The Priesthood

EXODUS 28

GO TO EXODUS 28: 1-43

And indeed all the splendor of the tabernacle, of which we have been speaking, would have been an empty parade without the priest, who so mediated as an intercessor, that he reconciled men to God, and in a manner united heaven to earth. Now it is unquestionable, that the Levitical priests were the representatives of Christ; since, with respect to their office, they were even better than the very angels; which would be by no means reasonable, unless they had been the type of Him, who is Himself the head of the angels. The heathen nations, it is true, had their priests, who presided over their religious services, but they were but empty phantoms; for there was no mention with them of the Mediator, so that the people might know that God cannot be duly appeased, and that our prayers cannot be heard by Him, unless a peace-maker interfere between us. But the nature of the Levitical priesthood was widely different; for the Israelites were instructed that all of them were unworthy to stand before God, and so that there was need of an Intercessor to propitiate Him. Now, since the general rule had been laid down, that all things should be rigidly referred to the pattern which had been shewn to Moses in the mount, their minds were necessarily drawn upwards; and this too they might easily have arrived at, for various reasons. The whole body of the people saw a man like themselves, who could not enter the sanctuary trusting in his own innocence, and whose dignity was conferred upon him by adventitious rites; i.e., by anointing, and by investiture. The full truth, therefore, did not shine forth in this, but only a figure to direct them to the truth; and of this they were doubtless admonished, lest they should rest in earthly things. Besides, its interpretation was added (by the prophets ¹); because, as the Apostle wisely teaches us in the Epistle to Hebrews 7:18, the promise to appoint hereafter a priest after the order of Melchisedec would not hold good, unless it were applied to Christ; for it is plain that the Levitical priesthood is there brought into comparison by contrast with one of a different nature; and since the latter is eternal, it follows that the former is temporary; and, whilst the one is sanctioned by an oath, it clearly is superior to the other. There is no doubt, then, but that David, as a faithful interpreter of the Law, more manifestly shewed forth what there was obscurely shadowed.

Thus far my wish has been to teach that the Levitical priest was ordained, that he might be a type of the true Mediator. It will now be worth our while briefly to advert to the marks by which our perpetual and only Priest, the Son of God, is to be distinguished from those of old; for a fuller exposition will follow hereafter in its proper place. The first distinction I have already pointed out, viz., that the type was temporary; since perpetuity is only to be sought in the reality itself: whence we learn that the priestly office was not so instituted by Moses to last for ever, but to direct the people to a better hope. But what I have said as to the office, must be transferred also to the persons. There was only one high priest under the Law, who was afterwards succeeded by one of his race, since they were all mortal. None, then, was ever such a priest as became us, except Christ; because none other could be perpetual; and hence we arrive at the second distinction. The third arises from Christ’s divinity, which is proved by the fact, that the priest after the order of Melchisedec has no beginning; for we find nowhere the origin of Melchisedec; but he is only brought forward once and unexpectedly, as if be had come down from heaven. The fourth is the combination of the kingdom and the priesthood. Under the Law God would have some to be kings, and others to be priests; nor was it allowable to mix up the one office with the other; but He, of whom it is said that He should be a priest like Melchisedec, is honored with the title of king. The fifth is, that the legal priest only appeared before God in the visible and sanctuary, but Christ entered into heaven, to present us to His Father, not in the external symbols of (precious) stones, ² but in the reality itself; for in Him as our Head we are all gathered together unto God. The sixth lies in the perfect righteousness of Christ; for the legal priest, since he was one of us sinners, had need to seek pardon for himself; but Christ, being free from all guilt, awakens favor towards us by His own purity. The seventh is, that the priest borrowed from external figures what was truly and really shewn forth in Christ. The sacred garments, as we have lately said, denoted something more than human; the anointing, too, was a symbol of the Spirit which dwells in Christ; and He therefore was not consecrated with visible and corruptible oil, but with the fullness of all gifts. The priest of old abstained from intercourse with his wife when he went into the sanctuary; he was only allowed to marry a virgin; the perfect and spiritual purity of Christ was contented with its own perfection. The last distinction consisted in the sacrifices themselves, respecting which I abstain at present from speaking more fully, because they will have their proper place hereafter. This only we must now recollect, that Christ expiated the sins of the world, not with the blood of beasts, but with His own blood. Now we turn to the words of Moses.

1. And take thou unto thee Aaron. The calling of God is here alleged to prove the importance and dignity of the priesthood, and this too the Apostle has well weighed in the words:

“And no man taketh the honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” (Hebrews 5:4.)

Among heathen nations the priests were appointed by popular election, so that ambition alone governed their appointment; but God would only have those accounted lawful priests whom He had selected at His own sole will; and surely the whole human race together had no power to obtrude any one on God, who should interpose himself to obtain pardon and peace; nay, not even Christ Himself would have been sufficient to propitiate God, unless He had undertaken the office by the decree and appointment of His Father. To which refers the famous oath, whereby His heavenly Father appointed Him to be priest; and so much the more vile and detestable was the sacrilege which afterwards prevailed in the Jewish nation, viz., that the successors of Aaron bought the priesthood! This unworthy traffic of the office, which Josephus relates, ought to awaken horror in us now, when we see that sacred honor profaned by the family which had been chosen by God to represent Christ. Nevertheless, however they may have violated all law and justice, still the counsel of God remained inviolable, that believers might know that the priesthood depended on His authority, just as reconciliation flows from His mere mercy. For in order that it should be lawful for men to establish a priest, it would be necessary that they should anticipate God by their own deservings; and from this they are very far distant. The case is different as to the election of the pastors of the Church; since, after Christ had instituted the order itself, He commanded that there should be chosen out of the Church those who by their doctrine and integrity of life were fitted to exercise the office. Still He does not thus resign His own right and power to men, for He does not cease through them to call those (by whom He would be served. ³) Wherefore, to shew that He is the sole author of the priesthood, God commands Aaron and his sons to be separated from among the others; and the performance of this He entrusts to Moses, whom, however, He does not elevate to the like honor. Moses consecrates Aaron, although he was never himself dedicated by anointing and investiture to the service of God; ⁴ whence we perceive that the sacraments have their power and effect not from the virtue of the minister, but only from the commandment of God; for Moses would not have given to others what he had not himself, if it had not so pleased God.

2. And thou shalt make holy garments. These external ornaments denoted the want of those which are true and spiritual; for if the priest had been absolutely and entirely perfect, these typical accessories would have been superfluous. But God would shew by this symbol the more than angelical brightness of all virtues which was to be exhibited in Christ. Aaron was defiled by his own corruption, and therefore unworthy to appear in the presence of God; in order, then, that he might be a fit peacemaker between God and man, he put off his ordinary garments, and stood forth as a new man. Hence the holy garments were, first of all, supposed to conceal his faults; and, secondly, to represent the incomparable adornment of all virtues. The latter may indeed be in some measure applied to the pastors of the Church; nor will the comparison be absurd, if we say that no others are worthy of so excellent an honor, except those in whom surpassing and extraordinary virtue brightly manifests itself. But we must chiefly recollect what I have said, viz., that in these garments the supreme purity and wondrous glory of Christ were represented; as if God should promise that the Mediator would be far more august than the condition of man could produce. He therefore declares that they shall be “for glory and for beauty.” We shall speak more fully hereafter, what I will touch upon now, as to the wisdom of the artificers, viz., that all who from the foundation of the world have invented arts useful to the human race, have been imbued with the Spirit of God; so that even heathen authors have been compelled to call them the inventions of the gods. But inasmuch as in this Divine work there was need of rare and unwonted skill, it is expressly spoken of as a peculiar gift of the Spirit.

4. And these are the garments. Here again I must remind my readers, that they should abandon all subtle speculations, and be contented with simplicity. I might repeat many plausible allegories, which perhaps would find more favor with some than a sound knowledge of facts. If any should delight in this kind of child’s play, let him only read what Jerome wrote to Fabiola; in which he collected almost everything that he possibly could from the writings of others; but nothing will be found except dull trifling, the folly of which it is painful even to report, much more to refute. Those who are conversant with my writings, are aware that I do not willingly find fault with the opinions of others; but when I reflect how dangerous are those itching ears, with which many are troubled, I am obliged to prescribe this remedy. Six principal parts of the dress are enumerated. What the Greeks call the λογεῖον, and the Latins the pectorale, was like a square breastplate attached by small chains, so as to be connected with the ephod. Inclosed in it were twelve stones to represent the tribes of Israel; and the Urim and Thummim were also annexed to it. But what its form might be, cannot be certainly declared from the words of Moses; and since even the Jews also differ among themselves, let us be satisfied with its comparison to a breastplate. I have no objection to the opinion, that its name ⁵ was derived from strength, or a treasure. But this is worthy of the utmost attention, that the priest bore the sons of Abraham as it were upon his heart, not only that he might present them to God, but that he might be mindful of them, and anxious for their welfare. The twelve precious stones were by no means given to be symbols of the twelve tribes as a cause for awakening their pride, as if they were so highly esteemed on the score of their own dignity or excellence; but they were thus reminded that the whole value, in which believers are held by God, is derived from the sanctity of the priesthood. Therefore, let us learn from this figure, that:, however vile and abject we may be in ourselves, and so altogether worthless refuse, yet inasmuch as Christ deigned to ingraft us into this body, in Him we are precious stones. And to this Isaiah seems to allude in the passage before cited, where, speaking of the restoration of the Church, which was to take place under the reign of Christ, he says, “Behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colors, and lay thy foundations with sapphires; and I will make thy windows with carbuncles, and all thy borders with pleasant stones;” for immediately after the exposition follows, “And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord.” (Isaiah 54:11-13.) Therefore what was to be fulfilled in Christ, was typified by the external sign under the Law; viz., that though we sojourn in the world, yet are we united with Christ by faith, as if we were one with Him; and, besides, that He takes care for our welfare, as if He bore us enclosed in His heart; and, finally, that when our heavenly Father regards us in Him, He esteems us above all the wealth and splendor of the world.

As to the Urim and Thummim, it appears probable to me that they were two conspicuous marks on the breastplate, corresponding to these names; for the supposition of some of the Jews, ⁶ that the ineffable name of God was placed beneath its texture, is not free from foolish and dangerous superstition. I pass over other fancies, which are equally frivolous; nor am I anxious to know what was the form of either of them; the fact itself is sufficient for me. By the Urim, therefore, or splendors, I doubt not but that the light of doctrine, wherewith the true Priest illuminates all believers, was represented; first, because He is the one “light of the world,” without which all things are full of darkness; and because in Him “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (John 8:12; 9:5; Colossians 2:3.) Hence did Paul justly glory that he knew nothing but Jesus Christ, (1 Corinthians 2:2,) since His priesthood sufficiently and more than sufficiently enlightens us. As then the people were admonished that their eyes should be directed to the splendor of the priest, so now we must diligently remember what Christ Himself teaches, that “he that followeth him shall not walk in darkness.” (John 8:12.) On the other hand, the Thummim, which signifies perfections, was a symbol of the perfect and entire purity which is only to be sought in Christ; for He would not have been a meet high priest unless He had been perfect, free from every spot, and deficient in nothing which is required unto complete holiness. It is not, then, an improper distinction, that the Urim refers to the light of doctrine, and the Thummim to the life; and this is indeed in some measure applicable to the pastors of the Church, who ought to shine both in sound doctrine and in integrity of life. But it was God’s design to shew that neither of these things is to be sought anywhere except in Christ; since from Him we obtain both light and purity, when He deigns to make us partakers of them according to the measure of His free bounty. Whence it follows, that they who seek for the least spark of light or drop of purity out of Christ, plunge themselves into a labyrinth, where they wander in mortal darkness, and inhale the deadly fumes of false virtues unto their own destruction.

What the Scripture sometimes relates, as to the inquiries made by Urim and Thummim, it was a concession made by God to the rudeness of His ancient people. The true Priest had not yet appeared, the Angel of His Almighty counsel, by whose Spirit all the Prophets spoke, who, finally, is the fountain of all revelations, and the express image of the Father; in order then that the typical priest might be the messenger from God to man, it behooved him to be invested with the ornaments of Christ. Thus even then believers were taught in a figure, that Christ is the way by which we come to the Father, and that He also brings from the secret bosom of His Father whatever it is profitable for us to know unto salvation, hence that fiction of the Jews is contradicted, that the responses were given in this way: if a question was asked respecting a particular tribe, that the stone which represented it was lighted up; and that the colors of the stones were changed according as God refused or assented. For even if we allow that the Urim and Thummim were the rows of precious stones themselves, still this imagination is altogether unmeaning. But, as I have said, by the very form of the breastplate God would testify that the fulness of wisdom and integrity was contained in it; for which reason it is called “the breastplate of judgment,” i.e., of the most perfect rectitude, which left nothing to be desired; for the word משפט mishphot, often signifies in Scripture whatsoever is well and duly ordered. The interpretation which some give, that “judgment” means “inquiry,” because the priest only asked for responses when he had the breastplate on, is too restricted, and is even proved to be erroneous by sundry passages. Let this then be deemed settled, that this honorable appellation is meant to express a correct and infallible rule (ordinem.) Because the breastplate was, as it were, a part of the ephod, it is therefore sometimes comprehended in that word; in which it may be well also to observe, that this peculiar ephod of the high priest’s was different from the others, of which mention is made elsewhere; for all of the sacerdotal lineage wore an ephod in the performance of religious duties. (1 Samuel 14:3; 23:6.) Even David, when he danced before the Ark, wore his ephod, (2 Samuel 6:14;) and this custom is still retained by the Jews at their chief festivals. The rest I will introduce presently in their proper places.

9. And thou shalt take two onyx-stones. That the connection between the priest and the people might be made more plain, God not only placed on his breast the memorials of the twelve tribes, but also engraved their names on his shoulders. Thus all occasion of envy was removed, since the people would understand that this one man was not separated from the others for the sake of private advantage, but that in his one person they were all a kingdom of priests, which Peter teaches to have been at length really fulfilled in Christ, (1 Peter 2:5;) as Isaiah had foretold that there should be priests of God, and Levites brought from the Gentiles, (Isaiah 66:21;) to which John makes allusion in the Apocalypse, where he says that we are all priests in Christ, (Revelation 1:6.) But we must remember the reason why our High Priest is said to bear us on His shoulders, for we not only crawl on earth, but we are plunged in the lowest depths of death; how then should we be able to ascend to heaven, unless the Son of God should raise us up with Him; Now, since there is no ability in us unto eternal life, but all our powers of mind and body lie prostrate, we must be borne up by His strength alone. Hence then arises our confidence of ascending to heaven, because Christ raises us up with Him; as Paul says, we “sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus,” (Ephesians 2:6;) however weak then we may be in ourselves, herein is all our strength, that we are His burden. Therefore in this old type was prefigured what Paul teaches, that the Church is “his body,” and “the fullness of him,” (Ephesians 1:22.) It remains that each of us, conscious of our own weakness, should rest on Christ; for when in foolish arrogance we exalt ourselves, we do not suffer ourselves to be lifted up by Him, to be borne and sustained by His power. Let the proud then, by lifting themselves on high, fall down in ruin, whilst Christ supports us upon His shoulders. These stones are called “stones of memorial;” and again, “for a memorial” to the children of Israel; as is also afterwards repeated of the twelve stones; which some expound, that “God may be mindful of the children of Israel;” others, that “the priest himself may remember them;” others, that “the children of Israel may remember that God is reconciled to them for the sake of the one Mediator;” but I simply interpret it, that they were a monument of the mutual agreement between God and them; as if God would shew by a visible sign that He embraced them and received them into His sanctuary, as often as they were offered in this manner.

30. And thou shalt put in the breastplate. From these words some infer that the Urim and Thummim were distinct from the whole work, which is before described; others think that they were the twelve stones, because no mention will be made of them when Moses relates that the whole was completed. But nothing is more probable, as I have already said, than that on the breastplate itself some representation was given of light in doctrine, and of entire uprightness of life; and therefore after Moses has called it “the breastplate of judgment,” he also speaks of it as “the judgment of the children of Israel;” by which expression he means a certain and defined system, or an absolutely perfect rule, to which the children of Israel ought to direct and conform themselves.

31. And thou shalt make the robe. This robe was above the oblong coat between that and the ephod; and from its lower edge hung the bells and pomegranates alternately. Although there was no smell in the pomegranates, ⁷ yet the type suggested this to the eyes; as if God required in that garment a sweet smell as well as a sound; and surely we who stink through the foulness of our sins, are only a sweet smell unto God as being covered with the garment of Christ. But God would have the bells give a sound; because the garment of Christ does not procure favor for us, except by the sound of the Gospel, which diffuses the sweet savor of the Head amongst all the members. In this allegory there is nothing too subtle or far-fetched; for the similitude of the smell and the sound naturally leads us to the honoring of grace, ⁸ and to the preaching of the Gospel. By the pomegranates, therefore, which were attached to the hem of the garment, God testified that whatever was in the priest smelt sweetly, and was acceptable to Him, provided the sound accompanied it; the necessity of which is declared, when God denounces death against the priest if He should enter the sanctuary without the sound. And assuredly it was a general invitation which awakened the peoples’ minds to attention, whilst the sacred offices were performed. There is no absurdity in the fact, that the punishment which God threatens does not properly apply to Christ; because it was necessary to issue severe injunctions to the Levitical priests, lest they should omit these external exercises of piety, until the truth was manifested. The ancients do not unwisely make a spiritual application of this to the ministers of the Church; for the priest is worthy of death, says Gregory, ⁹ from whom the voice of preaching is not heard; just as Isaiah reproves “the dumb dogs.” (Isaiah 56:10.) But this we must especially remember, that the garment of Christ is sonorous, since only faith, which cometh by hearing, clothes us with His righteousness.

36. And thou shalt make a plate. It is not without reason that this inscription is placed upon the priest’s forehead, that it may be conspicuous; for not only did God thus testify that the legal priesthood was approved of, and acceptable to Him, since He had consecrated it by His word, but also that holiness was not to be sought elsewhere. These two things, then, are to be observed, — first, that the priesthood of His own appointment is pleasing to God, and so, that all others, however magnificently they may be spoken of, are abominable to Him, and rejected by Him; and secondly, that out of Christ we are all corrupt, and all our worship faulty; and however excellent our actions may seem, that they are still unclean and polluted. Thus, therefore, let all our senses remain fixed on the forehead of our sole and perpetual Priest, that we may know that from Him alone purity flows throughout the whole Church. To this His words refer,

“For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.” (John 17:19;)

and the same thing is expressed in this passage of Moses, “that Aaron may hear the iniquity of the holy things,” etc. It is undoubtedly a remarkable passage, whereby, we are taught that nothing proceeds from us pleasing to God except through the intervention of the grace of the Mediator; for here there is no reference to manifest and gross sins, ¹⁰ the pardon of which it is clear that we can only obtain through Christ; but the iniquity of the holy oblations was to be taken away and cleansed by the priest. That is but a poor exposition of it, that if any error were committed in the ceremonies, it was remitted in answer to the prayers of the priest; for we must look further, and understand that on this account the iniquity of the offerings must be purged by the priest, because no offering, in so far as it is of man, is altogether free from guilt. This is a harsh saying, and almost a paradox, that our very holinesses are so impure as to need pardon; but it must be borne in mind that nothing is so pure as not to contract some stain from us; just as water, which, although it may be drawn in purity from a limpid fountain, yet, if it passes over muddy ground, is tinged by it, and becomes somewhat turbid: thus nothing is so pure in itself as not to be polluted by the contagion of our flesh. Nothing is more excellent than the service of God; and yet the people could offer nothing, even although prescribed by the Law, except with the intervention of pardon, which none but the priest could obtain for them. There is now no sacrifice, nor was there ever, more pleasing to God than the invocation of His name, as He himself declares,

“Call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me,” (Psalm 1:15;)

yet the Apostle teaches us that “the sacrifice of praise” only pleases God when it is offered in Christ. (Hebrews 13:15.) Let us learn, then, that our acts of obedience, when they come into God’s sight, are mingled with iniquity, which exposes us to His judgment, unless Christ should sanctify them. In sum, this passage teaches us that whatsoever good works we strive to present to God are so far from deserving reward, that they rather convict us of guilt, unless the holiness of Christ, whereby God is propitiated, obtains pardon for them. And this is again asserted immediately afterwards, where Moses says that by favor of the priest the sins of the sacred oblations are taken away ¹¹ “for favorable acceptation,” i.e., that the Israelites may be sure that God is reconciled and favorable to them. I have nothing to say of the tiara itself, which some call a mitre, (cidarim,) and others a cap; neither do I choose to philosophize too subtilely about the belt or girdle. ¹²

40. And for Aaron’s sons. The sons of Aaron also are separated not only from the body of the people, but likewise from the Levites; for a peculiar dignity was attached to that family, from whom his successor was afterwards to be taken. ¹³ And since no single individual was able to perform all their offices, they were distributed amongst them. Hence it was that they were adorned with the coat, the girdle, and the bonnet, “for glory and for beauty.” We shall see as to their anointing in the next chapter. Their hands are said be filled, ¹⁴ when they are made fit for offering sacrifices, for as long as their hands are unconsecrated (profanae) they are accounted empty, even though they may be very full, since no gift is acceptable to God except in right of the priesthood; consequently their fullness arose from consecration, whereby it came that the oblations duly made had access to God. But we must observe that it is not their father Aaron, but Moses, who sanctifies them, that the power itself, or effect of their sanctification, may rest in God, and may not be transferred to His ministers. Perhaps, too, God would anticipate the calumnies of the ungodly, lest any should afterwards object that Aaron had fraudulently and unjustly extended the honor conferred upon himself alone to his sons also, and thus had unlawfully made it hereditary. He was protected against this reproach by the fact, that the sacerdotal dignity came to them from elsewhere. Besides, by these means the posterity of Moses was more certainly deprived of the hope they may have conceived in consideration of what their father was. Therefore Moses, by inaugurating the children of Aaron, reduced his own to their proper place, lest ally ambition should hereafter tempt them, or lest envy should possess them when they saw themselves put below others.

42. And thou shalt make them linen breeches. Since men, in their natural levity and frowardness, lay hold of the very slightest causes of offense to the disparagement of holy things, and so religion easily sinks into contempt, God here, as a precaution against such a danger, delivers a precept respecting an apparently trivial matter, viz., that the priests should cover their nakedness with breeches. The sum is, that they should conduct themselves chastely and modestly, lest, if anything improper or indecorous should appear in them, the majesty of holy things should be impaired. Some, therefore, thus explain the clause, “that they may minister in holiness,” ¹⁵ as if it were said, “that they may be pure from every stain, and may not desecrate God’s service.” In my opinion, however, the word קודש kodesh, should be taken for the sanctuary; and this is the more natural sense. A threat is added, that if they neglected this observance it would not be with impunity, since they would bring guilt upon themselves. Nor can we wonder at this, since all carelessness and negligence in the performance of sacred duties is closely connected with impiety and contempt of God. What immediately follows as to its being a perpetual law or statute, some, in my judgment improperly, restrict to the precept respecting the breeches, for it has a natural reference to the other ordinances of the priesthood. God therefore declares generally, that the Law which He gives is not for a little time, but that it may always remain in force as regards His elect people; whence we infer that the word עולם gnolam ¹⁶ whenever the legal types are in question, attains its end in the advent of Christ; and assuredly this is the true perpetuity of the ceremonies, that they should rest in Christ, who is their full truth and substance. For, since in Christ was at length manifested what was then delineated in shadows, these figures are established, because their use has ceased after the manifestation of their reality. And this we have already seen was long ago foretold by David, when he substitutes for the Levitical priesthood another “after the order of Melchisedec,” (<19B004>Psalm 110:4;) but the dignity being transferred, as the Apostle well reminds us, the Law and all the statutes must be of necessity transferred also. (Hebrews 7:12.) The ancient rites, therefore, are now at an end, because they do not accord with the spiritual priesthood of Christ; and herein the twofold sacrilege of the Papacy betrays itself, in that mortal men have dared to substitute another third priesthood for that of Christ, as if His were transitory; and also, in their foolish imitation of the Jews, have heaped together ceremonies which are directly opposed to the nature of Christ’s priesthood. They reply, indeed, that His priesthood remains entire, although they have innumerable sacrifices; but they vainly endeavor to escape by this subterfuge, for if it was unlawful to change, or to innovate anything in the legal priesthood, how much less is it lawful to corrupt the priesthood of Christ by strange inventions, when its integrity has been ratified by the inviolable oath of God? The Father says to the Son, “Thou art a priest for ever;” how, then, does it avail to make the silly assertion that nothing is taken away from Christ, when an innumerable multitude (of priests) are appointed? How do these things accord, that He was anointed to offer Himself by the Spirit, and yet that He is offered by others? that by one offering He completed His work unto our full justification, and yet that He is offered daily? Now, if there be now-a-days no lawful priest except such an one as possesses in himself what was foreshewn in the ancient types, let them bring forth priests adorned with angelic purity, and as it were separate from the ranks of men, otherwise we shall be at liberty to repudiate all who are defiled by the very slightest stain. Hence, too, has arisen their second sacrilege, viz., that they have dared to obscure the brightness of the gospel with a new Judaism. They were altogether without the means of proving their priesthood, and so their easiest plan was to envelop their vanity in an immense mass of ceremonies, and, as it were, to shut out the light by clouds. So much the more diligently, then, must believers beware of departing from the pure institution of Christ, if they desire to have Him for their one and eternal Mediator.

EXODUS 29

GO TO EXODUS 29: 1-35

1. And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them. Since I shall again repeat and more fully explain these things as they are written in Leviticus 9, in the history of the consecration of the tabernacle, it will be sufficient to give nothing more than a brief summary of them here; nor is it my custom to invent mysteries out of vague speculations, ¹⁷ such as may rather gratify than instruct my readers. First, since the whole human race is corrupt and infected with many impurities, so that his uncleanness prevents every single individual from having access to God, Moses, before he consecrates the priests, washes them by the sprinkling of water, in order that they may be no longer deemed to be of ordinary rank. Hence we gather that true purity and innocence, which was but typical in the Law, is found in Christ alone. “For such an high priest became us,” says the Apostle, “who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” to present Himself before God for us. (Hebrews 7:26.) After they had been washed, God commands that they should be invested with the sacerdotal dress, according to their respective ranks: that the high priest should wear the ephod with the Urim and Thummim, and the mitre with the golden plate, on which shone forth “holiness to Jehovah;” and in the third place, He adds the anointing. This preparation was for the purpose of initiating them, before they performed the office of sacrificing; but it must be observed that, as to this first sacrifice, the duties which were afterwards transferred to Aaron were imposed upon Moses, as if he were the only priest; and, in point of fact, the temporal dignity which he afterwards resigned to his brother, was still in his own hands. What Moses introduces about the division of the victim, we shall more conveniently explain elsewhere, in treating of the offerings, which we have stated to be the third part of the legal worship.

16. And thou shalt slay the ram. Moses had previously been commanded to take the parts of the victim from the hands of Aaron, to propitiate God with them, in order that he and his posterity might be able hereafter to perform the same office; but here a peculiar ceremony is described, that he should smear the right ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the toe of the right foot, both of Aaron and his sons, with the blood of a ram; and then that he should sprinkle them and their garments with the blood which was deposited upon the altar. What we must first observe here is, that the priest must be sprinkled with blood, in order that he may conciliate the favor of God towards himself for the purpose of intercession. Thus the priesthood of Christ was dedicated with blood, so that it might be efficacious to reconcile God with us. The question now arises, why only the right ear and the right thumb and too were sprinkled with blood, as if the priests were consecrated and devoted to God only in half of their persons? I reply, that in this one part the other was comprehended; since both the ears, and both the hands and feet have the same object, and their offices are so connected, that what is said of one ear applies to the other. Again, it is asked, why the ear, and foot, and hand, were smeared rather than the breast and the tongue? and I do not doubt but that by the ear obedience was designated, and by the hands and feet all the actions and the whole course of life; for there is scarcely anything more common in Scripture than these metonymies, by which the cleanness of the hands is taken for the integrity of the whole life, and the way, or course, or walk for the direction, or manner of living. It is therefore very appropriate that man’s life should be consecrated by blood; and, inasmuch as the foundation of welldoing is obedience, which is preferred to all sacrifices, Moses is commanded to begin with the ear. And we know that the “odor of a sweet smell” in the sacrifice of Christ was obedience, (Philippians 4:18;) on which account, David, in the spirit of prophecy, introduces himself, saying, “Mine ears hast thou bored.” ¹⁸ (Psalm 40:6.) If any should object that the tongue is of no less importance, because the priest is the messenger of the Lord of hosts, I answer that the office of teaching is not here referred to, but only that of intercession; wherefore in these three members Moses embraced whatever related to atonement. But we must remember that what is said of the consecration of Christ does not apply to His own person, but refers to the profit of the whole Church; for neither was He anointed for His own sake, nor had He need to borrow ¹⁹ grace from the blood; but He had regard to His members, and devoted Himself altogether to their salvation, as He himself testifies, “For their sake I sanctify myself.” (John 17:19.)

28. And it shall be Aaron’s. Lest the dignity of the sacred offerings, which are called the holiness of the Lord, should be impaired, strangers are prohibited from partaking of them; for, if it had been permitted that every one should touch them and eat of them, there would have been no distinction between them and ordinary food. Of the priests’ portion some parts were common to all their families; but the holy parts were excepted, to the intent that by this particular instance the reverence due to all might be inculcated. The reference to place has the same object, for it was not lawful to eat what was holy within the walls of their houses, in order that it might be distinguished from their common and ordinary food. For the same reason, whatever remained of it was to be burnt, lest, if the flesh became rank, or the bread moldy, their ill savor and filthy appearance might somewhat detract from the dignity of the holy things; for the infirmity of the ancient people had need of childish rudiments, which might still have a tendency to elevate the minds of the pious to things above. This was the object of all these things, that no corruption should creep in which might pollute or render contemptible the service of God.

LEVITICUS 6

GO TO LEVITICUS 8: 1-3

19. And the Lord spake. It is well known that in conjunction with the sacrifices there was an offering, which they call minha, but we shall elsewhere see that this was also used separately; for it was lawful without a victim to offer either plain meal, or cakes, or wafers seasoned with oil. Therefore, besides the sacrifice of consecration, of which Moses has already treated, this second offering is required from the priest, that he should present at his inauguration a cake fried in a pan, and cut in pieces. The reason of this appears to have been, that he might thence become the legitimate minister of all the people, and might duly offer in the name of others, when he had done what was right for himself. But a distinction is drawn between the demand upon the priest and that, upon the people, viz., that it should be “wholly burnt; “ the reason for which, since it will be explained elsewhere, it will be now sufficient to advert to in a single word. The fact was that God was unwilling that the priests should indulge themselves in vain ostentation, which might have been easily the case, if the oblation had been preserved for their use, like the minha of the people which remained in their hands.

NUMBERS 8

GO TO NUMBERS 8: 5-19, 23-26

5. And the Lord spake unto Moses. Although the Levites were not allowed to go into the sanctuary, but were only the priests’ ministers, and chiefly employed in servile duties, yet, inasmuch as they carried the tabernacle and the sacred vessels, prepared the sacrifices, took away the ashes and other offscourings from the altar, God would have them consecrated to Himself by a solemn rite. For as all Israel, with respect to the Gentiles, was God’s peculiar people, so the house of Levi was chosen out of the people itself to be His own property, as it is here said. But, lest they should arrogate to themselves more than was right, God anticipates their presumption: first, by putting off their consecration for some time; secondly, by desiring that they should not be initiated by Moses, but by Aaron; and thirdly, by appointing a different ceremony for it. For, if they had been initiated at the same time as the priests, under this pretext they might have contended to be on an equality with them; therefore, although the priests were already separated from the common people, yet the Levites still remain unconsecrated, (privati,) in order that they may learn to reverence the priestly office. And again, since, if they had been dedicated likewise by Moses, there was a danger of their being puffed up with pride against all others, Aaron is appointed to preside over their consecration, that they may modestly submit themselves to his authority. Since, too, they were only purified by water, and sacrifice, and without the addition of anointing, the difference in the external rite reminded them that their degree of honor was not similar or the same.

6. Take the Levites from among. To take them from among the children of Israel, is equivalent to subtracting them from the number of the people, that they might not be included in the general census, and accounted to be one of the tribes. This separation, then, as he will more clearly express a little further on, devoted the Levites to God for the service of the sanctuary. That under this pretext the Papal clergy should claim immunity for themselves, so that they may live as they like in exemption from the laws, is not only an unsound deduction, but one full of impious mockery; for, since the ancient priesthood attained its end in Christ, the succession, which they allege, robs Christ of His right, as if the full truth had not been manifested in Him. Besides, inasmuch as all their privileges only depend on the primacy of the Pope, if they would have them ratified they must needs prove, first of all, that the Pope is appointed by God’s command to be the head of the whole Church, and therefore that he is the successor of Christ. As to Aaron, since he was the minister of their installation, in this way he was set over the Levites to rule them at his discretion. Meanwhile this ministry is thus entrusted to a man, in such a manner as not to stand in the way of God’s gratuitous good pleasure.

7. And thus shalt thou do unto them. Aaron is commanded first to sprinkle the water of purifying upon them, to cleanse them from their uncleanness; and not only so, but they are commanded to wash their clothes, that they may diligently beware of any impurity being anywhere about them, whereby their persons may be infected. Thirdly, they are commanded to shave their skin with a razor, that, putting off their flesh, they may begin to be new men. A sacrifice is afterwards added, and that twofold, to make an atonement for them. These things being completed, Aaron, in right and to the honor of the priesthood, is commanded to offer them just like the holy bread or incense. But the end of this was, that they might acknowledge that they were no longer their own masters, but devoted to God, that they might engage themselves in the service of the sanctuary. It was in testimony of alienation that some of the people were ordered at the same time to lay their hands upon them; as if by this ceremony all the tribes bore witness that with their consent the Levites passed over to be God’s peculiar property, that they might be a part or appendage of the sanctuary. For private individuals (as we shall see hereafter) were accustomed to lay their hands on their sacrifices, yet not with the same object as the priests. ²⁰

16. For they are wholly given. Lest the other tribes should complain that the number of the people was diminished, God declares that the Levites were alienated from the race of Abraham, since He had acquired them to Himself when He smote all the first-born of Egypt; for it is certain that the first-born of the people, as well as those of their animals, were miraculously rescued from the common destruction. Since, then, God delivered them by special privilege, He thus bound them to Himself by the blessing of their redemption. But this reason would seem no longer to hold good, when God, in demanding the price of redemption, set the first-born free, ²¹ as was elsewhere stated; else He would require the same thing twice over, which would be unjust. The solution, however, of this is easy; when, in the first census, the first-born of the twelve tribes were counted, they were found to exceed the Levites in number. An exchange was then made, viz., that all the first-born of the twelve tribes, being 22,000 in number, should be free from the tribute, and that God should take the Levites in their place as His ministers. Only 273 were redeemed, because this was the excess of their number above that of the Levites. Thus was it brought to pass, that God was content with these just and equal terms, so as not to oppress the people by a heavy burden. But this compensation, which was only made on that one particular day, did not prevent the Israelites from owing their children, who were not then born, to God. Since, then, this obligation still lay upon them as regarded their posterity, the law was passed that they should redeem their first-born. If any should object that it was not fair for those who should be born of the Levites to be consecrated to God, — I reply, that on this point there was no unfairness, for of whatever tribe they might be descended, they were already His property, together with all their offspring; the condition of the people was not therefore made worse by the exchange; and hence, in all equity, God appointed for the future at what price the Israelites should redeem their first-born. In saying that they were “given” to Him, He means to assert that they were His by compact; ²² and in this sense He declares that from the day in which He smote the first-born of Egypt, the first-born of Israel had become His; and then adds, that He then took the Levites; as much as to say, that He only dealt with his people with respect to the time past.

19. And I have given the Levites. He declares on what terms He desires to have them as His own, viz., that they may be directed by Aaron, and obey his commands; for by “a gift” is not to be understood such an act as that whereby a person resigns and cedes his own right to another; but, when He devotes them to the ministry of the sanctuary, He desires that they should have a leader and master. At the end of the verse, Moses teaches that this is done for the advantage and profit of the whole people: whence it follows, that there was no room for ill-will towards them, unless the people should perhaps be annoyed that God had taken measures for their welfare. A two-fold advantage is pointed out; first, because they were to be the intercessors or ministers of reconciliation, (for either sense would be appropriate;) secondly, because, whilst they would be the guardians of the sanctuary, they would prevent the Israelites from bringing destruction upon themselves, by their rash approach to it.

24. This is it, that belongeth to the Levites. The age is here prescribed when the Levites should begin and end the execution of their office. God commands them to commence in their 25th year and grants them their dismissal in their 50th; and for both these provisions there is very good reason. For, if they had been admitted in early youth, their levity might have greatly detracted from the reverence due to sacred things: not only because those, whose manhood is not yet mature, are generally given to pleasure and intemperance, but because either by negligence, or levity, or want of thought, or ignorance and error, they might have made many grievous mistakes in the service of God; and, whilst they were by no means fitted to exercise their charge until they should have attained prudence and gravity, so also, lest they should fail from old age, it was right that they should be seasonably dismissed; for as we have before said, their duties were laborious, and such as demanded bodily strength. If, however, any should choose to make an application of this to the pastoral office, it should be generally remembered, that none should be chosen to it except such as have already given proofs of their moderation, and float those who diligently devote themselves to it should not be unreasonably pressed upon, nor should more be required of them than their ability can bear; for some foolishly count their years, as if it were a sin to choose a pastor before his 24th year, although he might be otherwise fully provided with the necessary qualifications.

NUMBERS 3

GO TO NUMBERS 3: 5-10

5. And the Lord spake unto Moses. This passage contains two heads: first, That the Levites should be set apart for the ministry of the sanctuary and altar; and, secondly, That they should obey the chief priests of the family of Aaron, and do nothing except by their authority and command. But it has been already said, and we shall hereafter see again, that the tribe of Levi in general was divinely chosen to perform the sacred offices; so that the people might know that no one was worthy of so honorable a charge; but that it depended on the gratuitous calling of God, whose attribute it is to create all things out of nothing. In this way, not only was the temerity of those repressed who might be foolishly ambitious of the honor, but the whole Church was taught that, in order to worship God aright, there was need of extraneous aid. For, if the Levites had not stood between, the Law prohibited the rest of the people from having access to God, since it brought in the whole human race guilty of pollution. But, in order that they might be more certainly directed to the One Mediator, the high priesthood was exalted, and one priest was chosen to preside over all the rest: on this account God would have the Levites subject to the successors of Aaron. At the same time, He had regard to order, for a multitude, which is not governed by chiefs, will always be disorderly. Yet, it is unquestionable that the supreme power of Christ was represented in the person of Aaron; and hence the folly of the Papists is refuted, who transfer, or rather wrest, this example to the state of the Christian Church, ²³ so as to set the bishops over the presbyters, and thus to fabricate the primacy of the Roman See. But if the true meaning of this figure be sought, it will be more appropriate to reason that, whatever ministers and pastors of the Church are now appointed, they are placed as it were under the hand of Christ, in order that they may usurp no dominion, but behave themselves modestly, as having to render an account to Him who is the Prince of pastors. (1 Peter 5:4.) Hence we conclude that the Papacy is only founded in wicked sacrilege; for Christ is unjustly deprived of His own, if any one else is feigned to be Aaron’s successor. Meanwhile, the political distinction of ranks is not to be repudiated, for natural reason itself dictates this in order to take away confusion; but that which shall have this object in view, will be so arranged that it may neither obscure Christ’s glory nor minister to ambition or tyranny, nor prevent all ministers from cultivating mutual fraternity with each other, with equal rights and liberties. Hence, too, was taken that declaration of the Apostle, that it is not lawful for any man to take this honor upon himself, but that they are the legitimate ministers of the Church who are “called” to be so. (Hebrews 5:4)

EXODUS 30

GO TO EXODUS 30: 22-33

23. Take thou also unto thee principal spices. Although the oil here treated of was not only destined for the anointing of the priests, but also of the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, the altars, and all the vessels, yet no fitter place occurs for discussing the sacred unction, than by connecting it with the priesthood, on which it depends. First of all its composition is described, exquisite both in expensiveness and odor; that by its very excellence and costliness the Israelites may learn that no ordinary thing is represented by it; for we have already often seen that there had been set before this rude people a splendor in sacred symbols, which might affect their external senses, so as to uplift them as it were by steps to the knowledge of spiritual things. We must now see why the priest as well as all the vessels and the other parts of the tabernacle had need of anointing. I conclude that without controversy this oil mixed with precious perfumes was a type of the Holy Spirit; for the metaphor of anointing is everywhere met with, when the prophets would commend the power, the effects, and the gifts of the Spirit. Nor is there any doubt but that God, by anointing kings, testified that He would endow them with the spirit of prudence, fortitude, clemency, and justice. Hence it is easily gathered that the tabernacle was sprinkled with oil, that the Israelites might learn that all the exercises of piety profited nothing without the secret operation of the Spirit. Nay, something more was shewn forth, viz., that the efficacy and grace of the Spirit existed and reigned in the truth of the shadows itself; and that whatever good was derived from them was applied by the gift of the same Spirit for the use of believers. In the altar, reconciliation was to be sought, that God might be propitious to them; but, as the Apostle testifies, the sacrifice of Christ’s death would not otherwise have been efficacious to appease God, if He had not suffered by the Spirit, (Hebrews 9:14;) and how does its fruit now reach us, except because the same Spirit washes our souls with the blood, which once was shed, as Peter teaches us? (1 Peter 1:2.) Who now consecrates our prayers but the Spirit, who dictates the groans which cannot be uttered; and by whom we cry, Abba, Father? (Romans 8:15, 26.) Nay, whence comes the faith which admits us to a participation in the benefits of Christ, but from the same Spirit?

But we were especially to consider the anointing of the priest, who was sanctified by the Spirit of God for the performance of his office; thus, as Isaiah, in the person of Jesus Christ, declares that he was anointed with the spirit of prophecy, (Isaiah 61:1;) and David affirms the same of the royal spirit, (Psalm 45:7;) so Daniel is our best interpreter and witness how the sacerdotal unction was at length manifested (in Him ²⁴), for when he says that the time, when by the death of Christ the prophecy shall be sealed up, was determined upon “to anoint the holy of holies,” he plainly reminds us that the spiritual pattern, which answers to the visible sanctuary, is in Christ; so that believers may really feel that these shadows were not mere empty things. (Daniel 9:24.) We now perceive why Aaron was anointed, viz., because Christ was consecrated by the Holy Spirit to be the Mediator between God and man; and why the tabernacle and its vessels were sprinkled with the same oil, viz., because we are only made partakers of the holiness of Christ by the gift and operation of the Spirit. ²⁵ Some translate it in the masculine gender, where of the vessels it is said, “whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy;” ver. 29: as if they were not to be touched by any but the priests; but it appears to me to be rather spoken for another reason, viz., that they may embue the oblations with their own sanctity.

25. And thou shalt take it an oil of holy ointment. Although the genitive is put in the place of an epithet, as if Moses had said “a holy oil;” yet it is so called from its effect, because without it nothing is accounted pure. And assuredly the Spirit of God sanctifies ourselves and all that is ours, because without Him we are unholy, and all that belongs to us corrupt. He enjoins the use of the ceremony throughout all the generations of the ancient people, ver. 31. In these words there is an implied contrast with the new Church, which wants no shadows since the manifestation of the substance; and justly does the only begotten Son of God possess the name of Christ, since by His coming He has abolished these figures. And Simeon, when he took Him in his arms, and called Him “the Lord’s Christ,” ²⁶ taught that the external use of the legal oil had ceased. So much the sillier is the superstition of the Papacy, when in imitation of the Jews it anoints its priests, and altars, and other toys: ²⁷ as if they desired to bury Christ again with their ointments; wherefore let us hold this invention in detestation as blasphemous, because it overthrows the limits prescribed by God.

In order that the Jews may hold this mystery in just reverence, he forbids similar ointment to be made. We know that ointments were then among the luxuries of a fine banquet; but it is accounted profanation if they make use of this kind; and we must mark the reason, that what is holy, may be holy unto them, ver. 32, i.e., that they may reverently observe what is peculiarly devoted to their salvation. For although the sacred things divinely instituted always retain their nature, and cannot be either corrupted or made void by our vices, yet may we by our filthiness, by our impure use or neglect of them, pollute them as far as in us lies.

LEVITICUS 8

2. Take Aaron. He more clearly explains the mode of anointing and investing the priests, by appointing the place and the assistants; for he commands the congregation to be convoked at the sanctuary; and then that Aaron and his sons should be brought out before them to be inaugurated by God’s authority in their office; and that the whole people together may acknowledge that they are appointed and ordained by God. The execution of the command, which we find connected with it in the text of Moses, must be undoubtedly referred to another time; viz., when the solemn dedication of the tabernacle was made. I have therefore thought fit to transfer thither what is here related out of its place, that the history may proceed uninterruptedly; which will not a little facilitate its comprehension.

LEVITICUS 21

LEVITICUS 21: 1-6, 10-12

1. Speak unto the priests. All these things which follow tend to the same end, i.e., that the priests may differ from the rest of the people by notable marks, as if separated from ordinary men; for special purity became those who represented the person of Christ. It seems, indeed, as if God here gave precepts respecting small and unimportant things; but we have elsewhere said that the legal rites were as it were steps by which the Israelites might ascend to the study of true holiness. The declaration of Paul indeed was always true, that “bodily exercise profiteth little,” (1 Timothy 4:8;) but the use of the ancient shadows under the Law must be estimated by their end. Although, therefore, the observation of the things which are now treated of did not of itself greatly please God, yet inasmuch as it had a higher tendency, it was sinful to make light of it. Now though the priests were thus admonished that holiness was to be cultivated by them with peculiar diligence, as the sanctity of their office required; yet the principal design of God was to set forth the image of perfect holiness which was at length beheld in Christ. The first law contains a prohibition of mourning, absolutely and without exception as regarded the high priest, and as regarded the sons of Aaron with certain specified restrictions; for although God elsewhere forbids the people generally to imitate the custom of the Gentiles in excessive mourning, yet here he requires something more of the priests, viz., that they should abstain even from ordinary mourning, such as was permitted to others. This prohibition indeed was again repeated, as we shall see, arising from an actual occurrence; for when Nadab and Abihu, who had offered incense with strange fire, were consumed with fire from heaven, God allowed them to be mourned for by all the people, except the priests; ²⁸ but on this occasion the general law was again ratified afresh, lest the priests should pollute themselves by mourning for the dead; except that there mourning was forbidden even for a domestic loss, that they might acquiesce in God’s judgment, however sad it might be. For by these means they were impeded in the discharge of their duties; because it was not lawful for mourners to enter the sanctuary. Therefore God threatens them with death, unless they should restrain their grief even for the death of a near relative. But this (as is elsewhere said) is a rare virtue, so to repress our feelings when we are deprived of our brothers or friends, as that the bitterness of our grief should not overcome our resignation and composure of mind. In this way, therefore, the exemplary piety of the priests was put to the proof. Besides, abstinence from mourning manifests the hope of the blessed resurrection. Therefore the priests were forbidden to mourn for the dead, in order that the rest of the people might seek for consolation in their sorrow from them. ²⁹ This was truly and amply fulfilled in Christ, who although He bore not only grief, but the extreme horror of death, yet was free from every stain, and gloriously triumphed over death; so that the very recollection of His cross wipes away our tears, and fills us with joy. Now when it is said, “They shall not profane the name of their God;” and in the case of the high priest, “neither shall he go out of the sanctuary;” this reason confirms what; I have just stated, that mourning was forbidden them, because it prevented them from the discharge of their duties; for their very squalidness would have in some sense defiled God’s sanctuary, in which nothing unseemly was to be seen; and being defiled too, they could not intercede as suppliants for the people. God then commands them to remain pure and clear from all defilement, lest they should be compelled to desert their office, and to leave the sanctuary, of which they were the keepers. Moreover, we learn that the fulfillment of this figure was in Christ, from the reason which is immediately added: viz., because the holy oil is on the head of the high priest; whereby God intimates that it is by no means right that His glory and dignity should be profaned by any pollution.

As to the words themselves; first, greater liberty is granted to the rest of the posterity of Aaron, than to the high priest; but only that they should mourn for their father, mother, children, their own brothers, and unmarried sisters. Lest ambition should carry them further, they are expressly forbidden to put on mourning even upon the death of a prince. Nor can we doubt but that the mourning was improper which God permitted to them out of indulgence; but regard was had to their weakness, lest immoderate strictness might drive them to passionate excess; yet God so spared them as still to distinguish them from the multitude. To “defile” one’s-self, (as we have elsewhere seen,) is equivalent to putting on mourning for the dead, celebrating the funeral rites, or going to the burial; because the curse of God proclaims itself in the death of man, so that a corpse infects with contagion those by whom it is touched; and again, because it must needs be that where lamentation is indulged, and as it were excited, the affection itself must burst out into impatience. As to the prohibition to make “baldness,” this was not allowed even to the rest of the people; but God expressly forbids it to the priests, in order to keep them under stricter restraint. With regard to the high priest, something greater seems to be decreed besides the exceptions, that he “shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes:” which is still enjoined elsewhere on the sons of Aaron. But here what would be allowable in others is condemned in the high priest; and it was surely reasonable that he should present a peculiar example of moderation and gravity; and therefore the dignity of his office, in which he was superior to others, is called to mind, that he may acknowledge his obligations to be so much the greater. This is indeed the sum, that since the priesthood is the holiness of God, it must not be mixed up with any defilements.

DEUTERONOMY 31

DEUTERONOMY 31:9

<053109> DEUTERONOMY 31:9
9. And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel.	9. Scripsitque Moses Legem istam, et dedit eam sacerdotibus filiis Levi portantibus arcata foederis jehovae, et cunctis senioribus Israel.

9. And Moses wrote this law. It is unquestionable that Moses deposited the Book of the Law in the custody of the Levites, to enjoin upon them the duty of teaching; for although it is only related that they were commanded to recite the book before the people every seventh year, yet it is easy to gather that they were appointed the constant proclaimers of its doctrine. For it would have been absurd that the Law should lie buried for seven whole years, and that not a word should be heard of its instruction; besides, the difficulty of hearing in so great a multitude would be great, and the recollection of it would soon have vanished. In a word, very little would have been the use of the ceremony, if at all other times the Levites had been dumb, and nothing should have been heard throughout the land regarding the worship of God. This then was the object of the solemn promulgation of the Law, (Deuteronomy 31:10, etc.), which was made in the year of release, that the people should daily inquire the right way of serving God of the Levites, who were chosen to be as it were νομοφύλακες (guardians of the Law), that they might bring forward in due season whatever it was profitable to know. Here, then, is represented to us as in a mirror what Paul says, that the Church of God is “the pillar and ground of the truth,” (1 Timothy 3:15;) because purity of doctrine is preserved unimpaired in the world, and propagated by the ministry of pastors, whilst piety would soon decay if the living preaching of doctrine should cease. Therefore Paul also elsewhere commands that the sound doctrine, of which he was a minister, should be committed by Timothy

“to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also.” (2 Timothy 2:2.)

First, then, we must remember, that the Book of the Law was given in trust, as it were, to the Levites, that the people might learn from them what was right. The addition of “the elders” is not superfluous; for although the office of teaching was not committed to them, yet were they given as coadjutors to the Levites, in order that they might uphold the doctrine of the Law, and not suffer it to be scorned. We know how great is the insolence of the people in rejecting pious teachers, unless they are restrained by those in authority; nor do the latter indeed duly fulfill their duty, if they do not keep their subjects to the study of religion, who would be otherwise too much disposed to impiety.

Moses in this passage calls by the name of “the Law,” not the Ten Commandments engraved on the two tables, but the interpretation of it contained in the four books. The circumstances took place thirty-nine years after God had spoken on Mount Sinai. What follows, that it was to be read every seven years, I have commented on elsewhere; ³⁰ but there will be no harm in repeating what may serve for the understanding of this passage. The seventh year was chosen for this purpose, because all, both males and females, might then assemble at Jerusalem without detriment to their private interests, for there was a cessation from all labor; they neither sowed, nor reaped, and agriculture was altogether at a stand-still. There was therefore no business to prevent them from celebrating that festival, whereby God represented to them in a lively manner, how miraculously He had preserved their fathers in the desert. Lest the recollection of so great a benefit should ever perish, the Law indeed commanded them, wherever they might be, to go forth from their houses every year, and to pass seven days under the boughs of trees; but in the Sabbatical Year, when all was at rest at home, it was more convenient for them to go up to Jerusalem from all quarters, that by their very multitude they might the better testify their gratitude. Therefore it is added, “when all Israel is come,” etc. And it must be observed, that in that assembly they were more solemnly pledged, one and all, to keep the Law, because they were mutually witnesses against each other if they should break the covenant thus publicly renewed. On this account it is added, “Gather the people together, men, women, and children.” But that it might not be a mere empty spectacle, it is expressly commanded that the book should be read “in their hearing:” by which words a recitation is expressed, from whence the hearers might receive profit, else it would have been a sham and ludicrous parade; just as in the Papacy, when they loudly bellow out the Scriptures in an unknown tongue, they do but profane God’s name. To this end, therefore, did God desire the doctrine of His Law to be heard; viz., that He might obtain disciples for Himself; not that He might fill their ears with a senseless and unprofitable clamour. And indeed when the Popish priests were a little ashamed of altogether driving the people away from hearing God’s word, they devised this foolish plan of shouting to the deaf, as if this silly formality would satisfy God’s command, when He ordains that all should be taught from the least to the greatest: for it is afterwards again expressed, “that they may hear, and that they may learn.” Hence we lay it down, that the legitimate use of Scripture is perverted when it is enunciated in an obscure manner such as no one can understand. But whilst no other mode of reading Scripture is approved by God, except such as may instruct the people, so also the fruit of understanding, i.e., that they may learn to fear God, is required in the hearers. But it is undoubted, that “the fear of God” comprehends faith, nay, that properly speaking it springs from faith; and by this expression Moses indicates that the Law was given for the purpose of instructing men in piety and the pure service of God. At the same time we may learn from this passage, that all the services which are paid to God in ignorance, are extravagant, and illegitimate. The beginning of wisdom is to fear God; and on this point all agree; but then each one slips away to his own imaginations and erroneous devotions, as they choose to call them. God, however, in order to restrain such audacity as this, declares that he is not duly worshipped, except He shall first have been listened to. As to “the strangers,” when their participation in sacred things is in question, I have elsewhere observed that all foreigners are not so called, but only those who, being Gentiles by origin, had devoted themselves to God, and having received circumcision, had been incorporated into the Church; otherwise it would not have been lawful to admit them into the congregation of the faithful; and this is confirmed by the additional words, “that is within thy gates:” which is as much as if Moses had said, inhabitants of your cities, and dwelling together with the people. Finally, when their children are mentioned, reference is made to the propagation of sound doctrine, that the pure worship of God may continually be maintained. He therefore commands that the Law should be recited, not in one generation only, but as long as the status of the people may last; and surely all God’s servants ought to take care, that they may transmit to posterity what they have learnt themselves. Yet we must remark, that all doctrine which may have been handed down from their ancestors, is not here promiscuously commended; but God rather claims for Himself the entire authority, both towards the fathers and the children.

LEVITICUS 10

GO TO LEVITICUS 10: 8-11

9. Do not drink wine, nor strong drink. The second cleanness required in the priests is that they should abstain from wine, and strong drink; ³¹ in which word Jerome says that everything intoxicating is included; and this I admit to be true; but the definition would be more correct, that all liquors espressed from fruits are denoted by it, in whose sweetness there is nearly as much to tempt men as in wine. Even in these days the Orientals compose of dates as well as of other fruits, liquors, which are exceedingly sweet and delicious. The same rule is, therefore, here prescribed for the priests, whilst in the performance of their duties, as for the Nazarites. Both were allowed freely to eat of all the richest foods; but God commanded them to be content with water, because abstinence in drinks very greatly conduces to frugality of living. For few are intemperate in eating, who do not also love wine; besides, an abundance of food generally satisfies the appetite, whilst there is no limit to drinking, where the love of wine prevails. Therefore, abstinence from wines was enjoined upon the priest, not only that they might beware of drunkenness, but that they might be temperate in eating, and not luxuriate in their abundance. But, inasmuch as sobriety is the main point in moderate living, God especially limited His priests in this respect, lest the rigor of their minds, and rectitude, and integrity of judgment, should be impaired by drinking. Hence it appears how great is man’s proneness to all defilements. Wine is very wholesome as one of our means of nutriment; but by the too free use of it many enervate their strength, becloud their understanding, and almost stupify all their senses so as to make themselves inactive. Some, too, degrade themselves into foul and brutish stupidity, or are driven by it to madness. Thus a pleasure, which ought to have incited them to give God thanks, is taken away from them on account of their vicious excess; and not without disgrace, because they know not how to enjoy God’s good gifts in moderation. He afterwards confirms the fact, that He interdicted wine to the priests when exercising their office, that they may distinguish “between clean and unclean,” and be sound and faithful interpreters of the Law. On this score it became them to be abstemious throughout their whole life, because they were always appointed to be masters to instruct the people; but lest immoderate strictness should tend to disgust them, so that they might be less disposed for the willing performance of the rest of their duty, God deemed it sufficient to admonish them by this temporary abstinence, that they should study to be sober at other times. Thus, then, it must be concluded that none are fit to teach who are given to gluttony, which corrupts the soundness of the mind, and destroys its rigor. The comment of Jerome is indeed a childish one, that “A fat belly does not engender a quick understanding:” for many corpulent men are of vigorous and active intellect, and indeed leanness is often the consequence of drinking too much. But those who stuff their bodies will never have sufficient activity of mind to execute the office of teaching. In conclusion, we gather from this passage, as Malachi says, (Malachi 2:7,) that the priests were interpreters of the Law, and messengers of the Lord of hosts, and not dumb masks For though the Law was written, yet God would ever have the living voice to resound in His Church, just as now-adays preaching is inseparably united with Scripture.