A. M. 2514. A. C, 1490; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 3764. A. C. 1647. EXOD. xxxiv. 28—NUM. xviii.

That quails among us are very excellent food, cannot | these, he enjoined them to eat such creatures as were be denied; but the same tradition informs us, that these worshipped in Egypt, which would be an effectual means birds in Arabia Felix, do vastly surpass all others, and to render the pretences of these sham deities contemptias our author expresses it, have neither bones, veins, nor ble; as, on the contrary, he ordered them to abstain from sinews in them, that is, are very fat and tender, some- those that were held in the greatest delicacy among thing like our fig-peckers and ortolans. And, therefore, them. And because the Egyptians would have nothing though God refused to gratify their palates with a pro- to do with such animals as had hoofs and horns, the Jews fuse variety of dainties, yet is there no fault to be found were allowed to eat none but what parted the hoof, as with his provision, since the food he sent them was deli- well as chewed the cud. cious in its kind, and a whole year had now intervened between the former and latter flight of quails, to whet their appetites, and prevent any danger of being cloyed with the same dish.

1

Something, however, there was in their behaviour, which provoked God in this their latter, more than their former complaint for want of flesh, to punish them so severely. The desire of flesh for food is in itself but natural, and, absolutely speaking, far from being criminal, or provoking to the Author of nature, who created every appetite of man, as well as his understanding: but when this breaks out into murmuring, mutiny, and disorder, the case is then entirely altered. In the former of these cases, the people were in want of bread, and really pinched with hunger; but in the latter, they had bread from heaven in abundance, and may therefore be said to complain not out of need but wantonness. Their discontent in the former case was expressed, comparatively, in modest terms; but here their tone is, "Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish which we did eat in Egypt freely, the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick; but now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all besides this manna before our eyes.' This same contempt of the manna, which God so miraculously sent from heaven, especially in persons so well instructed in the divine will, was such an instance of baseness and ingratitude, as justly deserved the punishment it met with.

In the former time of their complaining, God winked at their ignorance, and pitied their distress; he had not then given them his laws for the rule of their actions and appetites; and therefore, never looking to reap, where he had not sowed, he was not so extreme as to mark what they had done amiss; but after he had published his precepts from the holy mount, and many more instructions from the tabernacle, he then expected that their obedience should keep pace with their knowledge, and was more provoked at their backslidings than before, because they proceeded not from the ignorance of their minds, but the perverseness of their wills for this was the true and the just cause of their 3 condemnation, that even when light was come into the world, they loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.'

In the 11th chapter of the book of Leviticus, we have a catalogue of the beasts, fishes, and fowls, which God either permitted, or prohibited the Israelites to eat. From his first making choice of them, God's purpose was to distinguish them from other nations, and more especially from the Egyptians, among whom they had long lived, had contracted their manners, and were too tenacious of their customs; and therefore, in opposition to

Bibliotheca Biblica, vol. iv. Occasional Annotations, 3.
Num. xi. 5, &c.
3 John iii. 19.

It is to be observed farther, that in the very make and nature of some animals, there are certain qualities which prejudice mankind against them, and seem as it were to desecrate their use; that some, for instance, are monstrously big, others very ugly and deformed; some come from heterogeneous mixtures, others feed upon dead bodies, and to others most men have an inbred antipathy; so that, in the main, what the law forbade the Jews in this regard, was nature's aversion before: but then the question is,-Why the things which they were naturally averse to, and would have refrained without it, were made the matter of a divine interdiction?

Now, if we trace the history of this people, we shall find, that they had their seasons of affliction and scarcity as well as of prosperity and plenty. At the very time when these prohibitions were given them, they were travelling, and were to continue travelling for many years in a waste and barren desert, which being destitute of the conveniences, and necessaries of life, might tempt them to make experiment upon the flesh of some of those animals that they naturally abhorred, but upon this occasion, as they thought, might innocently make use of: and therefore, to set a stronger guard upon human nature, God thought proper to confirm this their innate aversion, by the sanction and establishment of laws, which were to last beyond the term of their continuance in the wilderness.

5

The truth is, this people, by their gross impieties, and prevarications with God, brought frequently upon themselves famines, and sieges, and other calamities, wherein they suffered very grievously. To pass by the famines, which happened in Judea, in the times of the Judges, and in David's days; in the reign of Ahab there was a dreadful one in Samaria, when an ass's head sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of doves' dung (it should be rendered pulse) for five pieces of silver;' and, what is more lamentable still, when mothers entered into compact about eating their own children. But the most tragical account of all, is that which their own historian has recorded of them, at the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, when wives snatched the necessaries of life from their husbands, children from their parents, and parents from their children; when mothers were forced, for their own support, to defraud their infants of the little milk which was in their breasts, while the infants were dying in their arms for want of it; when hunger and necessity turned every thing into victuals, and, what is shocking to human nature but barely to think on, made one Jewish lady of quality eat her own child.

9

8

A. M. 2514. A. C. 1490; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 3761. A. C. 1647. EXOD. xxxiv. 28-NUM. xviii.

Now the use that I would make of this melancholy | the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; part of their history, is this,-That as to God's pre- how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through science, were present from everlasting all the wicked- the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, nesses and rebellions of this people; so were those purge the conscience from dead works, to serve the livNow, besides the arguments which might be penalties and judgments which his infinite wisdom deter- | ing. God?' mined to be most suitable to them. For what method drawn from the grossness of the Jews' understanding, can be thought more proper to make an impression upon and their incapacity to receive a more spiritual dispenthose that forsake God, than that he should forsake them, sation, God might have this farther design in setting that is, so far at least, as to withdraw the succours of life | before them the mystery of man's redemption under such from them? And considering his prohibition of certain typical representations, namely, that thereby he might animals for food under this view, it was certainly a kind excite their industry, and give a fuller scope to the and generous warning to his people, not to bring them- exercise of their faith. For that the faith, and hope, selves, in consequence of these provocations, (which he and other graces of the patriarchs and devout Jews, foreknew, and against which he had so strictly cautioned were more effectually proved by the exhibition of things them,) into such circumstances, as would oblige them ambiguous and obscure, than if they had been altogether either to forbear the very last means of sustaining life, opened in the fullest and plainest propositions, is a or to break more of God's commandments than they had matter that can hardly be contested. To rest assured, that God would bring to pass what he had expressly and done before. circumstantially foretold, showed indeed a sincere and true faith in general; but to be persuaded, that faint resemblances, and the remotest hints were pregnant with certainty and solidity, and would, in their proper time, be gloriously completed, how unintelligible soever they might be at present, was, if we may so call it, a special advance of heroic faith, and rendered their dependence and resignation as complete as possible. And accordingly the apostle, having enumerated several ancient worthies, who by faith extended their views, and looked the dispensation they were under, as no more than a system of types and shadows of the good things to come, conAnd cludes their character in the following manner : these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made so perfect.' So that the Jewish religion and worship was, in some respects, adapted to the capacity and genius both of the learned and ignorant: of the ignorant, as being made up of pomp and show enough to attract their attention; and of the learned, as abounding with shadows and emblems of higher matters, enough to exercise their deepest contemplation.

But there is a farther reason arising from the quality of animals, why God might enact a discrimination of meats, and that is, to give his people therein a mystical system of morality. Thus the birds which were allowed to be eaten, the pigeon, the dove, the partridge, for instance, were either tame, or of gentle nature, feeding on grain or pulse; whereas all the species that lived on prey, and such as gorge themselves with flesh and blood, were utterly forbidden, thereby to bring into reputation justice and mercy, and moderation, and at the same time to discountenance the contrary disposition to rapine, oppression, and cruelty. It is a noted allegory, that in Homer, of Circe's changing Ulysses' friends into hogs. By Circe, the poet intends that we should understand sensual pleasures; by Ulysses, reason and discretion; and by his retinue, the inferior faculties and powers; and in like manner, the prohibition of swine's flesh, was designed to restrain the Jews from such lusts as war against the spirit, as pollute and debase human nature, like that creature's wallowing in the mire: for, as a learned author observes, the Jewish law was more remarkably strict in its prohibitions of things that were sordid and slovenly; wherein it seems to have had an especial aim to the training and forming of a people that had lived uncultivated, by reason of their long slavery in Egypt, and their dirty work in clay and bricks, to an elegancy and politeness of manners, as well as a detestation of all filthy and brutal lusts, that being set free from sin,' as the apostle expresses it, they might glorify God in purity and holiness, both in their bodies, and in their spirits, which were his.'

3

24

The same apostle, in his epistle to the Hebrews, has informed us, that the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God, did.' The Jewish high priest was a type of our blessed Saviour, and his entrance into the holy of holies, of our Lord's ascension into heaven, after his resurrection. The sacrifices which were offered under the Levitical law, were previous representations of the death of Christ; and the redemption of mankind by the effusion of his blood was exhibited every day in the several oblations in the tabernacle: for if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling

upon

31

What the sin of offering strange fire before the Lord was,' and upon what account it raised the divine indignation against Nadab and Abihu, the two sons of Aaron, will best appear by attending a little to the probable occasion of it. After the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priestly office, we are told, that a miraculous fire from the Lord,' that is, a fire which either came immediately down from heaven, or out of the cloud which covered the tabernacle, consumed the first victim which Aaron offered for a burnt-offering; that God had expressly commanded, that the fire which was upon the altar should not be suffered to go out,' which, according to the consent of most interpreters, signifies, that the said miraculous fire which had confirmed the installation of Aaron and his sons after so surprising a manner, should be kept alive, and burning with the utmost care; and that, as at this very fire, Aaron was required to light the incense which he offered to God in the most holy place, on the great day of expiation; so may we take it for granted, that the like injunction was imposed

7

7 Lev. xvi. 12.

A. M. 2514. A. C. 1490; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 3764. A. C. 1647. EXOD. xxxiv. 28—NUM. xviii.

on the inferior priests, with relation to the incense which | mand, and therefore it was just and requisite in God, they were to offer every day before God in the holy especially in the beginning of the priesthood, and when place. We have indeed no mention made of such a law; one alteration of a divine precept might, in process of but the history we are commenting upon gives us a time, be productive of many more, to inflict an exemstrong presumption, that the use of this fire only was plary punishment, that others might hear, and fear, and permitted; and therefore the words ' in the text, which not commit the like abomination.' he commanded them not,' is thought to imply an express prohibition of any other.

And for this reason, namely, the injection of terror. into others, Moses is commanded to make no lamentation or funeral pomp for them; which among the Jews, who, of all other nations, were so very sumptuous in their obsequies of their deceased friends, was accounted a sore judgment. In the case of Jehoiakim the king of Judah, the commination of God is thought very terrible. They shall not lament for him, saying, Ah! my brother, or ah! sister: they shall not lament for him, saying, ah! lord, or ah! his glory. He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn, and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem.' Temporal judgments, however, are not always sure indications of the final condemnation of the persons on whom they fall; and therefore Aaron had no

The crime then of Nadab and Abihu consisted in their kindling the incense, which their office of priests obliged them to offer every morning and evening, with fire different from that which was continually on the altar of burntofferings; and consequently different from what God ordered them to use. a Other offences indeed have been laid to their charge. Some pretend, that they endeavoured to intrude into the most holy place, which was not permitted them to enter; because immediately after the recital of the manner of their death, Moses, in another place relates, that God commanded him to speak anto Aaron, 2 That he should not come, at all times, into the holy place, within the veil, before the mercy-occasion utterly to despond: on the contrary, he might seat, that he died not;' but others insinuate, that they were guilty of intemperance, at the entertainment made at their installation, because after the account of their fatal end, Moses, by God's order, gives this injunction to Aaron, and the remainder of his sons: Do not drink wine, nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die. It shall be a statute for ever through your generations, that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, between unclean and clean.' But these are no more than bare surmises, that have no proper foundation in the foregoing texts; nor is there any occasion to hunt out for passages to augment these offenders' crime.

36

Nadab and Abihu had not only been admitted, in common with the rest of their brethren, to the honour of the priesthood, which among the Jews was a dignity of no small esteem; but had particular motives which the others had not, to the observance of all God's commandments, as having had the privilege of seeing the symbols of the divine presence, on the formidable mount from whence his laws were promulged, without being consumed. The higher therefore their station was, and the more distinguishing the favours they had received, the more provoking was their affront, in attempting to adulterate an ordinance of God's instituCommon fire, they thought, might serve the purpose of burning incense, as well as that which was held more sacred: at least, in the gaiety, or rather naughtiness of their hearts, they were minded to make the experiment, even in opposition to the divine com

tion.

presume that the justice of God being satisfied with the present punishment of his sons, might be appeased with relation to their eternal state; and that though their 6 flesh was destroyed, yet their spirits might be saved in the day of the Lord.' He knew too, how much himself had offended in the matter of the golden calf, and might justly think, that God had called his sin to remembrance in the destruction of his two sons. He acknowledged, therefore, the righteousness of God, in all that he had brought upon him, and in the phrase of Scripture, was dumb, and opened not his mouth, because it was the Lord's doing.'

76

What the occasion of the difference between Moses and his brother Aaron, and sister Miriam was, is not so very evident. The history indeed tells us, that they spake against Moses, because of the Ethiopian or rather Arabian woman, whom he had married.' The generality of interpreters suppose this woman to be Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro, whom he married in Midian; for those who imagine her to have been another, can hardly get over this difficulty,-Why Moses should set so bad an example as to marry, at two several times, a foreigner, rather than one of the daughters of his people. The first time, indeed, that he did so, was when he lived in a state of exile, but was nevertheless kindly received in a family of the best distinction in the place, which might be inducement enough for his matching himself with one of the daughters, since no express precept against matches of this kind was then in force. But now that he was set at the head of a people, who were to be separated from the rest of mankind, and was conducting them into a country, with whose inhabitants they were to have no matrimonial intercourse, for fear of introducing 3 Lev. x. 9, 10. a The author of the Connexion so often cited, supposes another idolatry, it would have been highly indecent and unpokind of innovation to have been the occasion of their untimely pular, an affront upon his own countrywomen, as well death. God as yet, says he, had given no law for the offering as a dangerous inlet to impiety, for him to have married of incense in censers: all that he had been commanded about it, was that Aaron should burn it upon the altar of incense' every morning and every evening; but these men took upou them to begin, and introduce a service into religion, which was not appointed, and which if it had been suffered, would have opened a door to great irregularities; and therefore God, by an exemplary judgment upon the first offenders, put an effectual stop to it.Shuckford, vol. iii. b. 11.

'Lev. x. 1.

Lev. xvi. 2.

into an idolatrous nation; nor would his brother and sister have been the only persons to clamour against him, but the whole congregation would have risen up in

Le Clerc's Commentary.
61 Cor. v. 5.
Ps. xxxix. 9.

Jer. xxii. 18, 19.
8 Num. xii. 1.

A. M. 2514. A. C. 1490; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 3764. A. C. 1647. EXOD. xxxiv. 28-NUM. xviii. arms, upon so notorious a provocation. Since, therefore, we hear of no such commotion, we may reasonably conclude, that this Cushite, or Arabian woman, was the same Zipporah, whom he had married some forty years before. But then why they should quarrel with him upon her account, at this time, and no sooner, is the difficulty.

26

Moses indeed inserts a passage to show that the occasion of this family quarrel was not from him; that he was a man of a meek and peaceable disposition; and therefore not addicted to strife and contention, especially with those of his own kindred; and why might he not insert this, when it was no more than what was due to his character, and perhaps at that time necessary for his own vindication? St Paul, to clear himself from some aspersions which the malice of his enemies had cast upon him, enters upon his own commendation, though it be with some reluctancy, and to give it a better gloss, tries all the powers of eloquence in working it up. Whereinsoever any is bold,' says he,' I speak foolishly, I am bold also. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. Are they ministers of Christ? I speak as a fool, I am more: In labours more abundant, in stripes above measure: In prisons more frequent: In deaths often.-In perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by my own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren: In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often; in hunger

Now, to resolve this, we must observe, that when Jethro, his father-in-law, was in the camp, it was by his advice that Moses' instituted judges to determine lesser causes; and that he found his son Hobab so very serviceable to him in the capacity of a camp-master-general, that he earnestly entreated him to continue with him, and received him, no doubt, into great confidence. It is to be observed farther, that in the foregoing chapter, we have an account of the creation of the office of the seventy elders to assist in the administration, and that these elders were nominated by Moses, without ever consulting Aaron or Miriam. As therefore this story of their quarrelling with him is immediately subjoined, it seems very likely, that taking themselves to be neglected, in so great an alteration made in the government without their advice, they were very angry; but not daring to charge Moses directly, they fell foul upon his wife, giving her oppro-and thirst, in fastings often; in cold and nakedness; brious names, and complaining to the people, very probably, that she and her brother had too much power and influence over Moses.

Josephus, in his Jewish history, makes no mention of this family difference, as thinking that it might reflect discredit upon his nation; but Moses was an author of more veracity than to conceal any action which was proper for mankind to know, even though it tended to the lasting disgrace of his own family. For he does not affect to aggrandize the thing, or to make his family appear more considerable, when he introduces God as arbitrating the difference between them; but purely to acquaint us, that as the Israelites lived then under a theocracy, God himself being their immediate King, undertook to decide the controversies depending upon such of his chief ministers as were not accountable to any other judge; nor was the divine Majesty any more debased in condescending to make this decision, than any earthly prince would be, by interposing his authority to determine a controversy between two of his great and powerful subjects.

Exod. xviii. 21, 22.

a Moses' words to Hobab are these: Leave us not, I pray thee, forasmuch as thou knowest how we are to encamp in the wilderness, and thou mayest be to us instead of eyes,' (Num. x. 31.) But if the being which resided in the miraculous cloud was their guide, what need was there for Hobab's stay? Now the design of the cloud was to direct the people when to decamp and where to encamp again: but for the securing of their camp against all hostile force, they were left to human means: and therefore Hobab, having lived long a borderer upon the wilderness, was well acquainted with every part of it, and the better able to advise them, both whence to provide themselves with such things as they wanted, and how to secure themselves against any neighbouring powers that should attempt to assault them; and for these reasons Moses was so pressing for his staying with him; though the Septuagint understand the passage as if he desired him to continue to be what he had hitherto been in the wilderness, namely, a good adviser, like his father Jethro, and withal assured him, that he would look upon him as an elder.— Patrick's Commentary.

besides those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.' These are the words of our apostle, setting off the faithful discharge of his ministry; and yet no one ever suspected the genuineness of this his epistle to the Corinthians upon that account: as little reason have we, therefore, to call in question the authenticity of this book of Moses, because we find a passage or two that speaks favourably of him.

That all historians, both ancient and modern, when they come to speak of the part and concern they had in such and such actions, are commonly accustomed to speak in the third person; and that the most modest man upon earth may sometimes see occasion to magnify his office, or vindicate himself, without deserving the imputation of vanity or arrogance, cannot be denied. Now, considering what share it was that Moses himself bore in the facts which he relates, and that the narrations, laws, and admonitions which he recorded, were not designed for that age only, but directed to all succeeding generations of the world; and withal considering, that the seditious and turbulent behaviour of his brother and sister at that time obliged him to justify and clear himself; there was no imaginable way more proper for him to express himself in, than that which he made use of, even had it been a matter of his own study and contrivance: but then, if we suppose that he wrote by divine inspiration, the commendation that is given of his natural lenity and good nature, must be looked upon rather as the Holy Ghost's testimony concerning Moses, than Moses' testimony concerning himself.

Though Moses was certainly a good-natured man, and therefore could not live long at variance with his brother Aaron, yet we can hardly suppose, that his love and affection for him would ever prevail with him to enter into any fraudulent measures, in order to raise him to the pontificate. The rod which gave Aaron the preference, was not, as we noted before, Moses' wonder

2 Cor. xi. 21, &c.

A. M. 2514. A. C. 1490; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 3764. A. C. 1647. EXOD. xxxiv. 28-NUM. xviii.

working rod, but, in all probability, one of the same tree | diation of Moses' face, when he came down from the from whence the princes of the other tribes cut theirs. mount, introduced the custom among the heathens, of All these rods, with the names of the several tribes adorning the images of their gods and heroes with a engraved upon them, were delivered to Moses in the face beamy glory about their heads; that the veneration paid of the whole congregation, and by him were instantly to his wonder-working rod, established an usage which carried into the tabernacle: and that he did not palm upon prevails almost every where, for the great ministers of the people, when his back was turned, and put an almond state to carry in their hands wands, as ensigns of their twig into the place of Aaron's rod, is evident from what office, whenever they appear at court; and that the budis related of it, namely, that it had leaves, buds, blos-ding of his brother Aaron's rod, in all probability, gave soms, and ripe fruit upon it, all at one time, which no rise to the fable of Hercules' club, when left in the tree of any kind ever was known to have before.