John Calvin Commentary Deuteronomy 17:16

"Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he may multiply horses; forasmuch as Jehovah hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way." — Deuteronomy 17:16 (ASV)

But he shall not multiply horses. The royal power is here circumscribed within certain limits, so that it should not exalt itself too much in reliance on the glory of its dignity.⁷⁰ For we know how insatiable the desires of kings are, since they imagine that all things are lawful for them. Therefore, although royal dignity may be splendid, God did not want it to be a pretext for unrestrained power, but restricts and limits it to lawful bounds.⁷¹

רק, rak, is an adversative particle that some interpret as only; this has almost the same meaning, because this exception was added to restrain the passions of their kings. The first prohibition is that he should not collect for himself a multitude of horses. But since it is repeated twice, we must consider why this is so.

Many translate it this way: “He shall not multiply horses, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to multiply horses.” But this way of speaking is harsh and obscure. Now, since the particle למען lemagnan, signifies “for the sake of (propter),” it may be properly translated literally as “for the sake of multiplying horses,” (propter multiplicare, vel propter ad multiplicandum.). I have no doubt, then, that God condemns an excessive number of horses due to the consequences that might ensue, because it might incite the kings to rashly undertake expeditions against the Egyptians.

Therefore, I consider this to be the genuine meaning: the king should not provide himself with too many horses, so that, when he possessed many horses, he would not lead his army into Egypt. Thus, among other evils that might arise from a multitude of horses, Moses mentions this: that the king’s mind will be puffed up with pride, leading him to invade Egypt with an army of cavalry.

Now, the question is, why did God forbid His people to return by that way? Some explain it that the horses would be brought contrary to God’s command, who had forbidden them to trade with that people;⁷² but this does not seem appropriate. Others think that the people were prohibited from passing through the desert, for fear that in their curiosity they might be ungrateful to God; but this, too, is far-fetched.

To me, it seems probable that this journey was prohibited for them so that, being mindful of their deliverance, they would be content with their own boundaries. They had been rescued from a thousand deaths. If they had voluntarily gone there to provoke an adversary, their confidence would have been a sign of their contempt for and forgetfulness of God’s grace.

Therefore, so that the recollection of their redemption would be deeply impressed upon their minds, God wanted honor to be put upon His miracles—namely, that they should avoid those regions like the abysses of death. Unless, perhaps, this reason is preferable: that an opportunity for those wicked alliances was cut off—alliances which we see were audaciously contracted because the kings of Israel gloried in the abundance of their cavalry. But the former explanation is most suitable.

This law, however, was not obeyed even by their best kings. Hence, it appears that the willfulness and pride of their kings could scarcely be repressed by any restraints.

⁷⁰ Addition in Fr, “ “Et face du cheval eschappe;” and act like a runaway horse;” and act like a runaway horse

⁷¹ “Le mot que nous avons translate au reste ” In the Latin, ” In the Latin, verum; ; A. V., but.

⁷² Addition from Fr.