Exodus 23:4. If thou meet thine enemy’s ox. From these two passages it is very clear that he who abstains from evil doing, is not therefore guiltless before God, unless he also studies to do good. For our brethren’s advantage ought to be so far our care, that we should be disposed mutually to aid each other as far as our means and opportunities permit. This instruction is greatly needed; because, whilst everybody is more attentive to his own advantage than he ought to be, he is willing to hold back from the assistance of others. But God brings him in guilty of theft who has injured his neighbors by his negligence; and justly, because it depended only upon him that the thing should be safe, which he knowingly and willfully suffered to perish. This duty, too, is extended even to enemies; wherefore our inhumanity is the more inexcusable, if we have not helped our friends. The sum therefore is, that believers should be kind, ▼

▼

“Soyent pitoyables, et humains pour faire plaisir a chacun;” should be pitiful and humane, to show kindness to all. — Fr.

that they may imitate their heavenly Father; and should not only bestow their labor upon the good, who are worthy of it, but should treat the unworthy also with kindness: and since many might invent means of subterfuge, God anticipates them, and commands that the beast of a person unknown should be kept until reclaimed by its owner; and lays down the same rule as to all things that may be lost.

Numbers 5

 

By this law also, God exhorts His people to exercise the duties of humanity towards brute animals, in order that they may be the more disposed to assist their brethren; for we must bear in memory what Paul teaches, where God commands oxen to be kindly treated, viz., that He does not care so much for them in this, as for mankind. (1 Corinthians 9:9.) God prescribes elsewhere, that if any should see the ox or ass of his brother, or even of his enemy, going astray, he should catch it, and restore it to its master, (Deuteronomy 22:1-3, and Exodus 23:4;) but here He had another intention, i.e., that believers should testify their forgiveness of their enemies, by being merciful to their animals. If it had been simply said, that our enemies were to be helped, and that we must contend with them by acts of kindness, to overcome their ill-will, all cruelty would have been sufficiently condemned; but when God commands us not only to succor our enemies, to point out their way to those who are straying, and to lift up those who are fallen, but would also have us exercise these kindnesses to their very beasts, He more emphatically and strongly expresses how very far removed from hatred and the desire of vengeance He desires His children to be. Wherefore we see that what Christ afterwards taught His disciples is taught also in the Law, that we should love our enemies. (Matthew 5:44.) Nor is it merely the desire of vengeance which is here restrained, but something more is required, viz., that believers should conquer the ill-will of their enemies by kindnesses: since to bring back a straying ox or ass is a proof of sincere affection. But, in these two passages, what relates to the Sixth Commandment is represented in a more striking manner, viz., that assistance should be rendered to an ox or an ass, weighed down by its burden. Interpreters ▼

▼

Margin A V., Exodus 23:5, “Wilt thou cease to help him? or, and wouldest thou cease to leave thy business for him; thou shalt surely leave it to join with him.” The Vulg. translation is, “Si videris asinum odientis te jacere sub onere, non pertransibis, sed sublevabis cum eo:” and this precisely accords with LXX.,  οὐ παρελέυσὟ αὐτὸ

are not agreed as to the meaning of the words, and Jerome has departed most widely from them. But others, who desire to translate them more accurately, read them interrogatively, — If thou shall see an animal fall under its burden, etc., wilt thou hesitate to help? The other sense seems more appropriate, — If thou shall; have seen and have hesitated to help, still do thou help: for in this way God anticipates a person, if, perchance, impelled at first by hatred, he should dislike to help his enemy: and then commands him to correct his guilty thought. The meaning, therefore, will be, — if the sight of thine enemy should delay thee from aiding his beast, lay aside thine ill-will, and unite thyself with him, that you may together be humane and merciful to the wretched animal. Thus an opportunity was given to enemies for their mutual reconciliation. There is another difficulty in the word  גזב, ▼

▼

Exodus 23:5  עזב, in its primary and most usual sense, signifies to leave; but a thing may be left from dislike or weariness; hence it signifies (2) to forsake. On the other hand, it may be left, because it has been brought into that state, in which it needs no further help or security; and hence (3) it sometimes signifies to complete a defense, as Nehem. 3:8; 4:2; to relieve from a difficulty, as in this place — W. The whole of this criticism is omitted, not only in the French translation, but also in the Latin edition of 1563, pp. 390, 391.

gnazab, which, although it means to leave, still, in my judgment, is used for to assist, or to give help: although it is not translated amiss, to let fro, or to loose: or, if it be preferred, to strengthen; in which sense it is sometimes found.

