Click *H for Haydock Commentary. *Footnote for footnote etc.
Click any word in Latin Greek or Hebrew to activate the parser. Then click on the display to expand the parser.
* Footnotes
- A.M. 2553.
*H If there rise in the midst of thee a prophet or one that saith he hath dreamed a dream, and he foretell a sign and a wonder,
Ver. 1. If...a prophet, or even an angel from heaven, as S. Paul (Gal. i. 8,) says on a similar occasion, (C.) should work a miracle, and afterwards adduce it in proof of a false religion, believe him not. The Jews and Christians had already received such convincing proofs from God, of the truth of what they had been taught, that they had reason to conclude either that the miracle was false, or that the person who would persuade them to embrace a different religion had fallen, after God had honoured him with miraculous powers: or, in fine, that if he were an impostor at the time when he exercised that power, like the magicians of Egypt, or Balaam, the miracle was either not wrought in confirmation of what he preached, or at least it was eclipsed by some greater miracle in favour of the truth. Whether God will ever suffer a real miracle which may seem to countenance error, or not, this appears to be unquestionable, that he will never deny himself, or, in a contest of miracles, permit falsehood to gain the victory. If the magicians performed wonderful works, they were forced at last to confess their inferiority, and yield to Moses. Ex. viii. 18. 19. Miracles are generally a proof of the truth of any doctrine; but when the doctrine is already established, as in this case of the unity of God, (v. 2,) it may be adduced with propriety as a criterion of miracles. Truth can never be in contradiction to truth. The light of reason suffices to evince that there is but one God. The same truth had been repeatedly confirmed by miracles, particularly during the last forty years, during which God had manifested his power over all nature, in the sight of all the Hebrews, and had trampled on the idols of the Gentiles. If therefore any person should attempt, by his dreams or predictions, in invalidate this most fundamental and undeniable article, his testimony could not be received. H. — The Jews, in vain, allege this passage against the religion of Jesus Christ. He did not subvert, but fulfilled the law; so far was he from endeavouring to persuade them to abandon the true God. C. — If he had not come to act in this manner, the law would have contained in itself the seeds of dissolution, by falsely holding forth the expectation of a future Messias, who would bring all things to perfection. C. xviii. 15. Gen. iii. 15. and xlix. 10, &c. Hence when he really appeared, the Jews desired him to prove his mission by a miracle, as he did repeatedly. Mat. xii. 38. Jo. viii. 40. and x. 25. — A dream, of a mysterious kind, like those of Joseph and of the prophets. H.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 16, Article 1
[II-II, Q. 16, Art. 1]
Whether in the Old Law There Should Have Been Given Precepts of Faith?
Objection 1: It would seem that, in the Old Law, there should have been given precepts of faith. Because a precept is about something due and necessary. Now it is most necessary for man that he should believe, according to Heb. 11:6, "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Therefore there was very great need for precepts of faith to be given.
Obj. 2: Further, the New Testament is contained in the Old, as the reality in the figure, as stated above (I-II, Q. 107, A. 3). Now the New Testament contains explicit precepts of faith, for instance John 14:1: "You believe in God; believe also in Me." Therefore it seems that some precepts of faith ought to have been given in the Old Law also.
Obj. 3: Further, to prescribe the act of a virtue comes to the same as to forbid the opposite vices. Now the Old Law contained many precepts forbidding unbelief: thus (Ex. 20:3): "Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me," and (Deut. 13:1-3) they were forbidden to hear the words of the prophet or dreamer who might wish to turn them away from their faith in God. Therefore precepts of faith should have been given in the Old Law also.
Obj. 4: Further, confession is an act of faith, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 1). Now the Old Law contained precepts about the confession and the promulgation of faith: for they were commanded (Ex. 12:27) that, when their children should ask them, they should tell them the meaning of the paschal observance, and (Deut. 13:9) they were commanded to slay anyone who disseminated doctrine contrary to faith. Therefore the Old Law should have contained precepts of faith.
Obj. 5: Further, all the books of the Old Testament are contained in the Old Law; wherefore Our Lord said (John 15:25) that it was written in the Law: "They have hated Me without cause," although this is found written in Ps. 34 and 68. Now it is written (Ecclus. 2:8): "Ye that fear the Lord, believe Him." Therefore the Old Law should have contained precepts of faith.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle (Rom. 3:27) calls the Old Law the "law of works" which he contrasts with the "law of faith." Therefore the Old Law ought not to have contained precepts of faith.
_I answer that,_ A master does not impose laws on others than his subjects; wherefore the precepts of a law presuppose that everyone who receives the law is subject to the giver of the law. Now the primary subjection of man to God is by faith, according to Heb. 11:6: "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is." Hence faith is presupposed to the precepts of the Law: for which reason (Ex. 20:2) that which is of faith, is set down before the legal precepts, in the words, "I am the Lord thy God, Who brought thee out of the land of Egypt," and, likewise (Deut. 6:4), the words, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy [Vulg.: 'our'] God is one," precede the recording of the precepts.
Since, however, faith contains many things subordinate to the faith whereby we believe that God is, which is the first and chief of all articles of faith, as stated above (Q. 1, AA. 1, 7), it follows that, if we presuppose faith in God, whereby man's mind is subjected to Him, it is possible for precepts to be given about other articles of faith. Thus Augustine expounding the words: "This is My commandment" (John 15:12) says (Tract. lxxxiii in Joan.) that we have received many precepts of faith. In the Old Law, however, the secret things of faith were not to be set before the people, wherefore, presupposing their faith in one God, no other precepts of faith were given in the Old Law.
Reply Obj. 1: Faith is necessary as being the principle of spiritual life, wherefore it is presupposed before the receiving of the Law.
Reply Obj. 2: Even then Our Lord both presupposed something of faith, namely belief in one God, when He said: "You believe in God," and commanded something, namely, belief in the Incarnation whereby one Person is God and man. This explanation of faith belongs to the faith of the New Testament, wherefore He added: "Believe also in Me."
Reply Obj. 3: The prohibitive precepts regard sins, which corrupt virtue. Now virtue is corrupted by any particular defect, as stated above (I-II, Q. 18, A. 4, ad 3; I-II, Q. 19, A. 6, ad 1, A. 7, ad 3). Therefore faith in one God being presupposed, prohibitive precepts had to be given in the Old Law, so that men might be warned off those particular defects whereby their faith might be corrupted.
Reply Obj. 4: Confession of faith and the teaching thereof also presuppose man's submission to God by faith: so that the Old Law could contain precepts relating to the confession and teaching of faith, rather than to faith itself.
Reply Obj. 5: In this passage again that faith is presupposed whereby we believe that God is; hence it begins, "Ye that fear the Lord," which is not possible without faith. The words which follow--"believe Him"--must be referred to certain special articles of faith, chiefly to those things which God promises to them that obey Him, wherefore the passage concludes--"and your reward shall not be made void." _______________________
SECOND
*H And that come to pass which he spoke, and he say to thee: Let us go and follow strange gods, which thou knowest not, and let us serve them:
Ver. 2. To pass. The completion of a prophecy does not always prove, that the person who uttered it was a true prophet. Chance, a knowledge of natural causes, &c. may enable an impostor sometimes to hit upon the truth. God may also, for reasons known to himself, declare what will come to pass by the mouth of a false prophet, or of a wicked man, as he did by Balaam and Caiphas. Judas wrought miracles before his apostacy. C. — Yet if any who had been so highly favoured, should attempt to enforce by their preceding miracles, any false doctrine, let him be anathema. Gal. i. 8. — Not. The Hebrews had inconvertible proofs of the existence of one God. They could not therefore acknowledge any other. H. — Novelty in religion is a mark of idolatry or of heresy. W.
*H Thou shalt not hear the words of that prophet or dreamer: for the Lord your God trieth you, that it may appear whether you love him with all your heart, and with all your soul, or not.
Ver. 3. Trieth you, not in order to induce you to embrace evil, (Jam. i. 13,) nor to discover your real dispositions, but to lay open your hearts to yourselves and to the world, (H.) that, if you continue steadfast, others may be encouraged to imitate you; but if you fall, they may take warning, and stand with all humility and circumspection. C. — Appear. Heb. "to know, or to disclose." M.
* Summa
*S Part 1, Ques 114, Article 2
[I, Q. 114, Art. 2]
Whether to Tempt Is Proper to the Devil?
Objection 1: It would seem that to tempt is not proper to the devil. For God is said to tempt, according to Gen. 22:1, "God tempted Abraham." Moreover man is tempted by the flesh and the world. Again, man is said to tempt God, and to tempt man. Therefore it is not proper to the devil to tempt.
Obj. 2: Further, to tempt is a sign of ignorance. But the demons know what happens among men. Therefore the demons do not tempt.
Obj. 3: Further, temptation is the road to sin. Now sin dwells in the will. Since therefore the demons cannot change man's will, as appears from what has been said above (Q. 111, A. 2), it seems that it is not in their province to tempt.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Thess. 3:5): "Lest perhaps he that tempteth should have tempted you": to which the gloss adds, "that is, the devil, whose office it is to tempt."
_I answer that,_ To tempt is, properly speaking, to make trial of something. Now we make trial of something in order to know something about it: hence the immediate end of every tempter is knowledge. But sometimes another end, either good or bad, is sought to be acquired through that knowledge; a good end, when, for instance, one desires to know of someone, what sort of a man he is as to knowledge, or virtue, with a view to his promotion; a bad end, when that knowledge is sought with the purpose of deceiving or ruining him.
From this we can gather how various beings are said to tempt in various ways. For man is said to tempt, sometimes indeed merely for the sake of knowing something; and for this reason it is a sin to tempt God; for man, being uncertain as it were, presumes to make an experiment of God's power. Sometimes too he tempts in order to help, sometimes in order to hurt. The devil, however, always tempts in order to hurt by urging man into sin. In this sense it is said to be his proper office to tempt: for thought at times man tempts thus, he does this as minister of the devil. God is said to tempt that He may know, in the same sense as that is said to know which makes others to know. Hence it is written (Deut. 13:3): "The Lord your God trieth you, that it may appear whether you love him."
The flesh and the world are said to tempt as the instruments or matter of temptations; inasmuch as one can know what sort of man someone is, according as he follows or resists the desires of the flesh, and according as he despises worldly advantages and adversity: of which things the devil also makes use in tempting.
Thus the reply to the first objection is clear.
Reply Obj. 2: The demons know what happens outwardly among men; but the inward disposition of man God alone knows, Who is the "weigher of spirits" (Prov. 16:2). It is this disposition that makes man more prone to one vice than to another: hence the devil tempts, in order to explore this inward disposition of man, so that he may tempt him to that vice to which he is most prone.
Reply Obj. 3: Although a demon cannot change the will, yet, as stated above (Q. 111, A. 3), he can change the inferior powers of man, in a certain degree: by which powers, though the will cannot be forced, it can nevertheless be inclined. _______________________
THIRD
*H And that prophet or forger of dreams shall be slain: because he spoke to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you from the house of bondage: to make thee go out of the way, which the Lord thy God commanded thee: and thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee.
Ver. 5. Forger. Heb. "dreamer," to whom God reveals his secrets in the night, as he does to the prophet while he is awake. — Slain. Philo says, without any trial or delay; but the Rabbins allow that, although the impostor was not to receive an admonition, no ignorance being able to excuse him, as in other cases, he was to be brought before the Sanhedrim, at Jerusalem, and strangled. See Luc. xiii. 33. The Jews, it is thought, condemned our Saviour on the plea that he was a false prophet. Mat. xxvi. 57. They commonly required before this condemnation, that a person should have assumed the character of a prophet, and not barely that he should have performed some wonderful work by his ingenuity. For if he only did the latter, and thereby endeavoured to withdraw the people from the service of the true God, he was punished as a seducer. They also refused to condemn one who had foretold evils, if they did not take place, because God, being merciful, might have pardoned those who did penance, (C.) as was the case with Jonas and the Ninivites. H. — But those who taught or did any thing contrary to the law, in quality of prophets, were in danger of condemnation, unless their great reputation might screen them from suspicion. Thus Elias offered sacrifice on Mount Carmel, without giving offence, 3 K. xviii. 23. If a true prophet bore witness to another, the latter might also claim respect. C. — Yet though S. John the Baptist had repeatedly commended Jesus Christ, the Jews did not hesitate to call him a seducer, and to put him to death. H. — "The evil one." Syr. 1 Cor. v. 13.
*H If thy brother the son of thy mother, or thy son, or daughter, or thy wife that is in thy bosom, or thy friend, whom thou lovest as thy own soul, would persuade thee secretly, saying: Let us go, and serve strange gods, which thou knowest not, nor thy fathers,
Ver. 6. If thy own brother, to distinguish him from the rest of the Jews, who were all styled brethren, as being descended from the same stock of the Patriarchs. M.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 67, Article 4
[II-II, Q. 67, Art. 4]
Whether the Judge Can Lawfully Remit the Punishment?
Objection 1: It would seem that the judge can lawfully remit the punishment. For it is written (James 2:13): "Judgment without mercy" shall be done "to him that hath not done mercy." Now no man is punished for not doing what he cannot do lawfully. Therefore any judge can lawfully do mercy by remitting the punishment.
Obj. 2: Further, human judgment should imitate the Divine judgment. Now God remits the punishment to sinners, because He desires not the death of the sinner, according to Ezech. 18:23. Therefore a human judge also may lawfully remit the punishment to one who repents.
Obj. 3: Further, it is lawful for anyone to do what is profitable to some one and harmful to none. Now the remission of his punishment profits the guilty man and harms nobody. Therefore the judge can lawfully loose a guilty man from his punishment.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 13:8, 9) concerning anyone who would persuade a man to serve strange gods: "Neither let thy eye spare him to pity and conceal him, but thou shalt presently put him to death": and of the murderer it is written (Deut. 19:12, 13): "He shall die. Thou shalt not pity him."
_I answer that,_ As may be gathered from what has been said (AA. 2, 3), with regard to the question in point, two things may be observed in connection with a judge. One is that he has to judge between accuser and defendant, while the other is that he pronounces the judicial sentence, in virtue of his power, not as a private individual but as a public person. Accordingly on two counts a judge is hindered from loosing a guilty person from his punishment. First on the part of the accuser, whose right it sometimes is that the guilty party should be punished--for instance on account of some injury committed against the accuser--because it is not in the power of a judge to remit such punishment, since every judge is bound to give each man his right. Secondly, he finds a hindrance on the part of the commonwealth, whose power he exercises, and to whose good it belongs that evil-doers should be punished.
Nevertheless in this respect there is a difference between judges of lower degree and the supreme judge, i.e. the sovereign, to whom the entire public authority is entrusted. For the inferior judge has no power to exempt a guilty man from punishment against the laws imposed on him by his superior. Wherefore Augustine in commenting on John 19:11, "Thou shouldst not have any power against Me," says (Tract. cxvi in Joan.): "The power which God gave Pilate was such that he was under the power of Caesar, so that he was by no means free to acquit the person accused." On the other hand the sovereign who has full authority in the commonwealth, can lawfully remit the punishment to a guilty person, provided the injured party consent to the remission, and that this do not seem detrimental to the public good.
Reply Obj. 1: There is a place for the judge's mercy in matters that are left to the judge's discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy.
Reply Obj. 2: God has supreme power of judging, and it concerns Him whatever is done sinfully against anyone. Therefore He is free to remit the punishment, especially since punishment is due to sin chiefly because it is done against Him. He does not, however, remit the punishment, except in so far as it becomes His goodness, which is the source of all laws.
Reply Obj. 3: If the judge were to remit punishment inordinately, he would inflict an injury on the community, for whose good it behooves ill-deeds to be punished, in order that men may avoid sin. Hence the text, after appointing the punishment of the seducer, adds (Deut. 13:11): "That all Israel hearing may fear, and may do no more anything like this." He would also inflict harm on the injured person; who is compensated by having his honor restored in the punishment of the man who has injured him. _______________________
*H But thou shalt presently put him to death. Let thy hand be first upon him, and afterwards the hands of all the people.
Ver. 9. Presently put him to death. Not by killing him by private authority, but by informing the magistrate, and proceeding by order of justice. Ch. W. — Philo seems to assert the contrary. But he perhaps speaks of those who publicly endeavoured to lead the people astray. Presently is not in Heb. Other criminals were allowed twenty-four hours after condemnation. No delay was granted to false prophets. No excuse was admitted. If he had even been once acquitted, he might be examined again. — Thy hand. The accuser or witness first threw a stone, after the wretch had been conducted out of the city. C. xvii. 4. Acts vii. 58.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 16, Article 1
[II-II, Q. 16, Art. 1]
Whether in the Old Law There Should Have Been Given Precepts of Faith?
Objection 1: It would seem that, in the Old Law, there should have been given precepts of faith. Because a precept is about something due and necessary. Now it is most necessary for man that he should believe, according to Heb. 11:6, "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Therefore there was very great need for precepts of faith to be given.
Obj. 2: Further, the New Testament is contained in the Old, as the reality in the figure, as stated above (I-II, Q. 107, A. 3). Now the New Testament contains explicit precepts of faith, for instance John 14:1: "You believe in God; believe also in Me." Therefore it seems that some precepts of faith ought to have been given in the Old Law also.
Obj. 3: Further, to prescribe the act of a virtue comes to the same as to forbid the opposite vices. Now the Old Law contained many precepts forbidding unbelief: thus (Ex. 20:3): "Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me," and (Deut. 13:1-3) they were forbidden to hear the words of the prophet or dreamer who might wish to turn them away from their faith in God. Therefore precepts of faith should have been given in the Old Law also.
Obj. 4: Further, confession is an act of faith, as stated above (Q. 3, A. 1). Now the Old Law contained precepts about the confession and the promulgation of faith: for they were commanded (Ex. 12:27) that, when their children should ask them, they should tell them the meaning of the paschal observance, and (Deut. 13:9) they were commanded to slay anyone who disseminated doctrine contrary to faith. Therefore the Old Law should have contained precepts of faith.
Obj. 5: Further, all the books of the Old Testament are contained in the Old Law; wherefore Our Lord said (John 15:25) that it was written in the Law: "They have hated Me without cause," although this is found written in Ps. 34 and 68. Now it is written (Ecclus. 2:8): "Ye that fear the Lord, believe Him." Therefore the Old Law should have contained precepts of faith.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle (Rom. 3:27) calls the Old Law the "law of works" which he contrasts with the "law of faith." Therefore the Old Law ought not to have contained precepts of faith.
_I answer that,_ A master does not impose laws on others than his subjects; wherefore the precepts of a law presuppose that everyone who receives the law is subject to the giver of the law. Now the primary subjection of man to God is by faith, according to Heb. 11:6: "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is." Hence faith is presupposed to the precepts of the Law: for which reason (Ex. 20:2) that which is of faith, is set down before the legal precepts, in the words, "I am the Lord thy God, Who brought thee out of the land of Egypt," and, likewise (Deut. 6:4), the words, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy [Vulg.: 'our'] God is one," precede the recording of the precepts.
Since, however, faith contains many things subordinate to the faith whereby we believe that God is, which is the first and chief of all articles of faith, as stated above (Q. 1, AA. 1, 7), it follows that, if we presuppose faith in God, whereby man's mind is subjected to Him, it is possible for precepts to be given about other articles of faith. Thus Augustine expounding the words: "This is My commandment" (John 15:12) says (Tract. lxxxiii in Joan.) that we have received many precepts of faith. In the Old Law, however, the secret things of faith were not to be set before the people, wherefore, presupposing their faith in one God, no other precepts of faith were given in the Old Law.
Reply Obj. 1: Faith is necessary as being the principle of spiritual life, wherefore it is presupposed before the receiving of the Law.
Reply Obj. 2: Even then Our Lord both presupposed something of faith, namely belief in one God, when He said: "You believe in God," and commanded something, namely, belief in the Incarnation whereby one Person is God and man. This explanation of faith belongs to the faith of the New Testament, wherefore He added: "Believe also in Me."
Reply Obj. 3: The prohibitive precepts regard sins, which corrupt virtue. Now virtue is corrupted by any particular defect, as stated above (I-II, Q. 18, A. 4, ad 3; I-II, Q. 19, A. 6, ad 1, A. 7, ad 3). Therefore faith in one God being presupposed, prohibitive precepts had to be given in the Old Law, so that men might be warned off those particular defects whereby their faith might be corrupted.
Reply Obj. 4: Confession of faith and the teaching thereof also presuppose man's submission to God by faith: so that the Old Law could contain precepts relating to the confession and teaching of faith, rather than to faith itself.
Reply Obj. 5: In this passage again that faith is presupposed whereby we believe that God is; hence it begins, "Ye that fear the Lord," which is not possible without faith. The words which follow--"believe Him"--must be referred to certain special articles of faith, chiefly to those things which God promises to them that obey Him, wherefore the passage concludes--"and your reward shall not be made void." _______________________
SECOND
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 67, Article 4
[II-II, Q. 67, Art. 4]
Whether the Judge Can Lawfully Remit the Punishment?
Objection 1: It would seem that the judge can lawfully remit the punishment. For it is written (James 2:13): "Judgment without mercy" shall be done "to him that hath not done mercy." Now no man is punished for not doing what he cannot do lawfully. Therefore any judge can lawfully do mercy by remitting the punishment.
Obj. 2: Further, human judgment should imitate the Divine judgment. Now God remits the punishment to sinners, because He desires not the death of the sinner, according to Ezech. 18:23. Therefore a human judge also may lawfully remit the punishment to one who repents.
Obj. 3: Further, it is lawful for anyone to do what is profitable to some one and harmful to none. Now the remission of his punishment profits the guilty man and harms nobody. Therefore the judge can lawfully loose a guilty man from his punishment.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 13:8, 9) concerning anyone who would persuade a man to serve strange gods: "Neither let thy eye spare him to pity and conceal him, but thou shalt presently put him to death": and of the murderer it is written (Deut. 19:12, 13): "He shall die. Thou shalt not pity him."
_I answer that,_ As may be gathered from what has been said (AA. 2, 3), with regard to the question in point, two things may be observed in connection with a judge. One is that he has to judge between accuser and defendant, while the other is that he pronounces the judicial sentence, in virtue of his power, not as a private individual but as a public person. Accordingly on two counts a judge is hindered from loosing a guilty person from his punishment. First on the part of the accuser, whose right it sometimes is that the guilty party should be punished--for instance on account of some injury committed against the accuser--because it is not in the power of a judge to remit such punishment, since every judge is bound to give each man his right. Secondly, he finds a hindrance on the part of the commonwealth, whose power he exercises, and to whose good it belongs that evil-doers should be punished.
Nevertheless in this respect there is a difference between judges of lower degree and the supreme judge, i.e. the sovereign, to whom the entire public authority is entrusted. For the inferior judge has no power to exempt a guilty man from punishment against the laws imposed on him by his superior. Wherefore Augustine in commenting on John 19:11, "Thou shouldst not have any power against Me," says (Tract. cxvi in Joan.): "The power which God gave Pilate was such that he was under the power of Caesar, so that he was by no means free to acquit the person accused." On the other hand the sovereign who has full authority in the commonwealth, can lawfully remit the punishment to a guilty person, provided the injured party consent to the remission, and that this do not seem detrimental to the public good.
Reply Obj. 1: There is a place for the judge's mercy in matters that are left to the judge's discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy.
Reply Obj. 2: God has supreme power of judging, and it concerns Him whatever is done sinfully against anyone. Therefore He is free to remit the punishment, especially since punishment is due to sin chiefly because it is done against Him. He does not, however, remit the punishment, except in so far as it becomes His goodness, which is the source of all laws.
Reply Obj. 3: If the judge were to remit punishment inordinately, he would inflict an injury on the community, for whose good it behooves ill-deeds to be punished, in order that men may avoid sin. Hence the text, after appointing the punishment of the seducer, adds (Deut. 13:11): "That all Israel hearing may fear, and may do no more anything like this." He would also inflict harm on the injured person; who is compensated by having his honor restored in the punishment of the man who has injured him. _______________________
*H If in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God shall give thee to dwell in, thou hear some say:
Ver. 12. Cities. If the inhabitants agreed, in general, to introduce the worship of idols, they were to be first admonished, (C.) and if incorrigible, to be utterly destroyed. H. — The obligation of seeing that this was executed, was left to the magistrates. D.
*H Children of Belial are gone out of the midst of thee, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, and have said: Let us go, and serve strange gods which you know not:
Ver. 13. Belial: that is, without yoke. Hence the wicked, who refuse to be subject to the divine law, are called in Scripture the sons of Belial. Ch. — The devil is called Belial, or "an apostate, rebel," &c. The word is also applied to Antichrist, to idols, and to those who are notoriously wicked. S. Jer. in Nahum i. and Isai. xxvii. 3 K. xxi. 13.
*H Thou shalt forthwith kill the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, and shalt destroy it and all things that are in it, even the cattle.
Ver. 15. Even the cattle. Nothing at all must be spared. Yet the Rabbins and some who argue that penal laws must be restrained as much as possible, exempt the women, and boys under thirteen years of age, and understand this law only of the central cities, v. 13. If the city was seduced by one man, or by women, or by people of a different tribe, the culprit was only to be stoned, and the Sanhedrim had to take cognizance of the whole affair. If many cities joined in the idolatry, or if any of them were cities of refuge, &c. they were not included. Seld. Syned. iii. 5. Grotius. — But these limitations seem visibly to contradict the law. The goods of the innocent were involved in the common ruin, that they might learn to make all possible resistance to the introduction of so abominable a crime; and those of the guilty were destroyed wherever they were found. C. — But the persons of those who fled away, to shew their disapprobation, and denounce the attempt of their brethren, (H.) would no doubt be saved. C. — If they continued among them, their indolence or connivance deserved punishment. H. — Grotius (Jur. ii. 15,) maintains, that the magistrate is authorized by the law of nature to punish those who deny the existence of God or his Providence, as these errors strike at the root of all society. — For the Lord, as a victim of expiation, and to manifest your zeal for the honour of the only true God. — No more. Sept. "it shall be uninhabited." The Rabbins are so exact, as to entertain a doubt whether the place might even be used as a garden. C.
*H And there shall nothing of that anathema stick to thy hand: that the Lord may turn from the wrath of his fury, and may have mercy on thee, and multiply thee as he swore to thy fathers,
Ver. 17. Hand. Thou shalt reserve nothing for thyself, (M.) as Achan did. Jos. vii. H.