John Calvin Commentary Exodus 23:6

"Thou shalt not wrest the justice [due] to thy poor in his cause." — Exodus 23:6 (ASV)

By this law also, God exhorts His people to exercise the duties of humanity toward animals, so that they may be more disposed to assist one another. For we must remember what Paul teaches: where God commands oxen to be kindly treated, it is, namely, that He does not care so much for them in this, as for humankind (1 Corinthians 9:9).

God prescribes elsewhere that if anyone should see the ox or ass of his brother, or even of his enemy, going astray, he should catch it and restore it to its owner (Deuteronomy 22:1–3 and Exodus 23:4). But here He had another intention, that is, that believers should testify to their forgiveness of their enemies by being merciful to their very animals.

If it had been simply said that our enemies were to be helped, and that we must contend with them by acts of kindness to overcome their ill-will, all cruelty would have been sufficiently condemned. But when God commands us not only to help our enemies, to show the way to those who are straying, and to lift up those who have fallen, but would also have us exercise these kindnesses to their very animals, He more emphatically and strongly expresses how very far removed from hatred and the desire for vengeance He desires His children to be.

Therefore, we see that what Christ afterwards taught His disciples is also taught in the Law: that we should love our enemies (Matthew 5:44). Nor is it merely the desire for vengeance that is restrained here, but something more is required, namely, that believers should conquer the ill-will of their enemies by kindnesses, since to bring back a straying ox or ass is a proof of sincere affection.

But, in these two passages, what relates to the Sixth Commandment is represented in a more striking manner, namely, that assistance should be given to an ox or an ass weighed down by its burden. Interpreters⁵⁰ do not agree on the meaning of the words, and Jerome has departed most widely from them.

But others, who desire to translate them more accurately, read them interrogatively: “If you see an animal fall under its burden, etc., will you hesitate to help?” The other meaning seems more appropriate: “If you have seen and have hesitated to help, still you must help.” For in this way God anticipates a person if, perhaps, driven at first by hatred, he might be reluctant to help his enemy, and then commands him to correct his guilty thought.

The meaning, therefore, will be: if the sight of your enemy should delay you from helping his animal, lay aside your ill-will and join with him, so that together you may be humane and merciful to the wretched animal. Thus an opportunity was given to enemies for their mutual reconciliation.

There is another difficulty with the word גזב,⁵¹ gnazab, which, although it means to leave, still, in my judgment, is used to mean to assist, or to give help. Although it is not wrongly translated as to let go, or to loose, or, if preferred, to strengthen, in which sense it is sometimes found.

⁵⁰ Margin A V., Exodus 23:5, “Wilt thou cease to help him? or, and wouldest thou cease to leave thy business for him; thou shalt surely leave it to join with him.” The Vulg. translation is, “Si videris asinum odientis te jacere sub onere, non pertransibis, sed sublevabis cum eo:” and this precisely accords with LXX., οὐ παρελέυσὟ αὐτὸ

⁵¹Exodus 23:5עזב, in its primary and most usual sense, signifies to leave; but a thing may be left from dislike or weariness; hence it signifies (2) to forsake. On the other hand, it may be left, because it has been brought into that state, in which it needs no further help or security; and hence (3) it sometimes signifies to complete a defense, as Nehem. 3:8; 4:2; to relieve from a difficulty, as in this place — W. The whole of this criticism is omitted, not only in the French translation, but also in the Latin edition of 1563, pp. 390, 391.

You shall not wrest the judgment of your poor. Since laws are enacted to repress vices that occur frequently, it is no wonder that God highlights the case of the poor. It often happens that they lose their cases even when they are in the right, both because they lack influence and are exposed to injury through the contempt shown towards them, and also because they cannot compete with the rich in bearing legal costs. Therefore, provision is justly made for their vulnerability, so that the injustice of judges does not rob them of the little they have.

However, the other point mentioned here might seem unnecessary—namely, that judges should not favor the poor, an act which rarely happens. It would also be inconsistent for something God prescribes and praises elsewhere to be condemned here.

I reply that righteousness is so pleasing to God that a judge would in no way be excusable, under whatever pretext he might deviate from it even slightly. This is the intention of this command.

For although the poor are usually tyrannically oppressed, ambition will sometimes drive a judge to misplaced compassion, making him generous at another's expense. This temptation is all the more dangerous because injustice is committed under the guise of virtue.

For if a judge focuses only on the litigant's poverty, a foolish fear will simultaneously creep in that his sentence might ruin the person he wishes to save. Thus, he will award to one person what belongs to another.

Sometimes the recklessness, audacity, and stubbornness of the poor in starting and pursuing lawsuits are greater than that of the rich. When they lose hope in their case, they are certain to resort to tears and lamentations, by which they deceive unwary judges. These judges, forgetting the case itself, only consider how the poor person's misery and need are to be relieved.

Moreover, while they think little of the rich man's loss because he can supposedly bear it easily, they do not hesitate to deviate from fairness in favor of the poor. But from this, it becomes clearer how greatly God is offended by the oppression of the poor, seeing that He does not want even them to be favored to the detriment of the rich.