John Calvin Commentary Deuteronomy 23
John Calvin Commentary
Deuteronomy 23
John Calvin Commentary
Deuteronomy 23
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah." — Deuteronomy 23:1 (ASV)
He that is wounded.
What is delivered here concerning those who are mutilated, and who are bastards, has a similar object: to prevent the Church of God from being contaminated by foul stains, and thus religion losing its honor. Moses rejects two sorts of men from the congregation of the faithful: namely, eunuchs and bastards.
But, before we discuss the subject itself, the definition of the words must be considered. The first question is, what it means to enter into the congregation; the second, what it means to be wounded in the stones; and the third, who are the ממזרים (mamzerim), whom we have translated as bastards (spurios).
Many understand that both are rejected from the church to prevent them from undertaking any public office in it. Others believe it is to prevent them from marrying wives from the descendants of Abraham, because it would not be fair for women to be wasted on bastards (Latin, mamzeris; ), and it would be absurd for those who were created to multiply God’s people to marry impotent persons, (effoeminatis). But both these opinions seem to me to be unconvincing.
For what is later added concerning certain foreign nations cannot be understood to mean that no government or dignity should be entrusted to them. Besides, the phrase the congregation of the LORD sufficiently expresses the purity and holiness of religion. I do not doubt, then, that Moses prohibits those who are defiled by these two stains from participating in the sacrifices.
For although they were circumcised just like the rest of the chosen people, still God intended for them to bear this mark of their disgrace, so that they might be an example to others, and that the people might be more diligent in keeping themselves from all pollution. Therefore, it is to be concluded that the privilege unique to the legitimate Israelites—namely, being participants and associates19 in the sacrifices—was to be denied to them.
Regarding the "wounded testicles," the Jews, in my opinion, dispute more minutely than the subject warrants, and ultimately miss the true meaning. For God intended nothing other than to exclude from the congregation of His people, wherever holy assemblies were held, those who were mutilated or defective in the genital organs; although by synecdoche, He includes more than are specified.
Finally, by condemning this external bodily defect, He highlights the excellence of His people, so that they may remember they are His chosen property—not so that they should become proud because of it,20 but so that the holiness of their lives might correspond with such high nobility.
19 “Et d’entrer au parvis pour faire service solennel a Dieu;” and to enter into the court to perform solemn service to God — ;” and to enter into the court to perform solemn service to God — Fr.
20 “Mais afin de se maintenir en sa grace par sainetete de vie;” but that they might keep themselves in His favor by holiness of life—;” but that they might keep themselves in His favor by holiness of life—Fr.
"A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Jehovah." — Deuteronomy 23:2 (ASV)
A bastard shall not enter. All agree that by the word ממזר, mamzer, a bastard is signified—one who is born of an uncertain father.
However, this term is interpreted in different ways. Some extend it to all bastards who spring from fornication, while others imagine that it refers only to those whose origin is doubtful and who are called vulgo geniti—namely, those whose mothers, through their base and common prostitution, have by their gross licentiousness caused their children to be born from this monstrous medley, as it were.
This second opinion I approve of most.
But by this symbol, God would admonish the seed of Abraham how exalted was its dignity, as separate from the polluted heathen.
Meanwhile, God would not altogether exclude these unhappy persons from the hope of salvation, although through no fault of their own they were unable to name their father. He only humbled them with a temporal punishment and desired that their example would be profitable to others.
"An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of Jehovah for ever:" — Deuteronomy 23:3 (ASV)
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter. As God has recently prohibited His people from all connection and alliance with the Canaanite nations, so He now distinguishes between the foreigners, and shows on what conditions, and whom, they might admit into the Church.305
He altogether rejects the Moabites and Ammonites because they not only refused the common rites of humanity to the people but also took up arms against them and even hired Balaam to curse them.
They were the descendants of Lot and ought to have embraced the children of Abraham as brothers.
It was, therefore, inexcusable barbarity on their part to violently attack those who had voluntarily offered them peace. These people had promised by their messengers that they would make their way without injury or wrong and had finally pleaded that a passage be granted to them, provided they honestly paid the price for bread and water.
God doubtless took vengeance more on their impiety than their cruelty, however, since they had not only endeavored to nullify His goodness but also to annihilate His faithfulness.