Numbers 35

 

6. Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor. Since laws are enacted to repress the vices which are of frequent occurrence, no wonder that God should put forward the case of the poor, to whom it often happens that they fail though their causes are good, both because they are without interest and are exposed to injury through the contempt in which they are held, and also because they cannot contend with the rich in incurring expense. Justly, then, is provision made for their inferiority, lest the iniquity of judges should rob them of the little they possess. But the other point here referred to might appear superfluous, viz., that judges should not favor the poor, which very rarely takes place. It would also be incongruous that what God elsewhere prescribes and praises should here be reprehended. I reply, that rectitude is so greatly pleasing to God, that the judge would in no wise be excusable, under whatever pretext he might decline from it ever so little, and that this is the intention of this precept. For, although the poor is for the most part tyrannically oppressed, still ambition will sometimes impel a judge to misplaced compassion, so that he is liberal at another’s expense. And this temptation is all the more dangerous, because injustice is done under the cloak of virtue. For, if a judge only directs his attention to the poverty of the litigant, a foolish fear will at the same time insinuate itself lest his sentence should ruin the man whom he would wish to save; thus he will award to the one what belongs to the other. Sometimes the temerity, audacity, and obstinacy of the poor in commencing and prosecuting suits is greater than that of the rich; and when they despair of their cause, they are sure to have recourse to tears and lamentations, by which they deceive incautious judges, who, forgetful of the cause itself, only consider how their misery and want is to be relieved. Besides, too, whilst they think little of the rich man’s loss, because he can easily bear it, they make no scruple of declining from equity in favor of the poor. But hence it better appears how greatly God is offended by the oppression of the poor, when He will not have even them befriended to the injury of the rich.

Political Supplements to the eighth Commandment

Exodus 22

 

7. Keep thee far from a false matter. Since he seems to speak of perjury, which brings about the death of the innocent, some might perhaps prefer that this passage should be annexed to the Sixth Commandment; but this is easily solved; for Moses is expressly condemning false-witness, and at the same time instances one case of it, whereby it may appear how detestable a crime it is, viz., the slaying of a brother by calumny, because the false witness rather kills him with his tongue than the executioner with his sword. Although, therefore, it is a gross act of inhumanity to lie in general against one’s brother, yet is its atrocity increased if he be put to death by perjury; because murder is thus combined with perfidy. A threat follows, whereby God summons false-witnesses before His tribunal, where they who have brought the good into peril by their falsehoods shall not escape with impunity.

Leviticus 19

 

Exodus 23:8 And thou shalt take no gift. This kind of theft is the worst of all, when judges are corrupted either by bribes, or by affection, and thus ruin the fortunes which they ought to protect: for, since their tribunal is as it were sacred asylum, to which those who are unjustly oppressed may fly, nothing can be more unseemly than that they should there fall amongst robbers. ▼

▼

“Il n’y a rien plus enorme, que d’en faire une caverne de brigans;” there is nothing more enormous than to make a den of robbers of it. — Fr.

Judges are appointed to repress all wrongs and offenses; if therefore they show favor to the wicked, they are harborers of thieves; than which there is no more deadly pest. And besides, since their authority excludes every other remedy, they are themselves like rob-hers with arms in their hands. The greater, therefore, their power of injury is, and the greater the damage committed by their unjust sentences, the more diligently are they to be warned to beware of iniquity; and thus it was necessary to keep them in the path of duty by special instructions, lest they should conceal and encourage thievery by their patronage. Now, as avarice is the root of all evils, when it thus lays hold of the minds of judges, no integrity can continue to exist. But, since all utterly condemn this vice, even though they may be entirely under its influence, God speaks of it the more plainly and popularly, enjoining that judges should withhold their hands from every gift: for there is no more fatal poison for the extinction of all uprightness, than when a judge suffers himself to be cajoled by gifts. Let those who accept gifts allege as much as they please that they still maintain their integrity, the fact itself clearly shows that they are venal, and seek their own pecuniary advantage when they are thus attracted by gain. Formerly it was enough to render judges infamous that they were called nummarii, (moneyers.) ▼

▼

Fr. “Et de faict, ce titre la suffit entre les payens pour diffamer les juges, de les appeler argentiers;” and, in fact, this title sufficed among the heathen to bring their judges into disrepute, to call them argentiers. See Cic. Ep. in Att. 1:16, “Insectandis vero, exagitandisque nummariis judicibus.” Item, Verr. 5:57, et pro Cluent., 36.

