John Calvin Commentary Deuteronomy 25
John Calvin Commentary
Deuteronomy 25
John Calvin Commentary
Deuteronomy 25
"If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, and [the judges] judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked;" — Deuteronomy 25:1 (ASV)
Since moderation and humanity are commanded here, this serves as a supplement to the Sixth Commandment. The main point is that if anyone is judicially condemned to be beaten with stripes, the punishment should not be excessive. The question, however, concerns a punishment that lawyers call a moderate correction,43 and which should be such that the body, though torn by the whip, is not maimed or disfigured.
Therefore, since God has shown such mercy to the guilty as to restrain even just severity, how much more would He want innocent blood to be respected. And since He prohibits the judge from using excessive harshness, He will tolerate even less the violence of a private individual, if he employs it against his brother. But it was necessary for zeal to be restrained in this way, because judges, otherwise not unjust, are often as severe against lesser offenses (delicta) as against crimes.
An equal measure of punishment is not indeed prescribed, as if all were to be beaten equally; it is only prohibited for the judges to order more than forty stripes in total to be inflicted for an offense. Thus, the culprits were beaten deliberately, and not indiscriminately, as when it was not necessary to count the stripes. Besides, they were not injured so severely as to be deprived of the use of any of their limbs in the future.
With the same intent, God would have the judges themselves be present, so that by their authority they might prevent any excess. The reason is added: lest your brother should seem contemptible to you, because he had been beaten immoderately. This may be explained in two ways: either, lest his body should be disfigured by the blows, and so he should be made unsightly; or, lest, being forever stained with ignominy and disgrace, he should be discouraged in mind. For we know how grievous and bitter it is to be mocked and insulted.
A third sense,44 which some prefer, is too far-fetched: namely, lest he should die like some vile and contemptible beast. For God only intends for the wretched man to be improved by his punishment, and not for him to become hardened by his infamy.
Since the Jews were always ostentatious in their zeal for trivial matters, they invented a childish precaution so that they might more strictly observe this law. They were scrupulous not to proceed to the fortieth stripe but, by deducting one, sought an empty reputation for clemency, as if they were wiser than God Himself and superior to Him in kindness. Into such folly do people fall when they dare, from their own minds, to invent anything contrary to God’s word!
This superstition already prevailed in Paul’s time, as we gather from his words, where he reports that five times he received forty stripes save one (2 Corinthians 11:24).
43 “Ce que les jurisconsultes appellent une reprimande moyenne.” — Fr..
44 This exposition is attributed to Vatablus in Poole’s Synopsis.
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out [the grain]." — Deuteronomy 25:4 (ASV)
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox. This passage, indeed, properly belongs to the Supplements of the Commandment, but since it is a confirmation of the preceding decree, it seemed fitting to connect them. This is especially because its faithful expositor, Paul, declares that God had no other purpose in delivering it than that the laborer should not be defrauded of his just wages (1 Corinthians 9:10). For when he is speaking of the maintenance to be provided for the ministers of the Gospel, he adduces it as proof for his case. And, so that no one would object that there is a difference between oxen and men, he adds that God does not care for oxen, but that it was said for the sake of those who labor.
Meanwhile, we must bear in mind that humans are so instructed in equity that they are bound to exercise it even towards animals. For Solomon rightly emphasizes the injustice by which our neighbor is injured, with the comparison: A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast (Proverbs 12:10).
The main point is that we should freely and voluntarily pay what is right, and that everyone should be strict with himself regarding the performance of his duty. For if we are bound to supply subsistence for animals, how much less should we wait for people to persistently ask us for them to receive what they are owed.
"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married without unto a stranger: her husband`s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband`s brother unto her." — Deuteronomy 25:5 (ASV)
The text says, If brethren dwell together, and one of them die. This law has some similarity with that which permits a betrothed man to return to the wife whom he has not yet formally taken; for the object of both is to preserve for every man what he possesses, so that he may not be obliged to leave it to strangers, but may have heirs from his own body. When a son succeeds his father, whom he represents, there seems to be hardly any change made.
From this, it is also clear how very pleasing it is to God that no one should be deprived of his property, since He even makes a provision for the dying, so that what they could not give up to others without regret and distress might be preserved for their offspring. Therefore, unless his kinsman should remedy the dead man’s childlessness, this inhumanity is considered a kind of theft. For, since being childless was a curse of God, it was a comfort in this situation to hope for a borrowed offspring, so that the man's name might not be completely extinguished.
Since we now understand the intention of the law, we must also observe that the word brethren does not mean actual brothers, but cousins and other kinsmen, whose marriage with the widow of a kinsman would not have been incestuous; otherwise, God would contradict Himself. But these two things are quite compatible: that no one should uncover the nakedness of his brother, and yet that a widow should not marry outside her husband’s family until she had raised up seed for him through some relative. In fact, Boaz did not marry Ruth because he was the brother of her deceased husband, but only his near kinsman.
If anyone should object that it is unlikely that other kinsmen would live together, I reply that this passage is incorrectly assumed to refer to actually living together, as if they lived in the same house. Instead, the precept is merely addressed to relatives whose close proximity made it convenient to take the widows into their own homes; for, if any lived far away, freedom was granted to both to seek the fulfillment of this provision elsewhere. Surely it is unlikely that God would have authorized an incestuous marriage, which He had previously expressed His abhorrence of.
Nor can it be doubted, as I have stated above, that a similar obligation was imposed upon the woman to offer herself to the kinsman of her former husband. Although this was a harsh requirement, she still seemed to owe this much to his memory: to willingly raise up seed for the deceased. Yet, if anyone thinks differently, I will not argue the point with him. If, however, she were not obliged to do so, it would be absurd for her to voluntarily impose herself. Nor was there any other reason for her to bring the kinsman to trial, from whom she had been rejected, except so that she might gain the freedom to marry into another family.
Yet it is unlikely that the kinsman was to be condemned to a shameful punishment without being allowed to make his defense, because sometimes valid reasons for refusal could be presented. This disgrace, therefore, was only a penalty for inhumanity or avarice. By giving up his shoe, he renounced his right as a kinsman and yielded it to another; for, by behaving so unkindly toward the dead, he became unworthy of receiving any of the benefits of his kinship.
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets;" — Deuteronomy 25:11 (ASV)
This Law is seemingly harsh, but its severity underscores how very pleasing modesty is to God, while, on the other hand, He abominates indecency. For if, in the heat of a quarrel, when mental agitation might excuse excessive actions, it was a crime so severely punished for a woman to take hold of the private parts of a man who was not her husband, much less would God pardon her lasciviousness if a woman were driven by lust to do anything of that kind.
Nor can we doubt that the judges, in punishing obscenity, were bound to argue from the lesser to the greater. A threat is also added, lest the severity of the punishment should cause them to be too lenient or negligent in inflicting it.
It was indeed inexcusable effrontery to willfully assail that part of the body, from the sight and touch of which all chaste women naturally recoil.
"Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt;" — Deuteronomy 25:17 (ASV)
Remember what Amalek did to you. We have seen elsewhere how the Amalekites were the first to make a hostile attack upon the people and attempt to interrupt their journey. Moses also related God's sentence against them, the execution of which he now commands the people.
God then swore that there would be perpetual war against them throughout all ages; and so that His threat would not be thwarted, He appointed His people to take vengeance for their great cruelty and impiety.
For when the Israelites were inflicting no injury or loss on them, it was an act of injustice to make war upon peaceful people traveling to another land without doing any wrong. But humanity was still more grossly violated by them, since they did not spare their own kindred and thus rejected natural affections.
It is plain from Genesis 36:12 that the Amalekites were the descendants of Esau; consequently, they both descended from the same ancestor, Isaac. It is true that this command—that the people should retaliate for an injury done to them—seems hardly in accordance with religion.
I reply that they are not incited to vengeful feelings in these words, but rather they are commanded to punish the sins of Amalek with the same severity as those of the other nations. Indeed, God appears to influence them by personal motives when He recounts the cruelty shown by the Amalekites. However, we must judge the Legislator's intention with reference to His nature, for we know that God cannot approve any angry or hateful passions. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that the command was one that the people could obey with well-regulated zeal.
The primary origin of their crime is specified: namely, because they feared not God. This must not be taken in its ordinary meaning but as expressing that they rebelled against God, as it were, deliberately. For the promise given to Abraham and Isaac could not have been unknown to them. But since Esau, the founder of their race, had lost the right of primogeniture, it happened that they attempted to nullify God’s covenant out of wicked and sacrilegious jealousy. This is why He unites them with the reprobate nations for the same destruction.
The word זנב, zineb, which means to cut off the tail, is equivalent to making an attack on the rear, where the baggage and invalids are usually placed.304
304 Addition in Fr., “., “Dont il s’ensuit, que les Amalechites ont assailli le peuple comme en trahison;” whence it follows that the Amalekites assailed the people treacherously.;” whence it follows that the Amalekites assailed the people treacherously.
Jump to: