Deuteronomy 17:16

Ver. 16. He shall not multiply horses to himself— The injunction here laid being to prevent all commerce with Egypt, we must conclude that Egypt supplied other nations with horses; but it may give light to the sacred text, to inquire more particularly into the reasons of this prohibition, which we shall find so weighty and various, as to appear worthy of its author, and accommodated only to a law of divine origin. The first reason, which was expressly delivered with the law, is, properly, religious. Now this is, that the king should not establish a body of cavalry, because that could not be effected without sending into Egypt, with which people the Lord had forbidden any communication. When Solomon had violated this law, and multiplied horses, it was soon attended with those fatal consequences which the law foretold. Isaiah, with his usual majesty, denounces the mischiefs of this traffic, and foretels, that one of the good effects of leaving it would be the forsaking of their idolatries. Isaiah 4:6; Isaiah 4:6. The second reason against multiplying horses, may have been, properly, political. The Israelites, separated by God for his peculiar people, under his government as king, must necessarily have been designed for one certain country: accordingly, the land of Canaan was marked out for their proper inheritance: within those limits they were to be confined, it being foreign to the nature of their institution to make conquests, or to extend their dominion; but the expulsion of the seven nations being to be effected by the extraordinary assistance of their king JEHOVAH, their successes must of course be full and rapid. But nothing is so impatient of bounds as a multitude flushed with victories: the projects of such a people are always going on from conquest to conquest. Now, to defeat this so natural a disposition in a nation not designed for empire, a law is given against multiplying horses, than which nothing can be conceived more effectual. The country which confined them was rocky and mountainous, and therefore unfit for the breed and support of horses: besides, when they had once gotten possession of these mountains, they had little need of horse to preserve their conquest. The Israelites, therefore, if they had been either wise or pious, would soon have found that their true strength, as well political as religious, lay in infantry. The observation made by Benhadad, 1 Kings 20:23; 1 Kings 20:43 supports what has been advanced. But this want of horse would effectually prevent any attempt at extending their dominions either into the lesser Asia, Mesopotamia, or Egypt; all of which, being stretched out into large and extended plains, could not be safely invaded without a numerous cavalry: in this view, therefore, the wisdom of the law can never be sufficiently admired. But the third reason of the prohibition was evidently to be a lasting manifestation of that extraordinary providence, by which the Israelites were conducted into the land of Canaan. When once settled, they might very well defend their possession without the help of cavalry; but to conquer it without cavalry, and from a warlike people abounding in horse, was more than a raw, unpractised infantry could ever have performed alone. For, first, in the invasion of a country, the invaded can choose their ground: and as it is their interest to avoid coming to a decisive action; so, being amidst their own native stores and provisions, they have it in their power to decline it: on the contrary, the invader must attack his enemies wherever he finds them posted. Secondly, we may observe, that the possessors of mountainous regions may so dispose their cities and fortresses, with which they cover their country, as to make an invader's cavalry absolutely useless; and consequently to have no occasion for one of their own. But the invaders of such a place, where cavalry is in use, and consequently the defences disposed in a contrary manner, so as best to favour the operations of horse; the invaders, I say, go to certain destruction, without a body of horse to support their infantry. This then being the very situation of affairs when the Israelites invaded Canaan, and conquered it, I conclude that they must have been miraculously assisted. See Div. Leg. book 4: sect. 4. "The law given to the kings of Israel," says Bishop Sherlock, "considered together with the history of that nation, seems a very strong presumption for the divine original of the law of Moses. For, supposing Moses to be a mere human legislator, like Solon or Lycurgus, what could tempt him to forbid the princes of his country the use of horses and chariots for their defence? Should such a law be proposed for France or Germany at this day, what would the world think of it?—Or, supposing this law to be his own contrivance, how comes it to pass that the event and success of things, through many ages, doth so exactly correspond to the law? That the princes prospered, and extended their dominion over great countries, when they had neither chariots nor horses, and were ruined and undone when they were strong in these forces? Can it be supposed, that the history of many ages, and which relates to the affairs not only of the princes of Israel, but of other contemporary kings, is all forged, and that merely to shew an agreement between the history and this particular law? Or, how shall we account for the conduct of the prophets, who saw the people ruined, and, instead of reproaching them with cowardice, and a neglect of their necessary defence, reproach them with having been too strong, too powerful in horses and horsemen?"