Matthew Poole and continuators on Deuteronomy 23:18

18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore , or the price of a dog into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow : for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

This is opposed to the practise of the Gentiles, who allowed both such persons and their oblations they made out of their wicked and infamous gains, and some of them kept lewd Women, who prostituted themselves in the Temples, and to the honour of their false Gods, and offered part of their profit to them. See Mich. 1. 7. Baruch 6. 43. Herod. in the end of his first book, and Strabo in his eighth book.

Either 1. Properly; the dog being a vile and contemptible creature in those Eastern parts. 1 Sam. 17. 43. and 24. 15. and 2 Sam. 3. 8. Eccles. 9. 4. and unclean by Gods designation, which yet should have been redeemed by virtue of that law, Numb. 18. 15. had it not been for this prohibition. And this may be here prohibited, either 1. That by this one instance put for all others of the like kind, they might be taught not to offer to God what cost them nothing, or was worth nothing: Or 2. To bring contempt upon that Creature, which divers of the Gentiles offered up to their Gods, and the Egyptians worshipped as Gods. Or, 3. That by comparing Whores and Dogs together, and equalling the prices of them, he might expose Whores to the highest disgrace and infamy. Or, 2. Metaphorically, as that word is oft used in Scripture, as 1 Sam. 24. 14. Psal. 22. 16, 20. Isa. 56. 10, 11. Mat. 7. 6. Phil. 3. 2. and particularly it is used for unclean or filthy persons, 2 Pet. 2. 22. Revel. 22. 15. as Horace also calls Whores Bitches. Which name doth most properly agree to them in respect of that impudence and filthiness, and insatiableness, for which both of them are branded. And this sence may seem most proper in this place, because it agrees with all the other expressions, and as the hire of a whore answers to the whore, v. 17. so the price of a dog may seem to answer to the Sodomite, v. 17. and so all concern the same thing, whereas the price of a dog, properly so called, may seem to be quite incongruous and forreign to the place. It is true which is objected, that Law-givers use to deliver their Laws in proper, and not in metaphorical terms to prevent mistake and ambiguity, But there seems to be no great danger of mistake here where the metaphor is so clearly explained and determined by so many words joyned with it.

And much less in other sacrifices, which being of an higher Nature, and prescribed by God, must needs require more exactness than those which depended much upon a mans Will and choice, as vows and free-will-offerings did.

(i. e.) The Whore and the Dog, and therefore the price of either of them cannot be acceptable. And this may seem to favour the latter opinion, that the Dog is here taken metaphorically rather than properly, because there is no mention in the Law (save in this place which is in question) of any abhominableness of a Dog unto God more than of an Ass or any other unclean creature; but how abhominable Sodomites are to God is sufficiently evident from other Scriptures and from undeniable reasons.