Ver. 2. And under every green tree— The use of sacred groves for the celebration of mysteries is of very great antiquity, and, perhaps, of all others, the most universal. At first, there were in these groves neither temples nor altars; they were simple retreats, to which there was no access for the profane, i.e. such as were not devoted to the service of the gods. Afterwards they built chapels and temples in them: in future times they became extremely frequented on holidays; and, after the celebration of the mysteries, public entertainments, accompanied with dancing, were held in them. See Tibullus, lib. 1: Elegy 11: ver. 51. They decked these groves with flowers, chaplets, garlands, and nosegays, and hung them about with donations and offerings, most lavishly, says Abbe Banier, in his Mythol. b. 3: ch. 7 on the sacred groves. See also Callimachus's Hymn to Diana, ver. 200 and Spanheim's note.

Ver. 4. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God— That is, "Ye shall not adore him upon mountains, upon hills, and under every green tree; but you shall serve him publicly in one place which he shall choose." That this is the sense, appears from the following verse. Notwithstanding this prohibition, the sacred history shews us how prone the Israelites were to choose mountains and groves for the places of their worship, and therein to set up images, after the example of their heathen neighbours. 2 Kings 17:10-11.Ezekiel 20:28; Ezekiel 20:28. Hosea 4:13.

Ver. 8. Every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes— While the Israelites in the wilderness were destitute of many things requisite to the exact performance of all their sacred rites, and not yet sufficiently accustomed to the yoke of their new laws, they were excused from the observance of many of them. We have several proofs of this, particularly the total neglect of circumcision during the whole space of the forty years in the wilderness, though it had been carefully observed in Egypt: but that, in all the parts of their conduct, they were left every man to do what was right in his own eyes, is sufficiently contradicted from the former part of this history. Thus we find blasphemy, and a violation of the sabbath, punished, Lev. 35:23. Num 15:32 no less than the mutinous attempt to wrest the priesthood from Aaron's family. Moses, therefore, as the context abundantly proves, has an immediate regard, in these words, to the performance of their duties at the place which God should choose, to the payment of tithes, and such other things as belonged to the priests and Levites. In a word, the meaning is, that, in their present ambulatory and uncertain state, they could not practise those precepts which were annexed to the land, and required a settled condition. See Calmet and Le Clerc. In which view of the text, one cannot help reading, with astonishment, the very absurd deduction and false quotation made by Voltaire in the 12th chapter of his Treatise on Toleration.

Ver. 11. Thither shall ye bring all that I command— Maimonides observes, that one design of this institution was, to teach the Israelites not to have too high an opinion of sacrifices, since they were not of such account in the sight of God as to be accepted everywhere; but were limited to one place, and to be offered only by one family. Prayers and praises, which were the essentials of religion, might be offered up everywhere; but sacrifices, and other ceremonies of worship, being appointed, not for any good in themselves, but only to reclaim the people from idolatry, and to establish the belief of the unity of God, were only acceptable when offered at the sanctuary of Jehovah. Hence the prophets are so zealous in reproving the Jews for their laying a stress upon sacrifices, as, of themselves, available toward procuring the favour of God; whilst they neglect the study of real holiness, which is the end of all those institutions. 1 Samuel 15:22.Isaiah 1:11; Isaiah 1:11.Jeremiah 7:22-23; Jeremiah 7:22-23. See More Nevoch. pars 3: cap. 32.

Ver. 15. Notwithstanding, thou mayest kill and eat flesh, &c.— During their encampments and travels in the wilderness, it was enacted, that all the beasts that were to be slain by any Israelite, for the use of his family, should be first presented to God at the tabernacle, by way of peace-offering, and there slain; Leviticus 22:1; Lev 22:33 which was no inconvenience to them, as the tabernacle was very near: but it is here allowed, that, after their settlement in Canaan, every householder may kill provision for his family at home, and in any place, without being obliged to bring any part of it to the altar; for, when their border was enlarged, the tabernacle must have been at so great a distance from some of them, that it would have been too heavy a burden to oblige them to kill every thing they ate at the tabernacle. They are, therefore, permitted to kill and eat flesh as they please, according to the blessing of the Lord: i.e. in a manner suitable to their state, and to the blessings which God had given them.
As of the roe-buck, and as of the hart— Why not as of an ox, or a lamb, for they were of more familiar use? The reason is plain; because, (Leviticus 12.) to prevent idolatry, in offering of the blood to other gods, they were commanded to kill all the cattle they ate, at the door of the tabernacle, as a peace-offering, and sprinkle the blood on the altar. But wild beasts which were clean might be eaten, though their blood was not offered to God, ver. 13 because, being commonly killed before they were taken, their blood could not be sprinkled on the altar; and therefore it sufficed, in such cases, to pour out their blood wherever they were killed, and cover it with dust. And, for the same reason, when the camp was broken up, wherein all the people were in the neighbourhood of the tabernacle, and when they were scattered in their habitations through all the land of Canaan, those who were too far off from the temple were excused from killing their tame cattle at Jerusalem, and sprinkling their blood on the altar: no more was required of them than was required in killing a roe-buck, or any other clean wild beast.

Ver. 16. Ye shall pour it, &c.— That is, they might pour it out with as little religious ceremony as water.

Ver. 17. Thou mayest not eat within thy gates— A free dispensation being given them to eat their common food without religious ceremonies, it is here enjoined what they were to eat with such ceremonies. The tithe here means, as in the 2nd verse, the second tithe. As the firstlings of their cattle were to be given to the priests, Num 18:15 and of course might not be eaten by the owners, anywhere, interpreters are of opinion, that firstlings here must mean, either 1. Females; for the males only are offered to God: or, 2. Such as, after setting aside their first-born, were then by the owner dedicated to God; for, as the tithe here is to be understood of the second tithe, so may the firstlings be understood in a like sense: or, 3. The word, which we render firstlings, may signify the fattest and best; for it sometimes denotes the most excellent in its kind; as the first-born of death is a very great and incurable disease: Job 18:13 so the poorest of all mortals are called the first-born of the poor; Isaiah 14:30. See Calmet and Le Clerc.

Ver. 21. If the place— Because the place: Houb. כי ki, says he, should be rendered quia or quippe cum.

Ver. 23. Eat not the blood— This is, says Mr. Locke, in opposition to the Zabii: for though, continues he, as Dr. Cudworth has remarked, blood was very impure and unclean in the sight of the Zabii, yet, notwithstanding, it was eaten by them, because they thought it to be the food of the daemons, and that he who ate it, had, by that means, some communication with those daemons; so that they conversed more familiarly with them, and shewed them future things.

Ver. 27. The blood of thy sacrifices— i.e. Of the peace-offerings; (see on ver. 6.) for of these sacrifices only the people were allowed to eat.

Ver. 30. Enquire not after their gods, &c.— The pretentious of the heathen deities, as Bishop Warburton observes, being mutually acknowledged by their distinct and proper followers; and some, by the fortunate circumstances of these followers, being risen into superior same, the rites used in their worship were eagerly sought for and imitated. It was likewise a general principle, that the local god was to have a necessary share in the worship of all who settled in the country; and those who were loth to leave their paternal gods when they sought new settlements, at least held themselves obliged to worship them with the rites, and according to the usages of the country which they came to inhabit. Against this more qualified principle of paganism, Moses thinks fit to caution the Israelites in this and the subsequent verses. Div. Leg. vol. 4: p. 40.

Ver. 31. Their sons and their daughters they have burnt, &c.— To what we have said of this horrid custom on Leviticus 20:1; Lev 20:27 we shall only add, that it was notoriously practised by the Carthaginians, who, it is certain, derived it from the Phoenicians, the ancient inhabitants of Canaan; and at last it overspread all nations, and prevailed even among the refined Greeks themselves. See Banier's Mythol. book 3: ch. 10. But what is more surprising, we find the Israelites themselves, notwithstanding this admonition, seduced to commit the same abomination; Psalms 106:37-38. Ezekiel 37:28. Dr. Chandler, in his Vindication, justly observes, that though several instances of such inhuman offerings are to be found among the Phoenicians, Greeks, and others, yet they do not appear to have been sacrifices freely made, but with the utmost horror and reluctance, by the order of their priests, or the supposed command of their gods, or through the compulsion of some extreme necessity, and to avoid some dreadful calamity. Thus the king of Moab, in the distress of a grievous war, took his eldest son, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. 2 Kings 3:27. See Jac. Gensius, de Victim. Human. pars i. c. 11. et alibi.

Ver. 32. Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it— See on chap. Deuteronomy 4:2. One would wonder, says Bishop Patrick, that so learned a man as Maimonides should have laboured to prove from this the immutability of the law of Moses. It is strange that he could not see, what some of his brethren have seen, that though God did not permit the Israelites to alter these laws, he bound not up Himself from changing them; this another Jewish writer very well illustrates: "A physician prescribes a diet to his patient for such a time as he judges convenient, which he does not declare to the sick man; but when the time comes that the physician hath obtained his end, he changes the diet, permits the patient what he formerly forbade, and prohibits that which he formerly permitted." This exactly agrees with what our Blessed Saviour has done.
REFLECTIONS.—As nothing would preserve them more effectually from idolatry than forbidding all sacrifices and public offerings, except in one place under the immediate eye of God's ministers, we have this again and again inculcated. 1. God's promises, when they were in quiet possession of the land, to choose the place where he would put his name, erect his tabernacle, and manifest his presence in the divine Shechinah. He left not the place to their option, lest they should dispute about the choice; nor mentions it as yet, because it was enough for them to know his pleasure now, and they should have farther direction when it was needful. Blessed be God! all distinctions of place in Christ Jesus are now destroyed; every where we may have access to a throne of grace, and find our services accepted in the Redeemer. 2. When the place was fixed, they must there offer their sacrifices; and all their holy things must be eaten there, before the Lord, with joy and gladness of heart, by them and their families. God's service is delightful: to be melancholy, is to dishonour it. Religion was designed to be our pleasure, not our burden. 3. Though all their devoted things might only be eaten before the Lord, no restraint is said upon them respecting common and allowed meats: they might kill and eat without reserve, and both the unclean and the clean might eat them alike; with this proviso, that they lived according to the blessing of God upon them, neither luxuriously extravagant, nor penuriously saving. Excess and covetousness are alike dishonourable to God. He gives us his blessings richly to enjoy; and whilst he would have us eat our bread and drink our wine with a cheerful heart, he wills that we should use his gifts with that sobriety and temperance, which may satisfy our natural appetite, without making provision for our sinful lusts.