John Calvin Commentary Deuteronomy 20

And the officers shall speak to the people. I have added the introductory phrase, “quum bellandum erit” (when there shall be war), so that my readers may know what subject is discussed here; for although the instruction given may seem somewhat remote from the prohibition of theft, it still fits well and is closely connected with it.

For by this indulgence God shows how just it is that everyone should peacefully enjoy what he possesses. If it is hard that men, on account of war, should be deprived of the use of their new house or of the produce of their vineyard, how much harsher and more intolerable will it be to deprive men of their fortunes or to drive them from the lands they justly call their own!

Therefore, since it is beneficial for the state that vineyards should be sown or planted, and that houses should be built—while men would not apply themselves to these duties with sufficient enthusiasm unless encouraged by the hope of enjoying them—God gives them the privilege of exemption from fighting if they are owners of new houses which they have not yet inhabited. He also makes the same provision for possessors of vineyards, if they have not yet tasted the fruit of their labor; and He will not have men torn from their betrothed wives until they have enjoyed their embraces.

A different principle applies to a fourth class. The faint-hearted and lazy do not deserve God's consideration for their cowardice when they shun dangers that should be faced for the public welfare. However, because it is important for the whole people that soldiers go to war readily, God does not want more to be required from anyone than he is willing to bear.

We now understand the substance of this passage: namely, that when every man’s right to enjoy what he possesses is asserted, it extends so far that a man who has built a house should not be dragged unwillingly to war until, by living in it, he has received some advantage from the expenses incurred. To make a vineyard common,¹⁶² or to profane it, is equivalent to applying its produce to the common uses of life. For it was not lawful, as we saw in connection with the First Commandment,¹⁶³ to gather its first-fruits, as if it were still uncircumcised. Therefore, the reward for their industry and diligence is given when those who have planted vines are thus exempted until they have enjoyed some of their produce.

Regarding the betrothed, although it seems to have been an indulgence granted in honor of marriage, allowing them to return to the wives they had not yet enjoyed, it is probable that they were not torn away from the dearest of all possessions, so that every man’s property would be preserved. Besides, if the hope of offspring were taken away, the inheritance would thus be transferred to others, which would have been equivalent to diverting it from its rightful owner. We have said that the lazy and timid were sent home so that the Israelites might learn that no one was to be pressed beyond his ability; and this also depends on that rule of equity¹⁶⁴ which dictates that we should abstain from all unjust oppression.

When thou goest forth to war. He now teaches that, even in lawful wars, cruelty is to be repressed, and bloodshed to be abstained from as much as possible. He therefore commands that, when they have come to take a city, they should first of all exhort its inhabitants to obtain peace by capitulating; and if they do so, to keep them alive, and to be content with imposing a tribute on them.

This principle of equity was naturally implanted in all nations; thus heralds arose,⁴⁵ nor did they commence a just war without a solemn proclamation. Besides, since the word hostis (an enemy) formerly signified a foreigner (peregrinum), the Romans, by its mildness, mitigated the sadness of the reality. For this reason, they deemed that faith was to be kept with an enemy; and that sentiment of Cicero is worthy of praise, “that wars must not be undertaken except that we may live in undisturbed peace.”

But if God wishes His people to be mindful of humanity in the very midst of the din of arms, we may therefore infer how greatly displeasing to Him is human bloodshed. Even those whom He has armed with His authority, He still wishes them to be disposed to clemency, and He represses their ardor, lest they stain with blood the swords given them by His permission. How, then, can it be lawful for a private person to assume the sword for the purpose of killing his brother? We now understand the purpose of the instructions here given, and how appropriately they are connected with the Sixth Commandment.

And if he will make no peace. The permission given here seems to grant too much license; for, since pagan writers⁴⁶ command even the conquered to be spared, and instruct that those should be admitted to mercy who lay down their arms and entrust themselves to the good faith of the general, although the battering-ram may have actually made a breach in the wall, how does God, the Father of mercies, authorize indiscriminate bloodshed?

It has already been stated that more was conceded to the Jews because of their hardness of heart than was justly lawful for them. Undoubtedly, by the law of charity, even armed men should be spared if, throwing down the sword, they ask for mercy; in any case, it was not lawful to kill anyone except those who were captured in arms, with sword in hand.

This permission, therefore, to slaughter, which extends to all the males, is far from perfect.⁴⁷ But, although in their ferocity the Jews would have hardly allowed the perfection of equity to be prescribed to them, still God would at least restrain their excessive violence from reaching the extreme of cruelty. This applies to cities taken by force, where it sometimes happens that no distinction of sex or age is respected; this inhumanity is mitigated here, since they were not allowed to kill women or children.