But it is superfluous to treat any further of this matter, since God cuts off all handles for subterfuge in a single sentence: “for gifts (He says) blind the eyes of him that seeth, and pervert the judgment of the righteous.” If, then, we acquiesce in His decision, there is no light of intelligence so bright but that gifts extinguish it, nor any probity so great but that they undermine it; in fact, gifts infect a sound mind before they soil the hand; I mean those which a person receives in reference to the judgment of a cause; for there is no question here as to those gifts of mutual kindness which men reciprocate with each other. Thus, in the passage from Deuteronomy 16, before God speaks of gifts, He forbids that justice should be wrested., or men’s persons respected: whence we gather, that only those snares are condemned which are set to curry favor. It must be observed on the passage from Leviticus, that to judge in righteousness is contrasted with respecting the person: and consequently, as soon as the judge turns away his eyes ever so little from the cause itself, he forgets equity. Moreover, to wrest judgment is equivalent to doing iniquity in judgment; but since injustice is not always openly manifested, but rather disguised by various artifices, after God in Leviticus has condemned corrupt and unjust judgments, He uses this word to wrest (inclinandi), in Deuteronomy, in order to dissipate all vain pretexts.

Deuteronomy 16

 

10. And six years shalt thou sow. Another Sabbatical institution (Sabbathismus) follows, viz., that of years, in reference to the cultivation of the land; for as men and cattle rested on every seventh day, so God prescribed that the earth should rest on the seventh year. According to the fertility or barrenness of the soil, fields are fallowed every third or fourth year, lest they should become altogether unproductive through exhaustion. Indeed a soil can hardly be found of such fecundity as to be fitted for continual productiveness. Some relaxation is therefore given, until the land recovers its vigor; but this only pertains to wheat, barley, pease, beans, and other pulse, and seeds. As to meadows and vineyards the state of things is different, since, when meadows are mown every year, the fertility of the soil is not weakened; whilst vines degenerate unless they are cultivated. It was a sign of extraordinary and exceeding fertility that the land of Canaan could bear six years’ sowing following, without being worn out. God honored it with this privilege in favor of His people; nor did He indeed ordain the rest from necessity, since on the sixth year He doubled the power of His blessing; but in order that the sanctity of the Sabbath might be everywhere conspicuous, and that thus the children of Israel, as they looked upon the land, might be the more encouraged to its observance. The nature of the rest was that they should not sow anything, nor prune their vineyards in the sacred year; and if anything should spring up from the scattered seeds of last harvest, it was the common property of the inhabitants of the land and strangers, although He peculiarly bestowed whatever grew of itself, whether corn or grapes, upon the poor, as a kind of gratuitous present for the relief of their wants. And this kindness and liberality was a kind of incidental adjunct to the performance of the religious duty. It was not indeed mainly or chiefly God’s purpose to give relief to the poor, but, as we said before, there was nothing strange in it that the offices of charity should be consequent upon God’s service.

If ungodly men should foolishly object that there is no connection between the senseless soil and a spiritual mystery, we have already answered, that although the Sabbath was deposited with believers only as a pledge of an inestimable blessing, still tokens of it appeared both in the flocks and herds, as well as in dead creatures, in order to renew the recollection of it, lest the people should grow cold, and their devotion should become languid. But if they mockingly persist that the Jews were finely dealt with, ▼

▼

“ La condition des Juifs n’a gueres este honorable;” the condition of the Jews was hardly honorable. — Fr.

when in their highest privilege they had asses and oxen, as well as the fields themselves, for companions; I answer, why do they not apply the same scoff to a commoner matter? For since the doctrine of salvation is committed to paper or parchment before it comes to us, why do they not laugh with all their might at the obedience of our faith? since in our silly credulity we embrace the promises transmitted to us by a stinking skin or some other filthy material? God would have the observation of the Sabbath engraved on all creatures, that wherever the Jews turned their eyes they might be kept up to it. Why, then, should not the earth be a conspicuous and impressive sign (character) for the rude inculcation of this doctrine? When it is said, “What they leave the beasts of the field shall eat,” the injunction does not extend to wild and noxious animals which they might drive away from their property; but God merely commands that whatever the earth produced should be exposed promiscuously for the food both of man and beast. And this affords an indirect answer to a question that might occur for God shews that the grass would not be lost, although there should be no hay-making; for the grass would be instead of hay for the beasts, so that they might feed abundantly in the fields and meadows.

Another question, however, arises from the passage in Leviticus, where God permits the owners of the land and their families to gather for food whatever shall then grow of itself. But there was nothing to prevent them, like the strangers, and anybody else, from eating of the fruits which were common to all, provided they did not defraud the poor by their covetousness. ▼

▼

Addition in Fr., “ et que chacun en preint ce qu’il pourroit, comme d’un bien commun;’ and that each should take what they could of them, as of a common property.

The same thing is soon afterwards added in the description of the Jubilee; for although that year, which completed seven times seven years, was more holy than the rest, still God allows all to eat in it the fruits grown of themselves. He speaks more restrictedly in Exodus, in order to inculcate greater liberality upon them; but in Leviticus He shews that there is no danger of any of the produce of the land being lost, because permission is given both for themselves and their servants and cattle, besides the hireling and the stranger, to partake of it. Where He says, “that which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest,” I understand it of the land which they usually reaped; as also a little further on He calls their peculiar right of ownership in their vines “their separation.” ▼

▼

See Margin, A. V., Leviticus 25:5,  ענבי נזירך, “grapes of thy separation.” S.M., “ uvas a te derelictas.” S. M. says in his note, “We follow the Chaldee interpreter, who renders these words The grapes of thy relinquishing; but others render them the grapes of thy separation, (that is, which hitherto thou hast separated or set apart for thyself,) thou shalt not suffer to be common property.” — W. The translation of V. is, “uvas primitiarum tuarum."

Although, therefore, the possessor might boast that the property was his own, and consequently that the harvest should be left entirely to himself, God reminds them that its fruits were nevertheless common to all during the Sabbatical year. The word “harvest,” therefore, is applied to the land which was sown, and “separation” to the private vineyard, or its fruit. The old interpreter has translated them “the grapes of first-fruits.” If it is preferred to adopt this sense, Moses would expressly declare that no oblation of them conferred on the owners of the property a right to claim as their own what grew in their vineyard (during the year;) ▼

▼

Addition from Fr.

else it would have been a good excuse to offer to God the first-fruits of the vintage, and under this pretext for the Jews to contend that they had consecrated the whole produce in the first-fruits. But God anticipates this gloss, by shewing that what was said respecting the ordinary cultivation was improperly turned aside to the extraordinary year of rest. But since the word  נאזיר, nazir, means “separation,” I do not see why we should change what accords very well. Still commentators differ as to the meaning of this word; some understand it “relinquishing,” because every owner resigned his private property, so that the vintage might be common. Others explain it as expressing that they had abstained from its cultivation for that year. My own opinion, however, as I have said, is simply that the peculiar right of the possessor is called his “separation;” so that it was not lawful for others to touch the vintage except in the Sabbatical year. Thus separation is opposed to common fields free to the public.

Leviticus 25

 

12. Six days thou shalt do thy work. In this passage the incidental use of the Sabbath is again referred to, although it is no inherent part of its original institution, viz., that by its means the family also and the cattle shall be benefited. There is no impropriety in reckoning this amongst the other blessings which enhance the value of the Sabbath, although it is a portion of the Second Table. And we know that this rude people required to be attracted by every possible means to present cheerfully to God the worship due to Him. The sum therefore is, that they were thus to testify not only their piety towards God, but also their kindness towards their servants. I have already shewn that their authority as masters was to be exercised in moderation by them, if they were mindful of their former condition:, since they also had been servants in Egypt. If any one should suppose that the argument does not hold good, because; they were oppressed by cruel and dreadful tyranny, the reply is easy, that so much the better could they determine from their own feelings how detestable and intolerable a thing cruelty is.

Exodus 31

 

13. Make no mention of the name of other gods. There is no sort of doubt but that this declaration should be connected with the Third Commandment. Moses explains that God’s name is taken in vain and abused, if men swear by other gods; for it is not lawful to refer the judgment of things unknown to any other than the one true God. Consequently, the glory of the Deity is transferred to those by whose name men swear. Therefore by the Prophet God pronounces a severe denunciation, that He will destroy all those that swear by His name, and also by Malcham, (Zephaniah 1:5,) since thus the Jews mixed Him up with their idol, and so profaned His holiness. In sum, since by swearing we profess that He is our God, whom we declare to be both the knower of our hearts and the judge of our souls, the true God justly claims this honor for Himself alone, inasmuch as the glory of His name is detracted from, not only if we speak less reverently than we should of Him, but also if we associate with Him such as may usurp a part of His rights. And this more clearly appears from the two passages which we have adduced from Deuteronomy, wherein the people are commanded to swear by the name of the one God, which is equivalent to rendering to His sacred name in our outward profession of service the unmixed reverence which it deserves. ▼

▼

“ Ce qui vaut autant comme de luy rendre l’hommage qu’il merite, en le constituant tesmoin des choses cachees, et confessant que c’est a luy seul de maintenir la verite;” which is equivalent to rendering to Him the homage He deserves, in constituting Him the witness of hidden things, and confessing that it is His alone to maintain the truth. — Fr.

Still God does not exhort the people to indulge themselves freely in oaths, as if by frequent oaths they exercised themselves in the duties of piety, but simply means that when there is occasion for it or necessity, and a just cause shall demand it, they must swear in no other way than by invoking Him alone as their witness and judge.

Deuteronomy 23

 

Exodus 23:14. Three times shalt thou keep a feast. It is strange that Moses, who elsewhere enumerates several feast-days, should here only command them to appear in God’s presence thrice a year. Where then is the feast of trumpets and the day of atonement? for undoubtedly all were to be celebrated at Jerusalem. In the first place, it is to be observed that the principal ones, to which the greater honor appertained, are here mentioned. Secondly, because the three holidays in the seventh month were almost continuous, (it is probable ▼

▼

Added from Fr.

) that some indulgence was given them, lest they should be absent from their homes the whole month; for at the beginning of the month the trumpets sounded, on the tenth day was the solemn fast, and on the fifteenth they began to dwell in the booths. If the necessity of remaining in Jerusalem had been imposed on all, so long a stay would have been burdensome. But, if they chose to be present from the beginning to the end, still there would have been only one journey, which is named after the most remarkable day. And certainly ▼

▼

 רגלים and  פעמים each signify the feet, in their primary sense; and each are used, but the latter more commonly, for times, as when we say, “so many times.” — W

It is so used in Deuteronomy 1:2, and 16:16.

For this critical sentence, the following is substituted in Fr., “ Ainsi trois festes y eussent este comprises; pource qu’ils ne fussent point retournez jusques a ce qu’elles eussent este aceomplies;” thus, three festivals would have been comprised in it; because they would not have returned until they were all completed.

the word  רגלים, raglim, which Moses uses, means, metaphorically, rather journeys than times, although I allow that  פעמים, phagnemim, which signifies times, is used in Deuteronomy in a similar sense. At any rate, it appears that God spared His people, when prescribed only three necessary convocations, lest the fathers of families and their children should be wearied by the expense and trouble of them, since he approves of no service which does not proceed from a cheerful heart.

Deuteronomy 16

 

19. Thou shalt not seethe a kid. The threefold repetition of the command reminds us that a serious matter is spoken of, whereas it would be a light and almost frivolous one, if, as some suppose, it is merely the prohibition of a somewhat unwholesome food. But the Jews, not considering its intent, and affecting sanctity, as they do, in trifling puerilities, dare not taste of cheese together with kid, or lamb’s flesh, until they have well cleaned their teeth. I have no doubt, however, but that this prohibition relates to the sacrifices, for in the first passage quoted, it is added in connection with the offering of the first-fruits; and in the second, we read as follows: “The first of the first-fruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. Nor shalt thou seethe a kid in his mother’s milk;” and so also in the third passage: “Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself, etc., for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; nor shalt thou seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.” I allow indeed that Moses sometimes mixes together precepts respecting different things; but this running context shews that this precept is delivered among the ceremonies, and must therefore be reckoned to be a part of the legal service. Whence I conclude, that the people are not only interdicted from eating this sort of food, as if they were to partake of flesh steeped in blood; but that they should not pollute the sacrifices by the carnal mixture. It is however probable, that meat seasoned with milk was accounted a delicacy; but inasmuch as they might grow cruel, if they ate of a lamb or kid in its mother’s milk, God forbade to be offered to Himself, what was not allowable even in their common meals. The exposition of some, that kids were excluded from their tables until they were weaned, is not agreeable to reason; because they then begin to have a goatish flavor. But the reason is a very appropriate one, i.e., that God would not admit a monstrous thing in His sacrifices, that the flesh of the young should be cooked in its mother’s milk, and thus, as it were, in its own blood.

The civil Supplements to the Second Commandment

Exodus 23

 

Deuteronomy 12

 

Exodus 34

 

Deuteronomy 7

 

Numbers 33

 

24. Thou shalt not bow down to their gods. Moses repeats what had been before said, that the worship of God must be separated from all the superstitions of the Gentiles; for this error has been everywhere rife, that unbelievers would rather draw down God to themselves on earth, than ascend above to seek for Him. And in this sense we have said that idols are called gods; because it is impossible but that he who would represent God by wood and stone, should associate Him with corruptible matter. Experience also teaches us, that all the wicked are so attached to their idols, that they gain nothing by their subterfuge, when they allege that this is a necessary help to their ignorance. The following clause, “nor do after their works,” sufficiently proves that all corrupt worship is comprehended under the term idolatry.

Deuteronomy 12

 

Exodus 23:24. Thou shalt utterly overthrow them. I allow indeed that these supplements would partly agree with, and be applicable to, the First Commandment; but since express mention is everywhere made in them of idols, this place seems to be better suited to them. After Moses has taught what was necessary to be observed, he adds a political law about breaking down altars and overthrowing images, in order that the people may take the more diligent heed. These passages, however, differ from the foregoing; for in condemning thus far the superstitions which are vicious in themselves, God prescribed what He would have observed even to the end of the world. He now confirms that instruction by temporary enactments, that He may keep His ancient people up to their duty. For we have now-a-days no scruples in retaining the temples, which have been polluted by idols, and applying them to a better use; since we are not bound by what was added consequently ( propter consequentiam ), as they say, to the Law. I admit indeed that whatever tends to foster superstition should be removed, provided we are not too rigorously superstitious in insisting peremptorily on what is in itself indifferent. The sum amounts to this, that to shew more clearly how greatly God detests idolatry, He would have the memory of all those things abolished which had once been dedicated to idols. The second passage more fully unfolds what Moses had briefly adverted to in the first; for under the word “image,” he included all those tokens of idolatry which he afterwards enumerates, and of which he commands the whole land to be so cleared that no relics of them should remain. From the words, when ye have come into the land “to possess it,” Augustin ▼

▼

“ Hostes nos dicunt idolorum suorum. Sic praestet Deus, et det omnia in potestate, quomodo dedit quod fractum est. Hoc enim dicimus caritati vestrae, ne faciatis ista, quando in porestate vestra non est, ut faciatis illud. Pravorum hominum est, furiosorum Circumcellionum, et ubi potestatem non habent saevire, et velle mort properant sine causa. Audistis quae vobis legimus, omnes qui nuper in Mappalibus adfuistis. ‘Cum data vobis fuerit terra in potestatem (prius ait in potestatem, et sic dixit quae facienda sunt;) aras eorum, inquit, destruetis, lucos eorum comminuetis, et omnes titulos eorum confringetis.’ (Deuteronomy 7:1, and Deuteronomy 12:9.)  Cum acceperitis potestatem, hoc facite. Ubi nobis non est data potestas, non facimus; ubi data est, non praetermittimus,” etc. — Aug. Serm. 62 (Opp. Edit. Bened. T.v.p. 364.)

sensibly infers, that there is no command for private individuals to destroy the instruments of idolatry; but that the people are armed and furnished with this authority to take the charge of regulating the public interests, when they have obtained possession of the land. The third passage is more brief, only enumerating three kinds; the fourth adds “graven images,” ( sculptilia.) The fifth omits the groves, and puts in their place images or representations made of molten materials; and here we must observe what we have before adverted to, that the name of statue ( statuoe ) is sometimes taken in a good sense; and therefore the Jews think that what was permitted to the fathers before the Law is now forbidden. To us, however, it seems more probable, that the statues now condemned are not such as Jacob erected only as a monument, but such as they pretended to be a likeness of God. Some translate the word “titles,” ▼

▼

Numbers 33:52,  משכיתם A.V., their pictures.

others “pictures,” with what propriety I leave to the judgment of my readers. He adds “image,” ▼

▼

 צלמי, tsalemey — “metallic talismanical figures, made under certain constellations, and supposed, in consequence, to be possessed of some extraordinary influences and virtues.” — Ad. Clarke, in loco.

a word which, though not in itself sinful, is still deservedly rejected in connection with the worship of God. Man is the image of God; for Moses uses this same word, when relating the creation of man. But to represent God by any figure, before which He is worshipped, is nothing less than to corrupt His glory, and so to metamorphose Him. By speaking of molten images, he admits neither sculptures nor pictures; but since they are generally cast in the precious metals, the people were expressly to beware of keeping gods of gold or silver for ornament.

Deuteronomy 16

 

31. And I will set thy bounds. There is no question that He confirms here the covenant which he had made with Abraham in somewhat different words. More briefly had it been said to Abraham,

“Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” (Genesis 15:18.)

Here the four cardinal points of the compass are enumerated, and, instead of the Nile, the other sea is mentioned, which is opposite to the sea of Tarshish. ▼

▼

Corn. a Lapide thus explains these boundaries, — “God here gives the boundaries of the promised land with respect to the cardinal points; for it has the Red Sea as its southern limit; on the west, the sea of the Palestini, or the Mediterranean, whose shores are inhabited by the Philistines; (whence Scripture often speaks of ‘the Sea’ to express the west;) on the east, it has the Arabian Desert, lying between it and Egypt; and, finally, to the north it has the River Euphrates, which is called par excellence (autonomasian) the River.”

Nor is it anything new which the Israelites are commanded to expect; but they are reminded of what they had heard of by tradition even from the time of Abraham. Hence what I have already said is more clearly perceived, viz., that the ancient covenant is set before them, in order that they may respond to God’s gratuitous favor, and on their part honor and worship Him, who had already anticipated them with His mercy. Furthermore, when they had robbed themselves of this blessing, God applied a remedy to their iniquity, by raising up a new condition of things under David, to whom this promise is repeated, as is seen in Psalm 72. Therefore, although even up to that time their inheritance was in a measure incomplete (truncata), ▼

▼

“Quand Dieu a establi son Eglise;” when God established His (Church. — Fr.

yet, under this renovated condition, they reached its full and solid enjoyment. But since that prosperity and extension of the kingdom was not lasting, but after Solomon’s death began to fail, and at last its dignity was destroyed; therefore Zechariah uses the same words in declaring its ultimate and perfect restoration. (Zechariah 9:10.) Thence we gather that by the coming of Christ this prophecy at length obtained its perfect accomplishment; not that the race of Abraham then began to bear rule within the bounds here laid down, but inasmuch as Christ embraced the four quarters of the globe under His dominion, from the east even to the west, and from the north even to the south. Meanwhile the power of David was the prototype of this boundless reign, when he acquired the sovereignty of the promised land. We ought not to think it unreasonable that the ancient people should be kept out of some portion of that inheritance which was to be expected by them in accordance with the covenant; but rather does God’s incredible goodness display itself, in that, when they had altogether disinherited themselves, He still combated their iniquity, and failed not to shew practically His faithfulness. We may see the same thing in the calling of the Gentiles; for, if the Jews had continued faithful, the Gentiles would have been joined with them, as it had been said,

“In those days it shall come to pass that ten men shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew,” (Zechariah 8:23;)

but their rebellion brought it about, that God only gathered from among them the first-fruits of His Church, and afterwards the Gentiles were substituted in the place which they had left empty. In this way neither did this people retain their right of primogeniture, neither did God’s truth cease to stand firm, as Paul more fully explains in the eleventh chapter of Romans.

Deuteronomy 29