Therefore, since they did everything in their power to cause the Church to perish and His promise—on which human salvation was based—to fail, and since they had done this knowingly and willfully, it is no wonder that they were excluded from the Church.
305 Added from Fr.
"because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee." — Deuteronomy 23:4 (ASV)
And because he hired.306 Although there was a common reason why both nations should not be admitted, yet the number of the verb seems to be changed intentionally, because Balac king of Moab hired Balaam; yet, since they conspired together, the same crime is justly imputed to the Ammonites.
In this, indeed, their detestable impiety especially revealed itself: by hiring a mercenary man to launch the thunders of his curse against the people, they sought to overwhelm God by magical incantations.
They did not err through ignorance, since they obstinately persevered in their madness until Balaam was confounded from heaven.
And for this reason, it is expressly stated that he was not hearkend unto, but that rather his curses and prayers were turned into a blessing.
Therefore, it appears how terrible is the vengeance that awaits all who with deliberate malice oppose God’s grace and the welfare of the Church.
Thus, nowadays, no stone is left unturned by the defenders of the Papacy, by which they may disturb the course of heavenly doctrine, indeed, by which they may altogether silence the Gospel if they could.
Since another reason for this rejection is clearly indicated, it is foolish for some to attribute this sentence upon them to their origin, as if the Ammonites and Moabites were excluded from the Church because they originated from an incestuous connection.
306 A. V. “They hired.” hired.” Malvenda in Poole’s Syn. “in Poole’s Syn. “Hebrews et conduxit, nempe Moabita.” Ainsworth’s translation is, “because that they met you, etc., — and .” Ainsworth’s translation is, “because that they met you, etc., — and he hired, etc."etc."
"Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a sojourner in his land." — Deuteronomy 23:7 (ASV)
You shall not abhor an Edomite. So that the punishment pronounced against the Moabites and Ammonites would be more strongly emphasized, He commands the Edomites and Egyptians to be admitted in the third generation. The Edomites were to be admitted because they derived their origin from the same ancestor, Isaac, as they were the descendants of Esau; the Egyptians, because they had once been hosts to Israel. For from this it was clear that the Ammonites and Moabites had been dishonored because of their guilt, when not even foreigners were treated this way.
Now, although Esau had cut himself off from the privilege of believers, the door was again opened to his children, provided they returned to their source and origin and, in the humility of faith, admitted the primogeniture of Jacob, who had been chosen when their father was bypassed or degraded.
But what is meant by this inequality of punishment, when the crime was identical? For Edom appeared in arms against Israel before Moab did, and compelled them to travel by another route. Edom did not fight with hired curses for Israel’s destruction. However, since Edom, when humbly pleaded with on the basis of their old relationship, had not only refused them passage but had also advanced against them with a large army, it should have been treated with no less severity than Amalek or Ammon. Besides, being connected to them by a closer tie of blood, the Edomites were less excusable in their hostility.
I find, then, no reason why God showed greater clemency to them than to the others whom He treated more severely, except that He wished to show that it depends on His own will to chastise some more lightly for the same sins for which He takes more severe vengeance on others. And, since all are deserving of utter destruction, He justly retains in His own hand the free right to spare whomever He wills. We must here adore His judgments, into the depths of which we cannot penetrate. Nor is this inequality a basis for the noisy objections of the ungodly, as if He were inconsistent with Himself and acted contrary to the rules of His Law. For in doing so, He does not judge in different ways; rather, condemning all alike, He shows favor to whomever He pleases, or lessens a part of their punishment.
A question may also arise concerning the Egyptians: why God places His people under an obligation to them because they had lived as foreigners in their land. For it was barbarous and inhospitable cruelty for them to oppress the wretched fugitives who had trusted in their good faith. But God here refers to their initial reception, as in Isaiah 52:4. In that passage, comparing the Egyptians with the Assyrians, He says that the latter oppressed Israel like robbers, while the former had ruled over them not without a reason, because the people had gone down there of their own accord. Although, therefore, the Israelites had been unjustly oppressed by their fierce tyranny, God still wished for their past kindness to be acknowledged. This was because Israel's scarcity and famine had been relieved, and the refugees were kindly received when the inhabitants of Canaan were dying of hunger.
Jump to: