John Calvin Commentary Deuteronomy 21
John Calvin Commentary
Deuteronomy 21
John Calvin Commentary
Deuteronomy 21
"If one be found slain in the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath smitten him;" — Deuteronomy 21:1 (ASV)
If one be found slain in the land. This supplement is of a mixed character, relating partly to civil and partly to criminal law. We are informed by it how precious the life of man is to God; for, if a murder has been committed by some unknown person, He requires an expiation to be made, by which the neighboring cities should cleanse themselves from the pollution of the crime. From this it appears that the earth is so polluted by human blood that those who encourage murder through impunity share in the guilt. The question here concerns a secret crime, the guilt of which attaches to the neighboring cities until, by a diligent inquiry, they can testify that the perpetrator has not been discovered; how much less excusable, then, will they be if they allow a murderer to escape with impunity?
The prescribed rite is that the elders of the nearest city should take a heifer that had never been yoked, bring it into a stony and barren valley, cut off its neck with the assistance of the priests, wash their hands, and bear witness that their hands, as well as their eyes, are pure, as they are not aware of the criminal. God chose a heifer that had never borne a yoke so that the satisfaction made by innocent blood might be represented more vividly. It was to be killed in a desolate place so that the pollution might be removed from the cultivated lands.
For if the blood of the heifer had been shed in the middle of the city’s marketplace, or in any inhabited spot, familiarity with the sight of blood would have made them callous to inhumanity. Therefore, for the purpose of awakening horror, it was led out into a solitary and uncultivated spot, so that they would thus be accustomed to detest cruelty. Although, properly speaking, this was not a sacrifice that could only be offered in the sanctuary, it still nearly approached the nature of a sacrifice, because the Levites were in attendance and a solemn supplication was made. Nevertheless, they were employed not only as ministers of the altar but also as judges, for their office is expressed in the words that they were chosen to minister to God, to bless the people, and to pronounce sentence as to every stroke.
"And all the elders of that city, who are nearest unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley;" — Deuteronomy 21:6 (ASV)
And all the elders of that city. The washing of their hands had the effect of further stirring them up, so that they would not rashly declare in that solemn rite that they were pure and guiltless. For it was as if they had presented the corpse of the dead man before God and had stood opposite it to purge the crime.
At the same time, they also ask for pardon, because the man might have been killed through their carelessness. And again, since the sacrilege of Achan alone contaminated the whole people, they feared that God's vengeance might spread further on account of the offense committed. Thus they are again taught how greatly God abominates murders, when the people pray to be pardoned for the crime of another, as if, merely by looking at it, they had contracted guilt.
God finally declares that He will not charge it to them when they have properly performed this rite of expiation. This is not because the heifer was the price of satisfaction to propitiate God, but because in this way they humbly reconciled themselves to Him and shut the door against future murders. For this reason it is said—You shall put away the blood from among you; for if the murder is overlooked, a stain remains on the people, and the earth itself, in a way, stinks before God.
"When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies, and Jehovah thy God delivereth them into thy hands, and thou carriest them away captive," — Deuteronomy 21:10 (ASV)
When you go forth to war. The same thing is now commanded concerning wives as was previously commanded concerning meats. Concerning the Canaanites, who were destined and devoted to destruction, we have seen that the Israelites were prohibited from taking their women as wives, lest this connection should be an enticement to sin. But Moses now goes further, namely, that the Israelites, after obtaining a victory over other nations, should not marry any of the captive women unless they were purified by a solemn rite. This, then, is the essence: the Israelites should not defile themselves with profane marriages but, in this matter also, should keep themselves pure and uncorrupt, because they were separated from other peoples to be the special people of God.
Indeed, it was better that they should abstain altogether from such marriages. Yet it was difficult to restrain their lust to such an extent that they would not deviate from chastity in the slightest degree. From this we learn how much license conquerors allow themselves in war, so that there is no opportunity for perfect purity among them. Therefore, God so moderates His indulgence that the Israelites, remembering the adoption with which He had honored them, should not disgrace themselves but, even in the very fervor of their lust, should retain some religious devotion.
But the issue here is not unlawful rape; Moses only speaks of women who have been made captives by the right of war. For we know that conquerors have abused them with impunity because they had them under their power and dominion. But since many are led astray by the flatteries of their wives, God applies a remedy: namely, that the renunciation of their former life should precede their marriage, and that no one should be allowed to marry a foreign wife until she has first renounced her own nation.
The ceremony refers to this: that the woman should shave her head, cut her nails, change her garments, and mourn her father and her family for an entire month—namely, so that she may renounce her former life and pass over to another people.
Some of the rabbis twist the words to a different meaning, as if God would extinguish love in the minds of the husbands by disfiguring the women. For shaving the head greatly detracts from female beauty and elegance; and “to make the nails,” as the words literally mean, they understand as letting them grow, and the lengthening of the nails has a disgusting appearance. But their interpretation is refuted by the context, in which she is commanded to put off the clothing of her captivity.
But I have no doubt that their month of mourning, their shaven head, and the other signs are intended by God for their renewal, so that they may accustom themselves to different customs. And with the same objective, they are commanded to mourn their parents as if dead, so that they may bid farewell to their own people.
To this the Prophet seems to allude in Psalm 45:10, when he says, Listen, O daughter, and consider, and incline your ear; forget also your own people, and your father’s house. For he implies that otherwise the marriage of a foreign woman with Solomon would not be pure and legitimate unless she relinquished her superstitions and devoted herself to God’s service.
Nor was it unnecessary that God should require the Israelites diligently to beware lest they should take wives who were still strangers to the pursuit of true religion, since experience most abundantly shows how fatal a snare it is. But although we are not now bound to this observance, yet the rule still holds true that men should not rashly ally themselves with women still devoted to wicked superstitions.51
51 Addition in Fr., “Pour s’envelopper en leur impiete."."
"And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her." — Deuteronomy 21:14 (ASV)
And it shall be, if you have no delight in her. I have been compelled to separate this sentence from the preceding context, which I have explained elsewhere;161 for Moses there gave instructions on how a captive woman was to be taken as a wife if her beauty attracted a Jewish husband. That law, then, related to chastity and conjugal fidelity, and especially to the purity of the worship of God; but now Moses prescribes that if a man has dishonored a captive woman, he should not sell her but should set her free, and by this act of satisfaction, erase, or at least diminish, the injury.
Therefore, we infer that this rule of justice is based on the Eighth Commandment: Let no one defraud another. This condition was at least tolerable for the captive woman; for although chastity is a special treasure, liberty—which is rightly called an inestimable blessing—was no small consolation to her. The penalty, then, for lust was that the conqueror would lose his booty.
161 Vide vol. 2, p. 70..
"If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated;" — Deuteronomy 21:15 (ASV)
If a man has two wives. Since it is here provided that a father should not unjustly transfer what belongs to one son to another, this is a part and supplement of the Eighth Commandment, the substance of which is that everyone’s rights should be preserved for them. For, if the father substituted another son in the place of his firstborn, it was unquestionably a kind of theft.
But, since it rarely happens that a father unnaturally degrades his firstborn from his precedence if all are born of the same mother, God reminds us that He did not enact this law without cause. For, where polygamy was allowed, the husband's mind was generally most inclined to the second wife. If he had loved the first with true affection, he would have been contented with her as the companion of his life and bed, and would not have thought of a second.
When, therefore, the husband grew tired of his first wife and desired a second, he might be coaxed by her flattery to withhold from the children of his first marriage what naturally belonged to them. Therefore, this remedy was necessary, by which the father’s power of altering the right of primogeniture is barred.
For, although they might allege that they only gave what was their own, yet it was an act of ungodly arrogance to reject him whom God had deigned to honor. For he who arrogates such power to himself, or who assigns the birthright to whomever he pleases, almost arrogates to himself the ability to create.
This right, as is stated in Deuteronomy 21:17, was a double portion of the paternal inheritance. The reason which is added is equivalent to saying that the firstborn is the principal honor and ornament of the father.
Still, if there was a just cause for disinheriting the firstborn, another successor might be substituted in his place, as Jacob showed in his case when he disinherited Reuben (Genesis 49:4).
When it is said, before the son of the hated, some interpret it to mean “during his lifetime;” others retain the Hebrew phrase, “before his face.” However, the opinion of those who take this particle comparatively, meaning “instead of her son,” is probable.
The wife is called hated, not because her husband is actually her enemy, but because he loves her least. For contempt is considered as hatred, and he is called an enemy who does not provide marital affection.
Jump to: