Ver. 5. Because he hath spoken to turn you away— Margin, spoken revolt against the Lord; in which words we read the reason of the law. The crime of the false prophet was a crime of lese majeste and high treason: in preaching apostacy, he preached revolt; and that which makes his crime most odious is, that, to favour idolatry, he calls himself the messenger of God; and, under the sanction of this title, solicits the Israelites to renounce their obedience to the Lord. Nothing could be more culpable than such an imposture. One could scarcely believe that the later Jews had justified their rejection of our Saviour by this passage in the law; the fact, however, is true. "Our law," they say, "permitted us not to receive Jesus for a true prophet, whatever were his miracles, because he proposed the destruction of our religion." Now, not to say that the proposition is false, and that Jesus Christ, so far from forming any design to abolish the religion of Moses, declared on the contrary, in the plainest manner, that he came not to destroy, but to accomplish it; not to insist upon this, there are two things which evidently distinguish our Saviour from the false prophet here pointed out: first, it was not one sign or one miracle only which Jesus wrought to prove the divinity of his mission; his miracles were both more in number and more excellent than those which were performed by Moses: but what probability is there that God should have given him such permission and power, if he had not been, as he declared himself, the CHRIST? Secondly, in the words of Moses, a prophet is spoken of who would seduce the people to idolatry; but the man must have lost all shame who imputes this crime to the legislator of the Christians. See Bishop Kidder's Demonstr. of the Messiah, part 2 Chronicles 1 p. 4 fol.

Ver. 6. If thy brother, &c.— To convince them of the high duty they owed to God, and to shew them that this law ought to be executed in its utmost rigour against a sin which struck at the very foundation of their religion and government, Moses puts the case in the strongest manner; that if the nearest and dearest relation and friend should entice a man to the worship of false gods, he was to have no mercy upon the enticer, but was to put him to death, ver. 9. The reason of the thing, however, shews that these two circumstances were to be understood: first, that the seducer be convicted by two sufficient witnesses before the proper magistrates, see Numbers 35:30; 2nd, that the offender obstinately persist to defend idolatry in spite of admonition: for who can doubt but that a father, for instance, might save the life of his son, in case he brought him to timely repentance? Therefore the rabbis very justly supply these two mitigations of the law. In the words of this verse we have a fine idea of friendship: thy friend which is as thine own soul; a faithful friend is another self: the same spirit seems to animate two persons who love cordially, and according to the laws of piety and virtue. Such was the language of Pythagoras, and of Aristotle, copied, most probably, from this of Moses, the eloquence and energy of which was not to be effaced by them. A modern poet, speaking of two friends, says beautifully:
"Like objects pleas'd them, and like objects pain'd ——'Twas but one soul that in two bodies reigned." See STILLINGFLEET'S Essay on Conversation.

Ver. 9. Thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death— The person was to be stoned, and the accuser was to throw the first stone at him, together with the witnesses; see chap. Deuteronomy 17:7. To this our Saviour alludes, John 8:7. This law at first sight may appear too great a trial to humanity; but it is no more than requiring a compliance with that plain principle of morality, that we are to sacrifice all private considerations to the good of the public: as well as with that first principle in religion, that we are to sacrifice all private connections to the love of God. Such is the doctrine which our Saviour teaches, when he says, if any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26.
REFLECTIONS.—Our nearest and dearest relatives, in this particular, must have no regard shown to them; should they tempt us secretly to idolatry, the same holy indignation must fire our bosoms against them: we must neither conceal nor pity them. Our hand must be first upon them to stone them, and then that of all the people; that thus both the evil may be removed, and such execution deter others from the like criminal attempts. Note; (1.) Those temptations are doubly bewitching, which come through persons whom we love. (2.) The hope of secresy and security in sin is a great snare to lead men into it. (3.) To conceal the criminal from justice, is to be a party in his crime. (4.) The design of every execution is to strike terror into others, that they may be kept from the same guilty ways and miserable end.

Ver. 17. There shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand— Nothing could be more wisely appointed than this law, which served at once to create in them the greatest abhorrence of idolatry, and at the same time prevented any temptations to destroy an innocent city for the sake of plunder. After such severe and strict laws for the extirpation of idolatry, one cannot help being astonished at the absurdity of Voltaire's attempt to prove that idolatry was tolerated among the Jews.
That the Lord may—multiply thee— As if he had said, "Fear not that the total destruction of a great city will prejudice your commonwealth; for the Lord, in consequence of your obedience to his commands, will give you other citizens, and those in great abundance." With respect to the punishment denounced in this chapter, it was necessary; for nothing was more important than to prevent a crime which sapped the very foundations of the Hebrew constitution church and state. Grotius remarks, that idolatry and blasphemy were the only crimes to which a confiscation of goods was attached; as religion is the bond of society, impiety and irreligion are its destruction. See De Jur. B. et P. lib. 2: cap. 20. We should, however, remark at the same time, that, as the law here treated of was founded upon the particular constitution of the people of Israel, we cannot justly conclude from it, that it is lawful among other nations to punish idolaters with death, however enormous their crime may be.