John Calvin Commentary Deuteronomy 26

That you shall take of the first. We know that in the first-fruits the whole produce of the year was consecrated to God. The people,³³⁸ therefore, bore in them a testimony of their piety to Him, whom they daily experienced to be their preserver and the giver of their food. This typical rite has now, indeed, ceased, but Paul tells us that the true observation of it still remains, where he exhorts us, whether we eat or drink, to do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).

As for the place where the first-fruits were to be offered, and why God is said to have placed His name there, we will consider this later when we come to the sacrifices; I now only briefly touch upon what concerns the present subject.

I profess this day. In these words, the Israelites confess that they had not gained dominion of the land either by their own strength or good fortune, but by the free gift of God, and according to His promise.

There are, therefore, two clauses in this sentence: first, that God had gratuitously promised to grant that land to Abraham as the inheritance of his descendants; and, secondly, that He had performed His promise, not only when He brought the children of Abraham into possession, but by adding to His grace by their peaceful enjoyment of it.

He pursues the same point more fully immediately afterwards, where the Israelites are commanded to declare how wretched the condition of their fathers was before the Lord embraced them with His favor and granted them His mercy.

The original word in verse 5, meaning to answer, I translate simply, according to the Hebrew idiom, as to speak or say; unless to testify is thought better, which would be very suitable, for the solemn profession is described here by which they bound themselves every year to God.

They do not count their origin from Abraham, but from Jacob, in whose person God’s grace shone forth more brightly. For, being compelled to flee from the land of Canaan, he had spent a good part of his life in Syria (for he did not return home until he was old), and then, being driven into Egypt again by the famine, he had finally died there.

The land had not, therefore, fallen to them by hereditary right, nor by their own efforts, as their father Jacob had not been permitted even to sojourn there. They call him a Syrian because, after he had married Laban’s daughters, had children, and was advanced in years before he returned home, he might seem to have renounced the land of Canaan.

Since he had been content for many years with the dwelling that he chose for himself in Syria, his descendants justly confessed that he was a pilgrim and stranger because of his long exile; and for the same reason, they also might be counted foreigners.

They add that their father Jacob again abandoned the land of Canaan when he was forced by the famine to go down into Egypt. While they recount that he sojourned there with a few people and afterwards grew into a mighty nation, they thus acknowledge that they were Egyptians, since they had originated from there, where the beginning of their name and race was.

In the rest of the passage, they further confirm the fact that they were led into the land of Canaan by the hand of God, because when they were oppressed by tyranny, they cried to Him and were heard.

They are also commanded to celebrate the signs and wonders by which their redemption was more clearly manifested, so that they would unhesitatingly give thanks to God and contrast His pure worship with all the imaginations of the heathen; otherwise, this would have been only a cold exercise of piety.

What follows in the last verse, “And you shall rejoice,” etc., seems indeed to have been a promise, as if God, by setting before them the assurance of His blessing, added a stimulus to arouse the people to more cheerful affection. However, the sense would appear clearer and more natural if the copula were changed into the temporal adverb then. For this is the main thing in the use of our meat and drink: to accept it with a glad and joyful conscience as a testimony of God’s paternal favor.

Nothing is more wretched than doubt; and therefore Paul especially requires this confidence from us, bidding us eat not without faith (Romans 14:23). Therefore, to make the Israelites more prompt in their duty, Moses reminds them that they would only be able to rejoice freely in the use of God’s gifts if they expressed their gratitude as He commanded.

When you have made an end of tithing. In this passage, Moses urgently urges them to offer the tithes willingly and abundantly, by placing God, so to speak, before their eyes, as if they paid them into His hand. A solemn declaration is prescribed, in which they condemn themselves as guilty before God if they have not faithfully paid the tax imposed on them; but they pray for grace and peace if they have honestly fulfilled their duty.

For nothing can be more awakening to people than when ²¹⁹ God is presented as the judge of any specific matter. This is the reason why he commands them to declare in God’s sight that they have obeyed His ordinance in paying their tithes.

To separate, or “bring away out of the house,” means they are conscious of no fraud in withholding from God what was His; and thus, they were guiltless of sacrilege, since they had not diverted anything holy for their private use. What follows, I have not transgressed your commandments, nor have I forgotten them, must only be referred to the matter at hand; for it would have been too great an act of recklessness and arrogance for them to have boasted that they had kept and fulfilled the Law in every part.

Still, this way of speaking signifies desire rather than perfection, as if they had said that it was the full purpose of their minds to obey God’s commands. We must remember, however, what I have already said: that this specifically refers to the legal ceremonies. With the same meaning, it is soon after said, I have done according to all that you have commanded me: for if they had gloried in their perfection, they would have had no need of sacrifices or other means of purification.

But as I have just mentioned, God only invites them to examine themselves, ²²⁰ so that they may in sincerity of heart call upon Him as the witness of their piety.

I have not eaten of them in my mourning (tristitia). It is clear that the sacred offerings are spoken of here, but the question is what is meant by “eating in mourning.”

The exposition received by almost universal consent is this: although need may have tempted them to theft and fraud, the people assert that, even in their poverty and hardships, they have abstained from the hallowed things. I willingly agree with this view. However, the word “mourning” may also be understood as the anxiety of a mind conscious of its iniquity, in this sense: “I have not knowingly and willingly eaten anything consecrated to God, so that the hot iron (cauterium) of an evil conscience should burn me, in the way that a person’s guilt always torments and troubles them.”

Regarding the second clause, interpreters differ. Some translate the word בער bagnar,²²¹ “to destroy,” as if it meant that they had allowed nothing to perish through uncleanness. Others explain it as, “I have taken away nothing for a profane purpose.” However, my own opinion is that the word טמא, tama, is used adverbially for “impurely,” so that the people testify that they are not polluted or contaminated by withholding anything.²²²

Thus, in my view, some translate it quite well as “by uncleanness,” for it was not possible for the Israelites to apply the tithes to other uses without contracting pollution by their wicked misuse of them.

The ambiguity in the third clause is still greater. Literally, it is, “I have not given any of them to the dead.” In my version, I have followed those who refer it to funeral rites. However, some suppose that the word “dead” is used metaphorically for an unclean thing, while others, in a less natural sense, interpret it as expenses that do not contribute to supporting human life.

But it is not yet clear why it should be said that nothing had been spent on funeral rites. It is true that whatever had touched a dead body was unclean. Therefore, some explain it to mean that the sacrifices had not been defiled by any connection with funeral preparations. But if this sense is preferred, the expression must be taken by synecdoche for anything unclean.

However, my own opinion is that under this particular category, all things are included that have an appearance of piety. The burial of the dead was a praiseworthy duty and a religious exercise;²²³ so it might afford a plausible pretext for particular laxity. In this statement, therefore, God would have the Israelites declare that they offered no excuse if they had misused any of the consecrated things.