John Calvin Commentary Deuteronomy 17
John Calvin Commentary
Deuteronomy 17
John Calvin Commentary
Deuteronomy 17
"If there be found in the midst of thee, within any of thy gates which Jehovah thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that doeth that which is evil in the sight of Jehovah thy God, in transgressing his covenant," — Deuteronomy 17:2 (ASV)
If there be found among you. The same punishment is here decreed against idolaters, to which apostates had previously been condemned; and thus each transgression is declared a capital crime. From this we gather that God considers it no less serious a sin to violate His worship by gross and impure superstitions, than openly and professedly to abandon religion altogether.
Thus in Ezekiel 20:39, He bids the Jews farewell and, as it were, emancipates them, so that they may each go after their idols, when they are no longer content with Him alone. While God, however, is so strict in demanding punishment, He does not want judgment to be pronounced hastily.
These are signs of severity: that a woman as well as a man is to be killed; that the whole people should unite in stoning them; that the evil should be removed from the midst of the land, so that the abomination does not continue unpunished. On the other hand, moderation must be observed, since diligent inquiry must be made, and sentence must not be pronounced unless the matter is fully proven. Furthermore, so that the trial may be lawful, the accusation of one man is not to convict the accused.
God therefore does not want the judges, under the pretext of zeal, to shed blood recklessly; but only, after mature inquiry, was the criminal to be punished in proportion to his transgression. By synecdoche, he speaks of their cities under the name of “gates,” and alludes to the land having been “given” them, so that they might not show their lack of gratitude to God by profaning it.
He also highlights the heinous nature of the offense by calling it the “transgressing of God’s covenant,” meaning that all who turn aside to idols are covenant-breakers. For the thief, the fornicator, the drunkard, and the like indeed transgress the Law, but still are not put in this category.
Ultimately, it is not simple impiety which is punished here, but the perfidy by which true religion is forsaken after people have devoted themselves to God and professed to be among His people. The repetition of the words “that man or that woman” more fully confirms what I have said, namely, that although the weakness of the female sex might lessen their guilt, yet they must not be pardoned in such a case as this, where God’s worship is directly violated.
Although mention is only made of the sun, moon, and stars, the same thing applies to images also. Indeed, since it is viler to transfer God’s honor to lifeless stones or wood than to those constellations in which something divine shines out, so much more detestable are those who plunge themselves into such stupidity.
"and it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, then shalt thou inquire diligently; and, behold, if it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel," — Deuteronomy 17:4 (ASV)
Then three shall inquire307 diligently. Although this moderation here refers only to the present matter, it should always be maintained in judicial proceedings, lest innocent persons be treated with undue severity.
Again, we must remember what I have said elsewhere: judges are not only restrained here from precipitate condemnation but are also urged to take care not to overlook, through idleness or negligence, anything that needed to be known. For they often fail in their duty because they willfully connive at guilt; and thus, what would be manifest if they would take the trouble to inquire more diligently does not come to light. God, then, would not have them slumber or ignore sinister reports, but rather inquire diligently into matters that may have come to their ears, so that no crime remains unpunished.
The same is true concerning witnesses. For while it would be unjust to pronounce sentence based on the testimony of one man, still, if two or three will not suffice, there would be no end to litigation. Fittingly, then, God has prescribed to judges both that they shall not be rashly credulous and yet that they shall be content with the lawful number of witnesses. However, this point will be treated more extensively elsewhere when commenting on both the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
307 A.V., translates this word in the past tense, “and translates this word in the past tense, “and hast inquired."inquired."
"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death." — Deuteronomy 17:6 (ASV)
As His severity in exacting punishment, where murder has been unquestionably committed, shows how highly God values human life, so the qualification we find here declares that He takes equal care for the preservation of innocent blood.
For since excessive credulity would often impel judges to condemn the innocent, He applies a remedy here to this evil, forbidding the crime to be punished unless proven by reliable testimony.
Although He has naturally inscribed this law on every heart, He willed that it be written down so that its observance among the Israelites might be more sacred.
For nothing is more dangerous than to expose people's lives to the word of a single individual; but where the concurring testimony of two or three is carefully weighed, any hidden falsehood is usually detected.
Therefore, lest anyone be rashly condemned and innocence thereby be oppressed by unsubstantiated conjectures, insufficient accusations, or unjust prejudices, God intervenes here and does not allow anyone to be harshly treated unless properly convicted.
"The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee." — Deuteronomy 17:7 (ASV)
The hands of the witnesses shall be first. It was not without reason that God ordained that criminals be put to death by the hand of those by whose testimony they were condemned. The ancient people did not employ public executioners, so that there would be more solemnity, modesty, and reverence in the infliction of punishments.
He specifically assigned this office to the witnesses, because the tongue of many is too hasty—not to say worse of it—so that they do not hesitate to stab people verbally when they would not dare to lay a finger upon them. This, then, was an excellent remedy for discouraging frivolous accusations: not to admit the testimony of anyone whose hand was not prepared to carry out the sentence.
