Leviticus 24
We now come to the third part of the external service of God, which will bring us to the end of our exposition of the Second Commandment. We have, then, now to treat of the sacred oblations, the first place amongst which I have thought it best to give to the loaves, which had their peculiar table opposite the candlestick on the north side, as we saw in the construction of the Tabernacle; for although the mention of them will recur elsewhere, yet, since they were offered separately, and placed before the Ark of the Covenant, as it were in God’s sight, they must not be treated of apart from the sacrifices. I have already explained that this was no ordinary symbol of God’s favor, when He descended familiarly to them, as if He were their messmate. They were called “the bread of faces,” ▼
The custom of sacrificing has always been in use among all nations, and its origin is doubtless to be traced to the ancient Fathers; but after the whole world had fallen away into superstition, first of all, the rites themselves became degenerate, when every one invented something new for himself, and made an absurd mimicry of whatever remained having any similarity, since they no longer retained their proper end and use. All heathendom was ignorant of the reason why it was needful that God should be appeased by blood; and therefore they shed the blood of their victims unreasonably, inasmuch as they did not know themselves to be guilty before God, so as humbly to seek for pardon; and much less did they apply their minds to embrace the atonement, which was not only predestinated in God’s secret counsels, but likewise promised to men. Hence we infer that all the religious services of the Gentiles were rejected of God, ( reprobatos,) since they were not based upon His word. Only let this be deemed sure, that, by the very custom of sacrifice, adulterated as it was, they were convicted of their own unworthiness, so that they should have acknowledged that God can only be propitiated towards the human race through the medium of a reconciliation. Foolish, then, was the philosophy of Pythagoras, which held that God’s name was contaminated by sacrifices; for thus does the Poet introduce him, inveighing against the eating of flesh, ( εἰς τὴν σαρκοφαγίαν ) "Nor will the sin itself their hearts content: The very gods must share that guilty deed, And He, they think, who reigns omnipotent, Joys to behold the patient victim bleed. Spotless it stands, of perfect form confess’d, (Its beauty nerves the hand which else might spare,) Before the shrine, with gold and fillets dress’d, And all unconscious, hears its murderer’s prayer. It sees the fruits itself has toiled to rear Placed on its horned brow; and as the blow Descends, perchance the blood-stained knives appear, Mirror’d before it in the streamlet’s flow.” ▼
10. And the son of an Israelitish woman. In what year, and in what station in the desert this occurred, is uncertain. I have, therefore, thought it advisable to couple together two cases, which are not dissimilar. It is probable that between this instance of punishment, and that which will immediately follow, there was an interval of some time: but the connection of two similar occurrences seemed best to preserve the order of the history; one of the persons referred to having been stoned for profaning God’s sacred name by wicked blasphemy, and the other for despising and violating the Sabbath. It is to be observed that the crime of the former of these gave occasion to the promulgation of a law, which we have expounded elsewhere: ▼▼ לחם-פנים “ panes facierum.” In Exodus 25:30, as in several other places, the shew-bread of A. V. is a translation of these words. — W
because they were placed before the eyes of God; and thus He made known His special favor, as if coming to banquet with them. Nor can it be doubted but that He commanded them to be twelve in number, with reference to the twelve tribes, as if He would admit to His table the food offered by each of them. The “two tenths” make the fifth part of the epah. And it is plaia indeed that this rite was thus accurately prescribed by God, lest diversity in so serious a matter might gradually give birth to many corruptions. In the word “tenths,” He seems to allude to the tax which He had imposed on the people, that thus the holiness of the loaves might be enhanced. But why He required two “tenths” rather than one I know not, nor do I think it any use more curiously to inquire. I refer to the frankincense the words, “that it may be on the bread for a memorial:” as if it were said that the bread, seasoned by the smell of the incense, would renew the memory of the children of Israel, so that they should be of sweet savor before God. Others translate it “a monument” instead of “for a memorial,” but with the same meaning. But although some think that the bread itself is called a memorial, it is more applicable to the frankincense; for it is afterwards added, that the incense should be at the same time a burnt sacrifice, viz., because in it the bread was, as it were, offered in burnt sacrifice. Sacrifices Exodus 29 | Exodus 29:38-46 | |
| 38. Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. | 38. Hoc est quod facies super altare, agnos anniculos jugiter in singulos dies. |
| 39. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even: | 39. Agnum unum facies mane, et agnum unum inter duas vesperas. |
| 40. And with the one lamb a tenth-deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering. | 40. Et decimam partem similae mistae oleo contuso, quartam partem hin et libamen, quartam partem hin vini in agnam unum. |
| 41. And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat offering of the morning, and according to the drink offering thereof, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD. | 41. Agnum alterum facies inter duas vesperas sicut minha matutino, et sicut libamini ejus facies ei in odorem quietis, oblationem ignitam Jehovae. |
| 42. This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee. | 42. Holocaustum juge in generationes vestras, ad ostium tabernaculi conventionis coram Jehova, quo conveniam vobiscum nt tecum loquar. |
| 43. And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory. | 43. Et conveniam illie cum filiis Israel, et locus sanctificabitur in gloria mea. |
| 44. And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest’s office. | 44. Sanctificabo tabernaculum conventionis et altare, Aharonem quoque et filios ejus, et sacrificia, ut sacerdotio fungantur mihi. |
| 45. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. | 45. Habitaboqne in medio filiorum Israel, et ero ipsis in Deum. |
| 46. And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God. | 46. Et scient quod sum Jehova Dens eorum, qui eduxi eos e terra AEgypti: ut habitarem in medio eorum. Ego Jehova Deus eorum |
▼ Ovid Metam. 15:127. The version here attempted is at least literal. That in Garth’s Translation, though sanctioned by a great name, is but a poor paraphrase. The Fr. omits the whole quotation. The original stands thus, — " Nec satis est quod tale nefas committitur: ipsos Inscripsêre deos sceleri, numenque supernum Ctede laboriferi credunt gaudere juvenci. Victima labe carens, et prtestantissima form’a, (Nam placuisse nocet) vittis prsesignis et auro Sistitur ante aras, auditque ignara precantem; Imponique sum videt inter cornua fronti Quas colttit fruges: percussaque sanguine cultros Inficit in liquid& prmvisos forsitan unda."
He ▼▼ “ Ce fantastique, etc.” — Fr.
was pained that an innocent animal should be slain for man’s sin; but he might have considered, what it was gross ignorance not to feel, that men are but too impudently audacious and foolhardy if they come into God’s presence to ask His pardon, seeing that He is justly offended with them all. There is, therefore, nothing absurd in submitting to the eyes of sinners that judgment of death which they deserve, in order that, descending into themselves, they may begin seriously to abominate the sin in which they fondly indulged themselves. But this was the chief cause of the error of Pythagoras, that he knew not that God could not be reconciled without an expiation. Since, however, this is a thing which is beyond the reach of the human mind, let us, who have ever truly sought after God, learn, under the guidance and teaching of Scripture, that He has appointed the propitiation to be by blood; so that, before the delivery of the Law, religion was always sanctioned by sacrifices. Nor can it be doubted but that by the sacred inspiration of the Spirit, the holy fathers were directed to the Mediator, by whose death God was hereafter to be appeased; and surely if Christ be put out of sight, all the sacrifices that may be offered differ in no respect from mere profane butchery. But afterwards a clearer revelation was added in the Law; and since many modes of sacrificing were heaped together by the Gentiles, God left out no part of them at all which might afford a profitable exercise for believers, whether their piety was to be testified, or thanksgivings to be made, or zeal to be added to their prayers, or purification to be sought, or sins to be atoned for. Yet the twofold division of them is complete and clear when we say that some of them were expiatory, and others testimonies of gratitude. Thus, under the first head I include the rites of consecration, by which God would have the priests initiated, since purification was their main object. Moreover, since it is plain that God can listen to no prayers without the intercession of Christ, the constant morning and evening sacrifice was instituted to consecrate the prayers of the Church; and, even when they only celebrated the bounties of God, blood was shed, that they might know that not even their gratitude was acceptable to Him, except through the sacrifice of the Mediator; in a word, that nothing pure can proceed from men unless purged by blood.▼ See vol. 2, p. 431, on Leviticus 24:15, 16.
in accordance with the common proverb, Good laws spring from bad habits: for, after punishment had been inflicted on this blasphemer, Moses ordained that none should insult the name of God with impunity. It was providentially ordered by God that the earliest manifestation of this severity should affect the son of an Egyptian: for, inasmuch as God thus harshly avenged the insult of His name upon the offspring of a foreigner and a heathen, far less excusable was impiety in Israelites, whom God had, as it were, taken up from their mothers’ womb, and had brought them up in His own bosom. It is true, indeed, that on his mother’s side he had sprung from the chosen people, but, being begotten by an Egyptian father, he could not be properly accounted an Israelite. If, then, there had been any room for the exercise of pardon, a specious reason might have been alleged why forgiveness should be more readily extended to a man of an alien and impure origin. The majesty of God’s name, however, was ratified by his death. Hence it follows that it is by no means to be permitted that God’s name should be exposed with impunity to blasphemies among the sons of the Church. We may learn from this passage that during their tyrannical oppression many young women married into the Egyptian nation, in order that their affinity might protect their relatives from injuries. It might, however, have been the case that love for his wife attracted the father of this blasphemer into voluntary exile, unless, perhaps, his mother might have been a widow before the departure of the people, so as to be at liberty to take her son with her. To proceed, he is said to have “gone out,” not outside the camp, but in public, so that he might be convicted by witnesses; for he would not have been brought to trial if his crime had been secretly committed within the walls of his own house. This circumstance is also worthy of remark, that, although the blasphemy had escaped him in a quarrel, punishment was still inflicted upon him; and assuredly it is a frivolous subterfuge to require that blasphemies should be pardoned on the ground that they have been uttered in anger; for nothing is more intolerable than that our wrath should vent itself upon God, when we are angry with one of our fellow-creatures. Still it is usual, when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on the ebullition of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked. The verb נקב, nakab, which some render to express, is here rather used for to curse, or to transfix; and the metaphor is an appropriate one, that God’s name should be said to be transfixed, when it is insultingly abused. ▼▼ See vol. 2, p. 431, and note. “La similitude de transpercer le nom de Dieu convient tres bien; pource que nous disons deschirer par pieces ou despiter.” — Fr.
13. And the Lord spoke unto Moses. It must be remembered, then, that this punishment was not inflicted upon the blasphemer by man’s caprice, or the headstrong zeal of the people, but that Moses was instructed by Divine revelation what sentence was to be pronounced. It has been elsewhere stated ▼
▼ Vol. 2, p. 83, on Deuteronomy 13:9.
why God would have malefactors slain by the hands of the witnesses. Another ceremony is here added, viz., that they should lay their hands upon his head, as if to throw the whole blame upon him. Numbers 15 | Numbers 15:32-36 | |
| 32. And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath-day. | 32. Quum autem essent filii Israel in deserto, invenerunt virum colligentem ligna die Sabbathi: |
| 33. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. | 33. Et adduxerunt illum qui invenerunt colligentem ligna, ad Mosen et Aharon, et universam congregationem. |
| 34. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. | 34. Qui posuerunt eum in custodiam: quia nondum patefactum erat quid faciendum esset ei. |
| 35. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. | 35. Et dixit Jehova ad Mosen, Moriendo moriatur vir ille: lapidet eum lapidibus universa congregatio extra castra. |
| 36. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses. | 36. Eduxerunt ergo eum congregatio extra castra, et lapidaverunt eum lapidibus, et mortuus est, quemadmodum praeceperat Jehova Mosi. |
15. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. Hence it now more clearly appears that the object of the Third Commandment was that God’s holy name should be honored with the respect and veneration which it deserves, since the insult whereby it is violated is condemned to capital punishment. By the expression “cursing,” Moses designates all profane and impure words which tend to brand it with dishonor; as if any one should accuse God either of injustice or cruelty; or should assail Him with blasphemies; or designedly detract from His glory either in anger or wantonness, since many, when exasperated, launch forth horrible blasphemies, whilst others make a parade of their audacity by scoffing at Him. The second verb, which is twice repeated in the next verse, נקב, nakab, ▼
its repetition Deuteronomy 5
17. And he that killeth any man. We now proceed to the confirmation of the Sixth Commandment afforded by the Judicial Law; and first, the punishment of death is awarded to murderers. To “smite the life” ▼▼ Here C. again gives an opinion as to the best way of rendering נקב in this passage, for which he is not indebted to S.M.; and modern lexicographers have given their sanction to C.’s view. — W
means in Hebrew to hollow out or perforate, and metaphorically to unfold, thus the Latins say that what is thoroughly brought out is “enucleated.” The source of the metaphor as applied to contumely is not very dissimilar. The translation “he who shall have expressed,” which some give, is lame; to me the word “transfix” seems to be very suitable in the present passage, nor are the Latin phrases proscindere or lacerate very different. As to the meaning there is tolerable agreement, i.e., that God would not have His holy name disrespectfully traduced; and assuredly it is insupportably impious when the tongue of mortal man, which was created to celebrate the praises of God, is employed in insulting Him. The kind of death is also appointed, when He commands the offender to be stoned by the whole people, so that all may learn from the sight that such a monster should be annihilated as contaminating the earth. God also would prove the zeal of His people, by calling them all forth in defense of His glory, and arming them for vengeance. Moreover, He did not subject to this punishment the Jews only, who professed to be His worshippers, but also strangers who were dwelling in the land in the exercise of their business; viz., that they might more severely punish the crime in His own servants who were less excusable. The Fourth Commandment Exodus 20 | Exodus 20:8-11 | |
| 8. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. | 8. Recordare diei Sabbathi, ut sanctifices eum: |
| 9. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: | 9. Sex diebus operaberis et facies universum opus tuum. |
| 10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: | 10. Dies autem septimus Sabbathum Jehovae Dei tui est. Non facies ullum opus, tu, et filius tuus, et filia tua, servus tuus, et ancilla tua, et inquilinus tuus qui est in portis tuis: |
| 11. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. | 11. Quoniam sex diebus fecit Jehova coelum et terram, mare et quaecunque in illis sunt, et quievit die septimo: propterea benedixit Jehova diem sabbathi, et sanctificavit eum. |
| Deuteronomy 5:12-15 | |
| 12. Keep the sabbath-day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. | 12. Observa diem Sabbathi ut eum sanctifices, quemadmodum praecepit Jehova Deus tuus. |
| 13. Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: | 13. Sex diebus operaberis, et facies universum opus tuum: dies autem septimus sabbathum est Jehovae Dei tui. |
| 14. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. | 14. Non facies ullum opus tu, et filius tuns, et asinus tuus, quodvis jumentum tuum, et inquilinus tuus qui est in portis tuis, ut quiescat servus tuus et ancilla tua sicut tu. |
| 15. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. | 15. Ac recordare quod servus fueris in terra Aegypti, et eduxerit to Jehova Deus tuus inde per manum fortem et brachium extentum. Idcirco praecepit Jehova Deus tuus ut facias diem sabbathi. |
▼ See margin of A. V.
is equivalent to wounding mortally, so that death ensues, as Moses more clearly explains himself in Exodus. But although he speaks briefly, like a legislator, there is no doubt but that he would have those whom he adjudges to die put to death by the sentence of the judges; the manner of executing the punishment we shall see in its proper place. Now although God did not carry out to absolute perfection the laws which He enacted, yet in their principle He desired that a clear and unreserved approval of His Commandments should appear. And this was the reason why I commenced with this passage, because it directly corresponds with the Sixth Commandment. ▼▼ Lat., “quia praecepto respondet quasi ἀντίςροφος.”
God here prescribes, that whosoever has inflicted a loss upon another shall make satisfaction for it, although he may not have turned it to his own profit; for in respect to a theft, its profit is not to be considered, but the intention to injure, or other cause of guilt; for it might happen that he who has killed another’s ox should not deliberately desire to do him an injury, but in a fit of passion, or from unpremeditated impulse, should nevertheless have inflicted loss upon him. In whatever way, therefore, a man should have committed an offense, whereby another is made poorer, he is commanded to make good the loss. Whence it is clear, that whosoever do not so restrain themselves as to care for a neighbor’s advantage as much as for their own, are accounted guilty of theft before God. The object, however, of the law is, that no one should suffer loss by us, which will be the case if we have regard to the good of our brethren. Exodus 21
19. And if man cause a blemish in his neighbor, he now also subjects to punishment those who shall have mutilated the body of their neighbor by blows; and this was necessary, because otherwise every very great villain, who might be accomplished in the art of inflicting injury, would have broken his brother’s leg or arm, and then would not only have laughed at the poor man himself, but also at God and His Law. If, therefore, a person had injured a member of another, the law of retaliation is enacted, which has also been in use among other nations. ▼| Exodus 21:33-36 | |
| 33. And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein; | 33. Quum aperuerit quis cisternam, vel foderit quis cisternam, et non cooperuerit eam: cecideritque illuc bos vel asinus: |
| 34. The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his. | 34. Dominns cisternae reddet pecuniam, et restituet domino ejus: et quod mortuum est, erit illius. |
| 35. And if one man’s ox hurt another’s, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide. | 35. Si percusserit bos alicujus bovem proximi sui, mortuusque fuerit, tunc vendet bovem vivum, et partientur pretium ejus: mortuum quoque partientur. |
| 36. Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own. | 36. Quod si notum fuerit bovem esse cornupetam ab heri et nudiustertius, et non custodierit eum dominus ejus, reddendo reddet bovem pro bove, et mortuus erit illius. |
▼ This is the earliest account we have of the Lex Talionis, or law of like for like, which afterwards prevailed among the Greeks and Romans. Among the latter it constituted a part of the Twelve Tables, so famous in antiquity; but the punishment was afterwards changed to a pecuniary fine, to be levied at the discretion of the Praetor. It prevails less or more in most civilized countries, and is fully acted upon in the Canon Law in reference to all calumniators: “Clumniator, si in accusatione defecerit, talionem recipiat.” Nothing, however, of this kind was left to private revenge; the magistrate awarded the punishment when the fact was proved. Otherwise the Lex Talionis would have utterly destroyed the peace of society, and have sowed the seeds of hatred, revenge, and all uncharitableness.” — Adam Clarke on Exodus 21:24. The enactment of the Twelve Tables to this effect appears from Festus to have been the following: “Si merebrum rupsit, (ruperit,) ni cum eo pacit, (paciscetur,) talio est;” presenting a singular coincidence with the Mosaic provision. See Aul. Gell., lib. 20 c. 1, where the words are given somewhat differently, as in C.’s text. The objection of Favorinus is that it was impossible to be kept; for if the like were inflicted for the like, as one wound for another, they must take care that the like wound in every respect should be made, neither longer nor deeper; if it were, then a new retaliation must arise, and so ad infinitum.
But God thus distinctly prescribes when and how the injury was to be retaliated, that the law might not be open at all to the foolish cavils with which Favorinus attacks the law of the Twelve Tables in Gellius. And certainly the words of the Decemvirs were too obscure, “Si membrum fregeris meum, ex pacto talio est.” (If you have broken my limb; without agreement made, there must be retaliation.) But God does not command an eye to be plucked out for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth, till He has set forth that this was only to be the case if any one had knowingly and willfully inflicted the injury; thus, He does not bring to justice accidental blows, but only a premeditated crime. It is vain to object that the members of different persons can hardly be broken with exact. equality, for the intention of God was none other than that, being alarmed by the severity of the punishment, men should abstain from injuring others; and therefore these two things were connected together, If one killeth a man, let him die, and if one hath taken away a part of life, let him suffer a similar privation. And the same is the tendency of the distinction, that the loss of an animal may be repaid, but that if a man be killed, there could be no just compensation made by money. 22. Ye shall have one manner of law. That the people of Israel, with their usual arrogance, might not suppose the race of Abraham only to be privileged, the Law is extended also to foreigners; and thus God shows that the whole body of the human race are under His care, so that He would not have those that are farthest off exposed to the licentious violence of the ungodly. In other points tie provided special privileges for His elect people; but here, because He created all men without exception after His own image, He takes them under His care and protection, so that none might injure them with impunity. Exodus 21
| Exodus 21:12-14, 18-32 | |
| 12. He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. | 12. Qui percusserit virum ad mortem, morte moriatur. |
| 13. And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. | 13. At qui non insidiatus fuerit ei, sed tradiderit illum Deus in manus ejus, tunc dabo locum ad quem fugiet. |
| 14. But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. | 14. Sin vero insultando se extulerit quispiam in proximum suum, ut occidat eum malitiose, ab altari meo tolles eum ut moriatur. |
| 18. And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed; | 18. Quod si rixati fuerint aliqui, et percusserit alter proximum suum lapide vel pugno, nec mortuus fuerit, sed jacuerit in lecto: |
| 19. If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. | 19. Si surrexerit, et ambulaverit foris super baculum suum, tunc innocens erit qui percussit, tantum cessationem ejus pensabit: et medendo medicandum curabit |
| 20. And if a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. | 20. Quum percusserit quispiam servum suum vel ancillam suam baculo, et mortuus fuerit sub manu ejus, vindicando vindicabitur. |
| 21. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. | 21. Veruntamen si per diem vel duos dies steterit, non vindicabitur, quia pecunia ejus est. |
| 22. If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart. from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine | 22. Quum autem rixati fuerint viri, et percusserint mulierem praegnantem ut egrediatur foetus ejus, nec tamen sequatur mors, puniendo punietur quemadmodum imposuerit ei maritus mulieris, et solvet apud judices. |
| 23. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, | 23. Quod si mors fuerit, tunc dabis animam pro anima, |
| 24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, | 24. Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente, manum pro manu, pedem pro pede, |
| 25. Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. | 25. Adustionem pro adustione, vulnus pro vulnere, livorem pro livore. |
| 26. And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. | 26. Quum autem percusserit quispiam oculum servi sui, vel oculum ancillae suae, et corruperit eum, liberum dimittet eum pro oculo ejus. |
| 27. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maid-servant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake. | 27. Quod si dentem servi sui, vel dentem ancillae suae excusserit: liberum dimittet eum pro dente ejus. |
| 28. If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. | 28. Si cornu petierit bos virum aut mulierem ut moriatur, lapidando lapidabitur bos, neque comedetur caro ejus: dominus autem bovis erit innocens. |
| 29. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. | 29. Quod si bos cornupeta fuerit ab heri et nudiustertius, et contestatio facta fuerit domino ejus, nec custodierit eum, occidendo autem occiderit virum vel mulierem, bos lapidabitur, et dominus quoque ejus morietur. |
| 30. If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give, for the ransom of his life, whatsoever is laid upon him. | 30. Si pretium redemptionis impositum fuerit ei, tunc dabit redemptionem animae suae quantum impositum fuerit ei. |
| 31. Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. | 31. Sive filium cornu petierit, sive filiam, secundum judicium hoc fiet ei. |
| 32. If the ox shall push a manservant, or maid-servant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall he stoned. | 32. Si servum bos cornu petierit, vel ancillam, argenti triginta siclos dabit domino ejus, et bos the lapidabitur. |
Copyright information for
CalvinCommentaries