host were sent from the Schechinah, who was in the pillar of cloud: which was moved by this angel, and conducted them through the wilderness. (See iii. 2.) To keep thee in the way, &c] To preserve and protect them, as well as to direct and guide them, till they came to Canaan: which was the place God had prepared for them. *

Exodus 23:21

Beware of him. Or observe him. Obey his voice.] Because he did but report what God himself commanded; who was there present with them,, as long as they obeyed him. Provoke him not.] By any disobedience. For he will not pardon your transgressions.] But punish you, when you contumaciously offend me. For my name is in him.] He acts by my authority and

Exodus 23:22

But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that Ippeak. By this it appears that the words of the angel were the words of God; who spake by him: and both are to be understood to be present. (See Gen. xxii. Tlien I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, &c] God and the angel seeni to me to be so distinguished in this verse, that we should not look upon the angel as God, but as his minister.

Exodus 23:23

For my angel shall go before thee. The word Malachi (my angel) consisting of the very same letters with Michael, the author of Baal Hatturim takes it, as if he had said, Michael, my proper or peculiar angel, &c. And bring thee unto the Amorites.] Who were the principal people in the land of Canaan; and had made themselves masters of the first country which Joshua conquered. (See Genoc. 16.) And the Jlittites, and the Perizzites, &c] Concerning these, and the other people here mentioned, see Gen. x«. 1G, 17. xv. 19, &c. The reader cannot but observe that here are only six nations mentioned, whereas there were seven in all, whom God delivered up into. their hands; (Josh. iii. 10,) yet in another place, where he commands them all to be utterly destroyed, Moses mentions but six, as he doth here, (Deut. xx. 17.) For, as some have conjectured, the Girgashites, who are here omitted, had been subdued by the Araorites, and were mixed with them; who were the most powerful of all the seven nations, and had spread themselves into many parts of the country; “as appears from Gen. xiv. 13. Numb. xiii. 29. Deut. i. 7.19.44.

Exodus 23:24

Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them. This is a caution against the idolatry of the people of Canaan: into whose country, when he had brought them, he charges them to be so far from doing any honour to. their gods, either outwardly by bowing down to them, or inwardly by serving them; i. e. as some of the Hebrews interpret it, praying to them, or giving thanks, &c. (Selden, lib. iii. de Juro Nat. et Gent. cap. 3.) that he commands them to break them down and utterly destroy them. Nor do after their vwrks.] These words* are so large, that they may comprehend all the abominable things which were done by the seven nations (mentioned in Lev. xviii. and other places); but here the matter seems to restrain them to their worship, which he would not have them imitate, by building temples or altars in honour of their gods, or offering such sacrifices as they did, or observing any of their religious rites. But thou shalt utterly overthrow them.] This relates to the people of the land; as it is explained in Deut. xx. 17. A7id quite breakdown their images.] For they were bound entirely to root idolatry out of the land of Canaan: though in other” countries which they might conquer they did not think themselves bound to break their images, as Selden observes, (lib. ii. de Jure N. et G. cap. 2.)

Exodus 23:25

And ye shall serve the Lord your God. Worship him, as ho directs, and no other being. I observed before, that none were so senseless as to imagine a figure of any thing made of wood or stone, &c. to be the Creator of heaven and earth: but they worshipped them (as Maimonides well observes) as things intermediate between the Most High and them; which is here forbidden, (More Nevoch. par. i. cap. 3G.) And he shall bless thy bread and thy water, and I will take sickness away from thee.] This is a promise that he would abundantly supply them with meat and drink, and also give them health; without which they could take no comfort in that plentiful provision. Ver. 2G. There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren in thy land.] Abortion and barrenness hinder all propagation, both in men and beasts; and therefore, to the two foregoing blessings, of plenty and health, he adds two more in this place: a numerous increase of their cattle and of their own progeny; together with long lifo in the land which he gave them. Tlte number of thy days I will fulfil.] Thou shalt come to a good old age, such as healthful men (who are not cut off by any accident) arc wont to attain. Procopius Gazseus gathers from hence, that there is not a fixed term set for every man’s life. But it rather seems to suppose that there is a term fixed, beyond which men cannot ordinarily go (to some a longer, to some a shorter, according to their several constitutions), but may come short of it, by various accidents, and by theiT own ill usage of themselves, or by the judgment of God: who also, in regard to their obedience, prolongs the life of some men beyond what it would naturally reach.

Exodus 23:27

I will send my fear before thee. Strike a terror into the inhabitants of Canaan before thou comest thither, which shall facilitate the conquest of them. (See Josh. ii. 9, 10.) With which agrees the story that is told in the Gcmara Hierosol. ad Tit. Shebiith (by 11. Samuel ben Nachman), that upon Joshua’s denouncing war against the seven nations, the Girgashites fled into Africa. Which may be true, perhaps, of a paTt of them, but not of them all; for some of them were remaining, it appears from the book of Joshua, iii. 10. xxiv. 11. This is confirmed by another story in the Talmud, of the Africans sueing to Alexander the Great to be restored to their ancient possessions in Canaan (which I mentioned before), and the old inscription in Procopius (lib. ii. de llcbus Vandal) not far from Tangier, which said the ancient inhabitants of that country fled from the face of Joshua, the son of Nun. (Seldeu, lib. vi. de Jure N. et Gent. cap. 13. p. 73G.) And I will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come.] Make them more afraid when they come to fight; so that presently they shall run away aud be. easily slain: for that is the meaning of the last words, I will make all thine enemies turn their backs to thee. Vct.28. And I will send hornets before thee.] Either before they came thither, or when they marched against the people of that country. Both seem to be true: that many of them were forced to quit their country, when it was.infested by the hornets God sent in great swarms among them; and that they who remained, when they came to fight,

Exodus 23:32

They shall not dwell in thy land. If a gentile did renounce his idolatry he might dwell among them; and was called a stranger, toshab, dwelling, or inhabiting. But if he did not forsake it, they might n6t sell him a foot of land, nor let him hire a house among them: only he might come and sell commodities to them, as the same R. Levi expounds it. But Maimonides says, they might not so much as suffer them to pass through their country,.when they had power to hinder it; which others think too rigid an opinion, as Mr. Seldcn shews, (lib. ii. de Jure N. et G. cap. 3. p. 155, &c.) Lest they make thee sin against me.] All society with idolaters was forbidden, lest they should infect the Israelites with their infidelity (as the same R. Levi speaks), of which there was the greater danger, because they were too prone to follow the gentile customs. 4, For if thou serve their gods.] This caution, being re-