Stoning was indeed a grievous and horrible kind of punishment; but it is probable that God chose it because it required the involvement of many hands. If hanging had not been in use, God’s command that the corpse of a man who had been hanged should be taken down from the tree before sunset (Deuteronomy 21:23) would have been in vain. There were, therefore, other kinds of capital punishment.
But when the land was to be purged, as by a propitiation, through the death of the sinner, he was to be stoned by the hands of all the people. This was because it would have been cruel for him to be killed by a lingering death, which would have been the case if they had stoned him one after another. The reason the people were commanded to cast the stones in unison was so that they might demonstrate their zeal and show their great indignation that God’s worship had been violated.
"If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which Jehovah thy God shall choose;" — Deuteronomy 17:8 (ASV)
If there arise a matter too hard for thee. The principal office of the priests is here described under a single heading, namely, that they should declare what was right in doubtful and obscure matters out of the Law of God. For although God seems only to refer to civil controversies, yet there is no doubt that by synecdoche He appoints them to be interpreters of the doctrine of the Law.
That their authority might be more reverenced in general, He commands the people to acquiesce in their judgment even on the most disagreeable points. For if their sentence is to be submitted to where a man’s life is in question, or when any disputes are to be settled, much more is all exception taken away with respect to God’s worship and spiritual doctrine.
I confess that the priests are not the sole judges here appointed, but that others of the people are associated with them as colleagues; yet the dignity of the priesthood is especially exalted. The opinion which some hold, that the high priest alone is intended by the word judge, is easily refuted, because Moses distinctly enumerates the priests, the Levites, and the judge.
But it is probable that there is by enallage a change of number in it; for it appears from the sacred history that several were appointed, where Jehoshaphat is related to have chosen of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel to preside at Jerusalem in judgment (2 Chronicles 19:8). Assuredly the pious king would have been unwilling to depart in the very least degree from the rule of the Law, and his zeal is praised by the Holy Spirit Himself.
But this was the arrangement made, as appears a little further on, that the high priest held the primacy in matters of the Lord, and the king’s governor attended to civil causes and earthly affairs. And thus again is confirmed what I have lately referred to, that is, that the office of teaching was entrusted to the priests, that they might solve any difficult questions. This is also supported by the words of Jehoshaphat, when he says, And what cause soever shall come to you of your brethren — between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgments, ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the Lord (2 Chronicles 19:10).
Certainly, as the cognizance of capital crimes properly belonged to judges of the other tribes, so determinations as to precepts and statutes, and the interpretation of the whole Law, was the peculiar province of the priests. Nor can we doubt that the words of Malachi (Malachi 2:7), the priests’ lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts, were taken from this passage.
Now, to come to the sum of this, God appoints the seat of judgment to be at the sanctuary. For, although in the first verse He seems to nominate the priests and judges indiscriminately to the decision of earthly quarrels, yet in the fourth verse from this He sufficiently shows that another province is committed to the priests, that is, to keep the people in sound and pure doctrine, and to expound what is right—in a word, to be the teachers of the Church.
But, although the people were to assent to whatever they should decide, so that it would be sinful for them to decline from it to the right hand or the left, yet a tyrannical power was not thus put into their hands, as if, when they had arbitrarily changed light into darkness, their perverted decisions were to be deemed oracular. Their interpretation was to be received without appeal; yet, on the other hand, this rule was prescribed to them, that they should speak as from the mouth of God.
It is true that the word here used is, תורה, 206thorah; which, although it means teaching, yet undoubtedly signifies that teaching which is comprised in the Law; indeed, it is equivalent to the word law. And of this Jehoshaphat is a faithful interpreter, when he enumerates the divisions of which Scripture everywhere shows the Law of Moses to consist.
Although פי, phi, taken metaphorically, is equivalent in Hebrew to discourse, yet it here emphatically expresses the sentence which shall be taken from the pure teaching of the Law. The children of Israel, therefore, are commanded to do what the priests shall have taught them; but how? According to the sentence taken from the Law.
Nor can it be doubted that God at the same time furnished those, whom He desired to exalt to such a high dignity, with the spirit of understanding and rectitude, that they might not deliver any improper sentence. And this also is conveyed by the promise, They shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: since it would have been absurd that the people should have obeyed God in vain, and to their own destruction.
Since now one sole Priest, who is also our Master, even Christ, is set over us, woe to us if we do not simply submit ourselves to His word, and are not ready to obey Him, with all the modesty and teachableness that becomes us.
206 על-פי תורה, , ver. 11. “According to the sentence of the law,” . “According to the sentence of the law,” A. V. The noun The noun תורה is avowedly formed from the verb, is avowedly formed from the verb, ירה whose most ordinary meaning in Hiphil is whose most ordinary meaning in Hiphil is to teach. Hence the noun in its primary meaning signifies Hence the noun in its primary meaning signifies teaching. פי is is the mouth, and hence the and hence the voice, which proceeds from it. which proceeds from it. על-פי according to according to the word, or declaration. ——. W.
Jump to: