John Calvin on Deuteronomy 26:14

14. I have not eaten thereof in my mourning (tristitia) It is clear that the sacred offerings are here spoken of; but the question is, what is meant by eating in mourning? This is the exposition received by almost universal consent; that although want may have tempted them to theft and fraud, yet the people assert that, even in their poverty and straits, they have abstained from the hallowed things; and to this I willingly assent; although this word “mourning” may be taken for 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 in which man’s guilt ever torments and troubles him.” As to the second clause, interpreters differ. Some translate the word ‘בער bagnar, בער, is to consume, and especially as fire consumes. The verb is here in Pihel, in which conjugation it further signifies to carry away, as rendered in A.V. Our author gives the paraphrase of Aben Ezra, as quoted in S. M. — W. “to destroy:” as if it were said, that they had suffered nothing to perish through uncleanness; but others explain it, I have taken away nothing for a profane purpose. My own opinion is, however, 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. “En rien appliquant a soy de ce qui appartenoit a Dieu:” by appropriating anything to themselves of what belonged to God. — Fr. Thus, in my idea, some do not badly translate it “by uncleanness:” for it was not possible for the Israelites to apply the tithes to other uses, without contracting pollution by their wicked abuse of them. The ambiguity in the third clause is still greater; literally it is, “I have not given thereof to the dead.” In my version I have followed those who refer it to funeral rites; but some suppose that the word “dead” is used metaphorically for an unclean thing; others, in a less natural sense, for expenses, which do not contribute to support man’s life. But it does not yet appear wherefore it should he said that nothing had been spent on funeral rites. It is true that whatever had touched a dead body was unclean; and therefore some expound it, that the victims had not been polluted by any connection with funeral preparations. But if this sense is preferred, the expression must be taken by synecdoche for anything unclean. My own opinion however, is, that under this particular head all things are included which have a shew of piety. The burial of the dead was a praiseworthy office and a religious exercise; “Telle apparence pouvoit enhardir les gens a y employer les offertes deues a Dieu:” this pretext might embolden the people to employ upon it the offerings due to God. — Fr. so that it might afford a colorable pretext for peculiar laxity; in this word, therefore, God would have the Israelites declare, that they offered no excuse if they had misemployed any of the consecrated things.