John Calvin Commentary Exodus 23:10

"And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the increase thereof:" — Exodus 23:10 (ASV)

And six years you shall sow. Another Sabbatical institution (Sabbathismus) follows, namely, that of years, in reference to the cultivation of the land. For as men and cattle rested on every seventh day, so God prescribed that the earth should rest on the seventh year.

According to the fertility or barrenness of the soil, fields are left fallow every third or fourth year to prevent them from becoming altogether unproductive through exhaustion. Indeed, a soil can hardly be found of such fecundity as to be suited for continual productiveness. Some relaxation is therefore given until the land recovers its vigor; but this only pertains to wheat, barley, peas, beans, and other pulse and seeds. As for meadows and vineyards, the situation is different, since when meadows are mown every year, the fertility of the soil is not weakened, while vines degenerate unless they are cultivated.

It was a sign of extraordinary and exceeding fertility that the land of Canaan could bear six consecutive years of sowing without being worn out. God honored it with this privilege in favor of His people. Nor did He ordain the rest from necessity, since on the sixth year He doubled the power of His blessing, but rather so that the sanctity of the Sabbath might be everywhere conspicuous. In this way, the children of Israel, as they looked upon the land, might be more encouraged to its observance.

The nature of the rest was that they should not sow anything, nor prune their vineyards in the sacred year. If anything should spring up from the scattered seeds of the last harvest, it was the common property of the inhabitants of the land and strangers. However, He particularly bestowed whatever grew of itself, whether grain or grapes, upon the poor as a kind of gratuitous present for the relief of their needs.

This kindness and liberality was a kind of incidental accompaniment to the performance of the religious duty. It was not indeed mainly or chiefly God’s purpose to give relief to the poor, but, as we said before, there was nothing strange in it that the offices of charity should be a consequence of God’s service.

If ungodly men should foolishly object that there is no connection between the senseless soil and a spiritual mystery, we have already answered. Although the Sabbath was entrusted to believers only as a pledge of an inestimable blessing, still, tokens of it appeared in the flocks and herds, as well as in inanimate creation, to renew the recollection of it, so that the people would not grow cold and their devotion become languid.

But if they mockingly persist that the Jews were treated so well,³⁴¹ when in their highest privilege they had donkeys and oxen, as well as the fields themselves, for companions, I answer: why do they not apply the same scoff to a more common matter? For since the doctrine of salvation is committed to paper or parchment before it comes to us, why do they not laugh with all their might at the obedience of our faith, since in our foolish credulity we embrace the promises transmitted to us by a smelly animal skin or some other foul material?

God wanted the observance of the Sabbath engraved on all creation, so that wherever the Jews turned their eyes, they might be reminded of it. Why, then, should not the earth be a conspicuous and impressive sign (character) for the elementary inculcation of this doctrine?

When it is said, What they leave the beasts of the field shall eat, the injunction does not extend to wild and noxious animals, which they might drive away from their property. Instead, God merely commands that whatever the earth produced should be exposed indiscriminately for the food of both humans and beasts. This provides an indirect answer to a potential question, for God shows that the grass would not be lost, even if there should be no hay-making. The grass would serve as hay for the beasts, so that they might feed abundantly in the fields and meadows.

Another question, however, arises from the passage in Leviticus, where God permits the owners of the land and their families to gather for food whatever then grows of itself. But there was nothing to prevent them, like the strangers and anyone else, from eating the fruits which were common to all, provided they did not defraud the poor by their covetousness.³⁴²

The same thing is soon afterwards added in the description of the Jubilee. For although that year, which completed seven times seven years, was more holy than the rest, God still allows all to eat the fruits grown of themselves in it. He speaks more restrictively in Exodus, in order to inculcate greater liberality upon them. But in Leviticus, He shows that there is no danger of any of the produce of the land being lost, because permission is given for themselves and their servants and cattle, besides the hired worker and the stranger, to partake of it.

Where He says, that which grows of its own accord of your harvest, I understand it to mean the land which they usually reaped. Similarly, a little further on, He calls their particular right of ownership in their vines “their separation.”³⁴³ Therefore, although the possessor might boast that the property was his own, and consequently that the harvest should be left entirely to himself, God reminds them that its fruits were nevertheless common to all during the Sabbatical year.

The word “harvest,” therefore, is applied to the land that was sown, and “separation” to the private vineyard or its fruit. The old interpreter has translated them as “the grapes of first-fruits.” If this sense is preferred, Moses would expressly declare that no oblation of them conferred on the owners of the property a right to claim as their own what grew in their vineyard (during the year).³⁴⁴

Otherwise, it would have been a good excuse to offer to God the first-fruits of the vintage, and under this pretext for the Jews to contend that they had consecrated the whole produce in the first-fruits. But God anticipates this interpretation by showing that what was said respecting ordinary cultivation was incorrectly applied to the extraordinary year of rest.

But since the word נאזיר, nazir, means “separation,” I do not see why we should change what fits very well. Still, commentators differ as to the meaning of this word. Some understand it as “relinquishing,” because every owner resigned his private property so that the vintage might be common. Others explain it as expressing that they had abstained from its cultivation for that year.

My own opinion, however, as I have said, is simply that the particular right of the possessor is called his “separation,” so that it was not lawful for others to touch the vintage except in the Sabbatical year. Thus, separation is opposed to common fields free to the public.

³⁴¹ “La condition des Juifs n’a gueres este honorable;” the condition of the Jews was hardly honorable. — ;” the condition of the Jews was hardly honorable. — Fr..

³⁴² Addition in Fr., “ “et que chacun en preint ce qu’il pourroit, comme d’un bien commun;’ and that each should take what they could of them, as of a common property.;’ and that each should take what they could of them, as of a common property.

³⁴³ See Margin, A. V., Leviticus 25:5, , ענבי נזירך, “grapes of thy separation.” grapes of thy separation.” S.M., “ “uvas a te derelictas.” .” S. M. says in his note, “We follow the Chaldee interpreter, who renders these words . says in his note, “We follow the Chaldee interpreter, who renders these words The grapes of thy relinquishing; but others render them but others render them the grapes of thy separation, (that is, which hitherto thou hast separated or set apart for thyself,) thou shalt not suffer to be common property.” — (that is, which hitherto thou hast separated or set apart for thyself,) thou shalt not suffer to be common property.” — W. The translation of . The translation of V. is, “uvas primitiarum tuarum.". is, “uvas primitiarum tuarum."

³⁴⁴ Addition from Fr.