The Great Yearly Atonement

LEVITICUS 16

GO TO LEVITICUS 16: 1-34

1. And the Lord spake unto Moses. A copious description is here given of what we have recently adverted to cursorily, as it were, i.e., the solemn atonement which was yearly made in the seventh month; for when Moses was instructing them as to what sacrifices were to be offered on each of the festivals, he expressly excepted, though only in a single word, this sacrifice, where he spoke of the day of atonement itself, on which they afflicted their souls. Now, therefore, a clear and distinct exposition of it is separately given. For although at other seasons of the year also both their public and private sins were expiated, and for this purpose availed the daily sacrifices, still this more solemn rite was meant to arouse the people’s minds, that they might more earnestly apply themselves all the year through to the diligent seeking for pardon and remission. In order, then, that they might be more anxious to propitiate God, one atonement was performed at the end of the year which might ratify all the others. But, that they might more diligently observe what is commanded, Moses makes mention of the time in which the Law was given, viz., when Nadab and Abihu were put to death by God, after they had rashly defiled the altar by their negligence.

2. Speak unto Aaron. The sum of the law is, that the priest should not frequently enter the inner sanctuary, but only once a year, i.e., on the feast of the atonement, in the month of September. The cause of this was, lest a more frequent entrance of it should produce indifference; for if he had entered it promiscuously at every sacrifice, no small part of the reverence due to it would have been lost. The ordinary sprinkling of the altar was sufficient to testify the reconciliation; but this annual ceremony more greatly influenced the people’s minds. Again, by this sacrifice, which they saw only once at the end of the year, the one and perpetual sacrifice offered by God’s Son was more clearly represented. Therefore the Apostle elegantly alludes to this ceremony in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where it is said that by the annual entrance of the high priest the Holy Ghost signified,

“that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing,” (Hebrews 9:8;)

and a little further on he adds, that after Christ the true Priest had come,

“he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (Hebrews 9:11, 12.)

Thus the year, in the ancient type, was a symbol of the one offering, so that believers might understand that the sacrifice, whereby God was to be propitiated, was not to be often repeated. That God may inspire greater fear, and preserve the priests from carelessness, He proclaims that His glory should appear in the cloud in that part of the sanctuary where was the mercy seat; for we know that the sign was given from hence to the Israelites, when the camp was to be moved, or when they were to remain stationary. But this testimony of God’s presence should have justly moved the priests to greater care and attention; and hence we may now learn, that the closer God’s majesty manifests itself, the more anxiously should we beware, lest through our thoughtlessness we should give any mark of contempt, but that we should testify our submission with becoming humility and modesty.

3. Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place. The rites and formality are now described; first, that Aaron should put on the holy garments, and wash his person; secondly, that he should offer a bullock and ram for a burnt-offering; thirdly, that he should take two goats from the people, one of which should be sent away alive, and the other slain in sacrifice. We have stated elsewhere why the priests were to be dressed in garments different from others, since he who is the mediator between God and men should be free from all impurity and stain; and since no mortal could truly supply this, a type was substituted in place of the reality, from whence believers might learn that another Mediator was to be expected; because the dignity of the sons of Aaron was only typical, and not true and substantial. For whenever the priest stripped himself of his own garments, and assumed those which were holy and separated from common use, it was equivalent to declaring openly that he represented another person. But if this symbol were not sufficient, the ablution again taught that none of the sons of Aaron was the genuine propitiator; for how could he purify others, who himself required purification, and made open confession of his uncleanness? A third symbol also was added; for he who by a sacrifice of his own atoned for himself and his house, how was he capable of meriting God’s favor for others? Thus then the holy fathers were reminded, that under the image of a mortal man, another Mediator was promised, who, for the reconciliation of the human race, should present Himself before God with perfect and more than angelical purity. Besides, in the person of the priest there was exhibited to the people a spectacle of the corruption whereby the whole human race is defiled, so as to be abominable to God; for if the priest, both chosen by God, and graced with the sacred unction, was still unworthy on the score of his uncleanness to come near the altar, what dignity could be discoverable in the people? And hence to us now-adays also very useful instruction is derived; viz., that when the question arises how God is to be propitiated, we are not to look this way and that way; since out of Christ there is no purity and innocence which can satisfy the justice of God.

7. And he shall take the two goats. A twofold mode of expiation is here presented to us; for one of the two goats was offered in sacrifice according to the provisions of the Law, the other was sent away to be an outcast, or offscouring (κάθαρμα vel περίψημα. ¹) The fulfillment of both figures, however, was manifested in Christ, since He was both the Lamb of God, whose offering blotted out the sins of the world, and, that He might be as an offscouring, (κάθαρμα,) His comeliness was destroyed, and He was rejected of men. A more subtle speculation might indeed be advanced, viz., that after the goat was presented, its sending away was a type of the resurrection of Christ; as if the slaying of the one goat testified that the satisfaction for sins was to be sought in the death of Christ; whilst the preservation and dismissal of the other shewed, that after Christ had been offered for sin, and had borne the curse of men, He still remained alive. I embrace, however, what is more simple and certain, and am satisfied with that; i.e., that the goat which departed alive and free, was an atonement, ² that by its departure and flight the people might be assured that their sins were put away and vanished. This was the only expiatory sacrifice in the Law without blood; nor does this contradict the statement of the Apostle, for since two goats were offered together, it was enough that the death of one should take place, and that its blood should be shed for expiation; for the lot was not cast until both goats had been brought to the door of the tabernacle; and thus although the priest presented one of them alive “to make an atonement with him,” as Moses expressly says, yet God was not propitiated without blood, since the efficacy of the expiation depended on the sacrifice of the other goat. As to the word Azazel, ³ although commentators differ, I doubt not but that it designates the place to which the scape-goat was driven. It is certainly a compound word, equivalent to “the departure of the goat,” which the Greeks have translated, whether properly or not I cannot say, ἀποπομπαῖον. I am afraid that the expiation is decidedly too subtle which some interpreters give, that the goat was so called as “the repeller of evils,” just as the Gentiles ⁴ invented certain gods, called ἀλεξικάκους. What I have said agrees best with the departure of the goat; although I differ from the Jews, who conceive that this place was contiguous to Mount Sinai; as if the lot for Azazel were not cast every year, when the people were very far away from Mount Sinai. Let it suffice, then, that some solitary and most uninhabitable spot was chosen whither the goat should be driven, lest the curse of God should rest upon the people.

12. And he shall take a censer full. Before he takes the blood into the sanctuary, (the priest) is commanded to offer incense. There was, as we have seen, an altar of incense, on which the priest burnt it, but without the veil; but now he is ordered to go within the veil, to make ⁵ an incenseoffering in the very holy of holies. But it is worth noticing, that is said that the cloud of the incense should cover the mercy-seat — that the priest die not; for by this sign it was shewn how formidable is God’s majesty, the sight of which is fatal even to the priest; that all might learn to tremble at it, and to prostrate themselves as suppliants before Him; and again, that all audacity and temerity might be repressed. But it is uncertain whether he killed together the bullock for himself and the goat for the people, or whether, after he had sprinkled the sanctuary with his own offering, he killed the goat separately. Moses indeed seems to mark this distinct order in the words he uses; for after having spoken of the first sprinkling, he immediately adds, “Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-offering:” but since the narrative of Moses is not always consecutive, and it is a matter of little importance, let the reader choose which he pleases.

16. And he shall make an atonement for the holy place. The cleansing of the sanctuary might seem absurd, as if it were in man’s power to pollute what God Himself had consecrated; for we know that God remains true, although all’ the world be unholy, and consequently that whatever God has appointed changes not its nature through the sins of men. Yet, if no contagion from men’s sins had infected the tabernacle, this cleansing would have been superfluous. But although the sanctuary in itself may have contracted no defilement from the guilt of the people, still, in regard to the sin and guilt of the people themselves, it is justly accounted unclean. And thus sin is made more exceeding sinful, inasmuch as men, even though their intention be to serve God, profane His sacred name, if they do so carelessly or irreverently. It was at that time a detestable sacrilege in all to defile the altar and sanctuary of God; and Moses convicts the Israelites of this sacrilege when He commands the sanctuary to be cleansed. Moreover, let us learn that men may so contaminate the sacred things of God as that their nature should still remain unaltered and their dignity inviolate. Wherefore Moses expressly states that the sanctuary is cleansed not from its own uncleanness, but from that of the children of Israel. We must now apply the substance of this type to our own use. By Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, God appears to us in his only-begotten Son: these are the pledges of our holiness; yet such is our corruption that we never cease from profaning, as far as in us lies, these instruments of the Spirit whereby God sanctifies us. Since, however, we have now no victims to kill, we must mourn and humbly pray that Christ, by the sprinkling of His blood, may blot out and cleanse these defilements of ours, by which Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are polluted. The reason of the purification is also to be observed, viz., because the tabernacle “dwelleth among them in the midst of their uncleanness;” ⁶ by which words Moses signifies that men are so polluted and full of corruptions that they contaminate all that is holy without the intervention of a means of purification; for he takes it for granted that men cannot but bring some impurity with them. What he had said of the inner sanctuary he extends to the altar and the whole of the tabernacle.

17. And there shall be no man. The driving away of all men from approaching the tabernacle during the act of atonement is a sort of punishment by temporary banishment, that they may perceive themselves to be driven from God’s face, whilst the place is purified which had been defiled by their sins. This was a melancholy sight, when all these for whose sake it was erected were obliged to desert it; but in this way they were reminded that every part and particle of our salvation depends on God’s mercy only, when they saw themselves excluded from the remedy designed for obtaining pardon, unless a new pardon should come to their aid, since they had fallen away from the hope of reconciliation.

20. And when he hath made an end of reconciling. The mode of expiation with the other goat is now more clearly explained, viz., that it should be placed before God, and that the priest should lay his hands on its head, and confess the sins of the people, so that he may throw the curse on the goat itself. This, as I have said, was the only bloodless (ἀναίματον) sacrifice; yet it is expressly called an “offering,” ⁷ with reference, however, to the slaying of the former goat, and was, therefore, as to its efficacy for propitiation, by no means to be separated from it. It was by no means reasonable that an innocent animal should be substituted in the place of men, to be exposed to the curse of God, except that believers might learn that they were in no wise competent to bear His judgment, nor could be delivered from it otherwise than by the transfer of their guilt and crime. For, since men feel that they are altogether overwhelmed by the wrath of God, which impends over them all, they vainly endeavor to lighten or shake off in various ways this intolerable burden; for no absolution is to be hoped for save by the interposition of a satisfaction; and it is not lawful to obtrude this according to man’s fancy, or, in their foolish arrogance, to seek in themselves for the price whereby their sins may be compensated for. Another means, therefore, of making atonement to God was revealed when Christ, “being made a curse for us,” transferred to Himself the sins which alienated men from God. (2 Corinthians 5:19; Galatians 3:13.) The confession tended to humiliate the people, and thus acted as a stimulus to sincere repentance; since “the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,” (Psalm 51:17;) nor is it fit that any but the prostrate should be lifted up by God’s mercy, nor that any but those who voluntarily condemn themselves should be absolved. The accumulation of words tends to this, “all the iniquities, all their transgressions, all their sins,” that believers may not lightly only and as, a mere act of duty acknowledge themselves guilty before God, but rather that they should groan under the weight, of their guilt. Since now in Christ no special day in the year is prescribed in which the Church should confess its sins in a solemn ceremony, let believers learn, whenever they meet together in God’s name, humbly to submit themselves to voluntary self-condemnation, and to pray for pardon, as if the Spirit of God dictated a formulary for them; and so let each in private: conform himself to this rule.

26. And he that let the goat go. Since this goat was the outcast (κάθαπμα) of God’s wrath, and devoted to His curse, he who led it away is commanded to wash his person and his clothes, as if he were a partaker in its defilement. By this symbol the faithful were reminded how very detestable is their iniquity, so that they might, be affected with increasing dread, whenever they considered what they deserved. For when they saw a man forbidden to enter the camp because he was polluted by simply touching the goat, they must needs reflect how much wider was the alienation between God and themselves, when they bore upon them an uncleanness not contracted elsewhere, but procured by their own sin. The same may be said of him who burned the skin, the flesh, and the dung of the bullock and the goat. We have elsewhere seen that these remnants were carried out of the camp in token of abomination. And on this head Christ’s inestimable love towards us shines more brightly, who did not disdain to go out of the city that He might be made an outcast (rejectamentum) for us, and might undergo the curse due to us.

29. And this shall be a statute for ever. This day of public atonement is now finally mentioned in express terms, and the affliction of souls, of which fuller notice is taken in chap. 23, is touched upon, that they may more diligently exercise themselves in more serious penitential meditations, nor doubt that they are truly purged before God; and yet in a sacramental manner, viz., that the external ceremony might be a most unmistakable sign of that atonement, whereby, in the fullness of time, they were to be reconciled to God. Wherefore Moses states at some length that this was to be the peculiar office of the priest; and by this eulogy exalts the grace of the coming Mediator, so that He may direct the minds of believers to Him alone.

LEVITICUS 1

GO TO LEVITICUS 1: 1-17

1. And the Lord called unto Moses. In these seven chapters Moses will treat generally of the sacrifices. But since we read of many things here, the use of which has passed away, and others, the grounds of which I do not understand, I intend to content myself with a brief summary, from whence, however, the reader may fully perceive that whatever has been left to us relative to the legal sacrifices is even now profitable, provided we are not too curious. Let those who choose to hunt for allegories receive the praise they covet; my object is only to profit my readers, and it will suffice briefly to sum up what I think useful to be known. Although in this chapter burnt-offerings only are treated of, yet the rule which is laid down respecting them has a more extensive application, since Moses teaches what animals God would have offered to Him, so as that they may be acceptable, and also by whom and with what ceremonies they are to be offered. He enumerates three kinds, of the herd, of the flocks, and of fowls; for the case of the red heifer, from which the ashes of atonement were made, was different and peculiar; and here the question is as to the ordinary sacrifices, by which private individuals used either to atone for their sins or to testify their piety. He commands, therefore, that the cattle as well as the lambs and kids should be males, and also perfect and free from all blemish. We see, then, that only clean animals were chosen for the sacrifices, and again that all clean animals did not please God, but only domestic ones, such as allow themselves to be directed by the hand and will of men. For, though deer and roes are sometimes tamed, yet God did not admit them to His altar. This, then, was the first rule of obedience, that men should not offer promiscuously this or that victim, but bulls or bull-calves of their herds, and male lambs or kids of their flocks. Freedom from blemish is required for two reasons; for, since the sacrifices were types of Christ, it behooved that in all of them should be represented that complete perfection of His whereby His heavenly Father was to be propitiated; and, secondly, the Israelites were reminded that all uncleanness was repudiated by God lest his service should be polluted by their impurity. But whilst God exhorted them to study true sincerity, so he abundantly taught them that unless they directed their faith to Christ, whatsoever came from them would be rejected; for neither would the purity of a brute animal have satisfied Him if it had not represented something better. In the second place, it is prescribed that whosoever presented a burnt-offering should lay his hand on its head, after he had come near the door of the tabernacle. This ceremony was not only a sign of consecration, but also of its being an atonement, ⁸ since it was substituted for the man, as is expressed in the words of Moses, “And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” (Ver. 4.) There is not, then, the least doubt but that they transferred their guilt and whatever penalties they had deserved to the victims, in order that they might be reconciled to God. Now, since this promise could not have been at all delusive, it must be concluded that in the ancient sacrifices there was a price of satisfaction which should release them from guilt and blame in the judgment of God; yet still not as though these brute animals availed in themselves unto expiation, except in so far as they were testimonies of the grace to be manifested by Christ. Thus the ancients were reconciled to God in a sacramental manner by the victims, just as we are now cleansed through baptism. Hence it follows that these symbols were useful only as they were exercises unto faith and repentance, so that the sinner might learn to fear God’s wrath, and to seek pardon in Christ.

5. And he shall kill the bullock. The ceremony of killing is subjoined, viz., that the priest should prepare the victim itself, and pour its blood upon the altar, for it was not allowable for a private person to kill the victim with his own hands, but what the priest did in their name was transferred to them. ⁹ But this is worth remarking, that although they brought the pledge of reconciliation from their home, yet that the ministers of expiation were to be sought elsewhere, since no one was competent for so illustrious an office, save he who was graced by the holy unction of God. It was, therefore, plainly manifested that all mortals are unworthy of coming near God to propitiate Him, and that the hands of all are in a manner polluted or profane except those which God himself has purged. For the honor of sacrificing came from nowhere else but from the grace of the Spirit, of which the external anointing was a pledge. We now understand how it was that individuals offered sacrifices to God, and yet that the priest alone performed this office. The altar was sprinkled with the blood, that the people might know that the blood poured from the victim did not fall on the ground, but was consecrated to God, and breathed, as it were, a sweet savor; just as now the blood of Christ appears before His face. I pass by the rest, since it does not seem worth while to enlarge on the third kind of offering, i.e., of the birds. Yet we must recollect that thus far Moses only speaks of the burnt-offerings, whose flesh was burned; for this was not the case with all, as we shall see hereafter. Although, then, it is twice said that “the priests shall lay the parts, the head and the fat,” etc., we must not understand it as if he only commanded the fat and the head to be burned, but that nothing was to be left the skin. Some think that פדר pheder, ¹⁰ is a dissevered head, nor do I reject their opinion, provided we do not exclude the fat. Whatever was filthy in the victim, God would have to be washed, that it might not contaminate it. The question now arises why it was burned either wholly or partially. My own opinion is, that by the fire the efficacy of the Spirit is represented, on which all the profit of the sacrifices depends; for unless Christ had suffered in the Spirit, He would not have been a propitiatory sacrifice. Fire, then, was as the condiment which gave their true savor to the sacrifices, because the blood of Christ was to be consecrated by the Spirit, that it might cleanse us from all the stains of our sins. This God would have more fully represented in the burnt-offerings, yet no victim was offered of which some part was not consumed by fire.

LEVITICUS 2

GO TO LEVITICUS 2: 1-16

1. And when any will offer. In this chapter Moses prescribes the rules for those offerings to which the name of minha is peculiarly given. They were not bloody sacrifices, nor offerings of animals, but only of cakes and oil. If any one would offer plain flour, he is commanded to season it with frankincense and oil, and also to choose fine flour, that the oblation may not be defiled by the bran. Thus here, as in all the service of God, the rule is laid down that nothing but what is pure should be offered; besides, by the oil its savor is improved, and by the frankincense a fragrant odor is imparted to it. We know that God is not attracted either by sweetness of taste nor by pleasant scents; but it was useful to teach a rude people by these symbols, lest they should corrupt God’s service by their own foolish inventions. Moses afterwards commands, that whatever is consecrated to God should be delivered into the hand of the priest, as we have before seen that private persons were excluded from this honor so that Christ’s peculiar dignity should remain to Him, i.e., that by Him alone access should be sought to God, and that all men might know that no worship pleases God except what He sanctifies. The substance of this type is shewn by the words of the Apostle, when he says that “by him” we now “offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His name.” (Hebrews 13:15.) But when the priest had burnt a handful of the flour with the oil and frankincense, what remained was left for his own use; for, as we have elsewhere seen, the holy of holies of the burnt-offerings were given to the priests. Other kinds are then spoken of, viz., cakes, baken in the oven; then such as were fried in a pan; and thirdly, on a gridiron: for God would have the minha offered Him of every kind of cake, so that the Israelites might learn to look to Him in all their food, since nothing is clean to us except what He consecrates by His blessing. This is the reason why Moses accurately distinguishes between the cakes which were cooked either in the oven, or the frying-pan, or on the gridiron.

11. No meat-offering, which ye shall bring. God here forbids leavened cakes to be offered to Him, by which rite the ancients were taught that God’s service is corrupted if any strange invention be mingled with it. Nor can it be doubted but that. Christ alluded to this when He warned His disciples to “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,” (Matthew 16:11;) understanding by that word the fictions whereby they had corrupted religion. The eating of leaven was forbidden in the Passover for another reason, viz., that they might remember their sudden departure, or rather flight, in which there had been no time to prepare provisions for their journey. Although Paul extends it even further, viz., that believers should abstain from all “leaven of malice and wickedness.” (1 Corinthians 5:8.) It is clear, however, that in this general rule all adventitious corruptions are condemned, whereby pure religion is polluted, as if it were said that no offerings would be approved by God except such as were genuine and free from all strange savor. With reference to the honey, the ground of its use is more obscure, for I know not whether there is much dependence to be placed on the subtle disquisitions of some respecting its nature. ¹¹ But although I scarcely dare to make any assertion as to this, still I pass by conceits, and advance what seems to me more probable. Cooked honey immediately becomes sour, and causes the bread with which it is mixed to ferment; these two things, therefore, seem to be combined, that neither honey nor leaven should be offered in the fire. As to what Moses adds just afterwards, “Ye shall offer them among the first-fruits,” I know not whether it applies to the leaven, as some think;

assuredly the exception seems to be more simple, that the first-fruits of honey would indeed be acceptable to God, provided it did not corrupt the offerings of the altar. But no doubt the ancients understood the meaning of this precept, else it would have been useless, and thus knew that nothing was legitimate in the sacrifices except what God appointed. But let us, since the use of the ceremony is abolished, learn not to intrude our own imaginations or inventions in God’s service, but to follow obediently the rule which he prescribes.

13. And every oblation of thy meat-offering. The reason for salting the victims was very similar, viz., that God’s service might not be without savor; but the true seasoning which gives grace to sacrifices is found nowhere except in God’s word. Hence it follows that all modes of worship fabricated by men are rejected as unsavory. For although they who profane God’s worship by superstitions think themselves very acute, yet all that most approves itself to them under the cloak of wisdom is mere fatuity. Nevertheless, Christ deduces an exhortation from this ceremony, viz., that believers, if they desire to please God, should patiently endure to be refined and purified. “Every one,” He says,

“shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.” (Mark 9:49.)

In which words He signifies that, when we are searched and tried by fire, we shall be acceptable sacrifices to God, and that this is the seasoning of salt when our flesh with its affections shall have been well macerated. Meanwhile, let us firmly hold to this, that our service of God is not what it should be without, the savor which is to be sought in the word; since in all the brains of men not one particle of salt is to be found. I pass by other more subtle allegories, in which I see no other use than to gratify curious ears. “The salt of the covenant” is used in a different sense from “the covenant of salt,” viz., as the salt which is employed in the sacrifice according to the inviolable compact of God. Hence, too, is confirmed what I have said before, that the keeping of God’s covenant always occupies the first place in this service.

14. And if thou offer a meat-offering. This offering is different from that of the first-fruits, since it was voluntary, whereas the first-fruits were paid in obedience to the enactment of the Law. But if any one chose to add anything to the first-fruits of his new corn, Moses lays down the rule, that the ears should be dried in the fire, so that they might be more easily pounded, and so might be burnt mixed with oil and frankincense; for so I interpret his words, that he means the same thing by “ears of corn dried by the fire,” and “corn beaten out of full ears.” He requires full ears, that the people may select them, and not offer anything poor or stunted.

LEVITICUS 3

GO TO LEVITICUS 3: 1-17

1. And if his oblation be a sacrifice. He now proceeds to a different class, viz., to the sacrifices, which were testimonies of gratitude in celebration of God’s blessings; part of which was burnt with fire, part was claimed by the priests, and the rest remained to the offerers themselves. As to the word שלמים, shelomim, I have briefly given my opinion elsewhere; ¹² the common translation of it is certainly unsuitable, “the sacrifices of peace-offerings:” and the statement of others is far-fetched, that they are called “sacrifices of perfections,” because it was unlawful for the unclean to touch them. Since, however, the Hebrews include in the word “peace,” safety, and all good success, I have thought that its plural number might aptly be translated “prosperities:” on which account, David calls the libation which used to be made in this sacrifice, “the cup of salvations:” (<19B613>Psalm 116:13,) nor do I doubt but that by this outward sign he designates thanksgiving. I admit indeed that this sacrifice was not only offered in acknowledgment of gratitude, but also when they sought of God peace and good success; yet still the epithet will always admirably suit it, because they confessed by it that God was the author of all good things, so as to attribute all their prosperity to Him. First, however, he commands all the sacrifices to be brought to the tabernacle, which is what he means by “the face of God;” ¹³ else would altars have been everywhere erected in their cities and villages, and by this license God’s service would have been mangled, and religion undermined. Wherefore, in order to keep the people in the unity of the faith, he bids them all be content with a single altar. But He would be worshipped and honored in that place, which He had dedicated to Himself, lest they should be scattered abroad after strange gods; and then He prescribes the mode of offering, whether the victim were of the herd or the flock. That such exact injunctions should be given as to trifles, might seem to be an unnecessary particularity, and even a superfluous repetition, inasmuch as the same thing is often inculcated, in precisely similar words: if it were not that this earnestness reminded the people that something higher was enwrapped in the ceremonies, whilst it restrained them from allowing themselves wantonly to add or change the smallest point. This very scrupulous observance, then, ought to have led them by the hand, as it were, to the things signified; so that under the external image the spiritual truth might meet their eyes; secondly, it ought to have held them bound, as it were, to the word of God, lest they should do anything in sacred matters from the dictates of their own reason. But now, since the use of sacrifices has ceased, we are first taught that God’s blessings are profaned, unless we diligently exercise ourselves in manifesting our religion, as His infinite and constant liberality towards us deserves; secondly, that unless our devotion is unmixed and paid to Him alone, we impiously defraud Him of His right; thirdly, that as we pray in Christ’s name, so our vows are to be paid, and our thanksgivings to be rendered, through His hand; and fourthly, that God’s loving-kindness is not to be celebrated in a negligent or perfunctory manner, but that we must labor to do so, as in a matter of the utmost importance, with no common zeal and attention.

16. And the priest shall burn them. He justly assigns to the priest the main duties of sacrificing, i.e., to sprinkle the blood, and to cast the fat into the fire, since he alone was competent to make atonement. Moreover, although there is a harsh metaphor contained in the word “food,” yet it admirably expresses what the Holy Spirit would teach, that the legal service pleased God, just as the food which we eat is pleasing to us; whilst it at the same time marks God’s familiar communion with His people, as if He sat at the same table with them. It is indeed sure that God, who breathes life into all, and borrows nothing from any, does not want food; but His incomparable kindness could not be better shewn forth, than by deigning to make Himself, as it were, the messmate of His worshippers. In the same figure of speech the ingratitude of the people is reproved by Malachi, when he says,

“The table of the Lord is polluted, and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible,” (Malachi 1:12;)

not because God delighted in the fat of fed beasts, or in bread; but because it was a gross and intolerable act of impiety to neglect this extraordinary pledge of His grace. This similitude, however, ought to be referred to the truth it represents, viz., that the exercise of faith, and the proofs of our piety, are no less pleasing to God than as if He should be feasted delicately and sumptuously; wherefore we ought to take the greater care not to defraud Him of the things He takes delight in. It is not very clear to me why God claims for Himself the fat in all the sacrifices, and commands it to be burnt, unless that in this way He might accustom His servants to temperance. We have already seen that the fat is certainly accounted the most delicate part, where Moses applies this word to corn and wine; and this also is plain from Psalm 63:5, “My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow and fatness.” And when God declares (Isaiah 1:11,) that He does not desire “the fat,” He signifies that He does not require for His own sake the choicest part of animals, but that the Israelites might remember that they should partake soberly of all their food, as if they had consecrated the best and first-fruits of it. If any one desire a more distinct exposition of this, the offering of the fat taught them to pay more honor to the service of God; and secondly, it instructed them in abstinence. The allegories, suited only to tickle men’s ears, must be sought from others. ¹⁴

Isychius, after having pretended that the fat represented spiritual affections, soon afterwards metamorphoses it into gross appetites. Others suppose that Christ was designed by it. Others understand by it that the grossness or fatness of our flesh must be refined by the fire of the Spirit, that it may be mortified unto God. This simple meaning satisfies me, that, when the Law permitted them to eat the sacred meats, an exception was added, which left the best portion in God’s hands; secondly, that the part which might have been most attractive to the greedy, was consumed in the fire as a restraint upon their gluttony. The eating of blood is here prohibited, as also elsewhere, because it was consecrated to God in order to make expiation; but there was another and higher reason why it was forbidden, of which mention was made in Genesis 9, and which must be again handled in our exposition of the Sixth Commandment.

LEVITICUS 4

GO TO LEVITICUS 4: 1-35

3. If the priest that is anointed. He now distinguishes between different persons, and begins with the high priest, who alone bore the high distinction of the holy unction, unless it be thought better to apply it to the whole supreme class. ¹⁵ It is probable, however, that it only refers to one. The more illustrious was his dignity, the more diligently and zealously ought his life to be confirmed to the model of holiness; and therefore the infirmity which was more tolerable in others, was more exceedingly reprehensible in him. This is the reason why it was required that he should atone for himself with a greater victim. But this in some measure related to all the Levites, inasmuch as they were chosen to be of the sacred class; and it now extends to all the ministers and pastors of the Church, not that they should ransom themselves by the sacrifice of a calf, but that they should diligently beware of every sin, and be more intent in their endeavors after holiness. The clause “according to the sin of the people,” might be also rendered “unto the sin,” etc., as though Moses had said that the priest through sin corrupted the people by his bad example; for, since his life is the rule of holiness and righteousness, so his faults give occasion to the errors of others. The sense, however, that I have followed is simpler, i.e., that though the transgression of the priest may be an ordinary one, yet in consideration of his office it becomes more weighty, and deserving of greater punishment.

5. And the priest that is anointed shall take. It is well known that what is here prescribed as to the sprinkling of blood, and its pouring out, as well as to the burning of the fat and the kidneys, is the same as in the other sacrifices; and the comparison in the 10th verse sufficiently proves that, the ordinary forms were observed in other particulars. But inasmuch as it might seem absurd that the priest, who was himself guilty, should come before God to perform the office of reconciliation, it was necessary to prescribe the details more accurately, to obviate all doubt. Although, therefore, he was unworthy to approach God, yet, since the law of the priesthood was inviolable, he was admitted to the discharge of his duties; for it was not lawful that more mediators should be appointed. In order, then, that more reverence should be paid to the rites of the Law, and that men should seek after no other way of reconciliation, God extended His grace to the fault of the priest. The blood was sprinkled before the Lord, that the people might learn that through the sight of the sacrifice sins were hidden and buried, so as to come no more into remembrance before God; but the rest of the blood was poured before the altar, because it was holy, and therefore ought by no means to be cast elsewhere like anything profane.

13. And if the whole congregation. The very same sacrifice which was enjoined on the priest is required of the people; since he who went into the sanctuary in the name of all to present all the tribes before God, represented the whole body. It seems indeed that the kind of ignorance here spoken of is different from the former kind; since it was said “if the thing be hid;” yet I think that these infirmities are comprised, in which it often happens that men are blinded for a time. ¹⁶ For many do not search into themselves, and therefore slumber in their sins; whereas if they honestly examined their doings, their conscience would straightway smite them. It might, then, happen that the whole people should fail to be aware of their sin, whilst dealing with themselves too gently and indulgently. The meaning therefore is, that although no sense of sin should at first arouse them to repentance, yet, if afterwards they should be awakened so as to begin to acknowledge their crime, God must be propitiated by sacrifices; for otherwise the people might make a cloak for themselves of their error.

22. When a ruler hath sinned. A peculiar atonement is also appointed for the transgression of the rulers; and, although he speaks of the ruler in the singular number, yet inasmuch as the law was not yet enacted that one individual should bear rule, he undoubtedly designates the heads and governors generally, because they who bear rule do more injury by their bad example than private persons. If, then, any of the judges or governors had sinned through error, he might indeed be set free by a lesser victim than the priest or the whole people, yet there was individually this difference between them, that they were to offer she-goats or lambs, and the ruler a he-goat; and the object of this was that those in authority should more carefully keep themselves pure from every transgression, whereas otherwise they are wont to indulge themselves more freely, as if their rank and dignity allowed them greater license. Where we have given as our translation, “If (the sin) shall have become known,” (si innotuerit,)

translators are not agreed. ¹⁷ The word used is properly a disjunctive particle Or; ¹⁸ but it is sometimes used for the conditional particle, as we shall see in the next chapter. Those who retain the primary and genuine meaning of the word do violence to the signification of the last word of the foregoing verse, and translate it, “shall have offended” instead of “shall have felt that he has offended;” but since it appears from many passages that או, o, is equivalent to אם, im, there is no need of wresting the words to an improper sense. The word הודע, hodang, which they render transitively “to make known,” may fitly bear my translation, unless this is preferred, “if he shall have known,” (si cognoverit). The words which Moses continually repeats, “the priest shall make an atonement for him, and his; iniquity shall be forgiven him,” some coldly restrict to external and civil cleansing, as if Moses only removed his condemnation before men; but God rather offers pardon to sinners, and assures them that He will be favorable to them, lest fear or doubt should prevent them from freely calling upon Him. And assuredly those who do not acknowledge that the legal rites were sacraments, are not acquainted with the very rudiments of the faith. Now to all sacraments, at any rate to the common sacraments of the Church, a spiritual promise is annexed: it follows, therefore, that pardon was truly promised to the fathers, who reconciled themselves to God by the offering of sacrifices, not because the slaying of beasts expiated sins, but because it was a certain and infallible symbol, in which pious minds might acquiesce, so as to dare to come before God with tranquil confidence. In sum, as now in baptism sins are sacramentally washed away, so under the Law also the sacrifices were means of expiation, though in a different way; since baptism sets Christ before us as if He were present, whilst under the Law He was only obscurely typified. Figuratively indeed what applies to Christ only is transferred to the signs, for in Him alone was manifested to us the fulfillment of all spiritual blessings, and He at length blotted out sins by His one and perpetual sacrifice; but since the question here is not as to the value of the legal ceremonies in themselves, let it suffice that they truly testified of the grace of God, of which they were the types; and so let not that profane imagination be listened to, that the sacrifices only politically and as far as regarded men absolved those by whom they were offered from guilt and condemnation.

NUMBERS 15

GO TO NUMBERS 15: 22-29

22. And if ye have erred. He teaches by what kind of sacrifice the sins of the whole people or of each individual are to be expiated, although he enumerates only two of the four classes which are mentioned in Leviticus; for a special atonement is there enjoined both on the priest and the ruler. But neither is the ceremony of sacrificing here described, since Moses only wished to refresh their memories by the way as to the manner in which, either publicly or privately, they were to be reconciled to God. This word “error,” ¹⁹ as we have said, extends to incogitancy, which partakes of contempt of God, and arises from too great security, when men inconsiderately fall into the sins to which their lusts invite them; for deliberate impiety is afterwards brought into contrast with error, when men designedly rush into violations of the law. But since nothing is more easy than for men to err, this remedy was most necessary, lest they who had sinned should fall into despair. Lest, then, the people or private individuals, when they saw their guilt, should despair of pardon and throw away the pursuit of holiness, God anticipates them, and shews them by what means He is to be propitiated, so that the sins which had occurred should not interrupt His service. Since, however, Moses here only repeats what has already been explained, there is no need of dwelling largely upon it, except that in one point he seems to deliver a law different from the former one; for he there commands two bullocks to be slain for the reconciliation of the people, ²⁰ the one as a burnt-offering, the other as a sin-offering; yet, if the second were not easily obtained, the permission was given to substitute a goat. In Leviticus, therefore, the regular and perfect rite was delivered; the permissive alteration is only added here; nor does Moses contradict himself, though, for the sake of brevity, he only refers to one of the two modes. At the end a clearer explanation is subjoined, viz., that the same law should be common to all, since it was by no means expedient to introduce any diversity.

LEVITICUS 5

GO TO LEVITICUS 5: 1-13

1. And if a soul sin. The three kinds of offense, to which Moses refers in the beginning of the chapter, seem to differ much from each other; for the first, when a person concealed a matter which he knew, could not arise from error, yet I include this concealment of which he treats under the head of error, by supposing it to have been when a person should be induced by shame or fear to connive at any crime or offense respecting which he might be interrogated, and so, without any design of perjuring himself, but by blinding himself, should withhold what he would have said, if he had duly examined the matter. Yet these words must be more narrowly discussed, respecting the meaning of which men are not well agreed. Some think that the word אלה, ²¹ alah, is put for “execration,” as though it were said, if any shall have heard a misdoing or detestable crime worthy of execration; yet their gloss is contradicted by what immediately follows, “Whether he hath seen or known it.” Others indeed interpret it to mean an oath, yet improperly confine it to perjury, as if Moses stated that he was guilty who had heard a man perjuring himself, and had not opposed him, but had rather covered the perjury by his own connivance or silence. I rather subscribe, then, to their opinion who expound it as meaning “adjuration;” for the words will thus combine very well, “If any one, being summoned as a witness, shall have heard the voice of adjuration, whereby he shall be required in God’s name to answer truly as to the matter proposed, and from favor, or good nature, or any other false pretext, as if he were enveloped in a cloud of error, shall conceal what, if he had paid diligent attention, he well knew, he shall be guilty.” We must then here render the disjunctive particle as the conditional. Literally it is, “If any shall have heard the voice of adjuration, and (is) himself a witness.” But wherefore should he say, “if he hath been a witness,” and then add, “or have known it,” as if he referred to different things? What I have said squares very well, that a person becomes himself guilty, who, when summoned as a witness, does not answer to a matter of which he is cognizant. Now, what does hearing the voice of adjuration mean, unless you understand that he is adjured by the mouth of a judge? We must observe, too, that the three kinds of sin which are first enumerated have a connection with each other, since they speak of sinners who are infected by the uncleanness of others; for, after Moses had commanded generally that offenses committed in error should be expiated, he now adds what had not been stated explicitly enough, that those also required atonement who had been polluted by the defilements of others. Thus this first will accord very well with the other two, i.e., that if any should make himself an accomplice in the offense of another, by indirect perjury, he should be unclean until he had offered a propitiation; for this is what the expression “bear his iniquity” conveys; as if Moses had said that he contracts guilt who shall have concealed a crime, respecting which he had been interrogated as a witness.

2. Or if a soul touch any unclean thing. This precept seems not only to be superfluous but also absurd; for Moses had already shewn sufficiently how uncleanness contracted by touching a dead body, or any other unclean thing, was to be purged, and had prescribed an easy and inexpensive mode of purification. This repetition appears, therefore, to be useless. But to impose a heavier punishment on an offense which is extenuated by the pretext of error, than where there is no allusion to error, is unjust. But we must remember that not only is the uncleanness itself here punished, but; the inadvertence, from whence it arose that he who was polluted omitted the purification. For it may be that those who thus lie torpid in their sins pollute for a season the service of God. No wonder, then, that a heavier punishment is inflicted, where error, springing from supine and gross security, begets still more sins, that thus believers may be aroused to greater vigilance. Let the reader, therefore, recollect that the offense which is now adverted to did not consist in the mere touching of a dead body, but in the thoughtlessness itself; for if all would diligently meditate on the Law of God, forgetfulness would not so easily steal over them, whereby the distinction between right and wrong is lost. The same is the reason for the following ordinance, where Moses subjects to the same punishment any one who shall have touched an unclean or defiled man: thus the very contact of a woman at a particular period produces pollution.

4. Or if a soul shall swear. The Gulf is also ascribed to error and ignorance, when a person does inconsiderately what he has promised not to do; for the oath is not in that case violated, which would be criminal; ²² but in this very carelessness there is enough of wrong, because sound religion would renew the recollection of the vow. Consequently, where no anxiety (to fulfill it) is shewn, there is no serious desire to do so. But this commandment was necessary, because it might often happen that men who had pledged their faith in a vow, and had broken it in thoughtlessness, would deem themselves released from every, and would in future give themselves up to indulgence, whereas they who arrive at such a pitch of licentiousness, harden themselves more and more, until at length they throw off all reverence for God. God would therefore have vows kept faithfully, lest those who despised them should thus rush into impiety. If then any one had thoughtlessly broken faith, he is commanded to make atonement to God; not on account of his levity, as some think, as if he had rashly promised what he might not, but on account of his neglect, because he had not given diligence to remember the vow at the proper time. Now if the Papists stupidly wrest this text after their custom, in order to establish the obligation of all kinds of vows, their confutation is easy; viz., that God requires this stedfastness only with respect to lawful vows duly made. We have already understood from the teaching of Moses, what is the rule of pious vow-making; whence we gather, that those which profane God’s name are by no means to be kept; for if we set out with doing wrong, obstinacy in it is doubly wicked. In this passage, therefore, “to do evil” is not to perform any improper action, but to undertake something which would otherwise be disagreeable and burdensome to the flesh; such as to diminish domestic expenditure, or to deprive one’s self of luxuries, or to determine upon abstinence from something which would gratify or profit us.

6. And he shall bring his trespass-offering. He proceeds with what we have already been considering, as to the removal of guilt by sacrifice; but he begins to make a distinction between the poor and the rich, which distinction applies also to what has gone before; hence it appears that the order is not exactly observed by Moses, since the cases which he inserts seem to interrupt the thread of his discourse; yet the fact remains clear, that whosoever have fallen through error are unclean until they have offered an atonement. But what had been before omitted is here inserted, that the poor and needy are not to be pressed beyond the extent of their means; nay, the different grades of offering are appointed, so that he to whom it was not convenient to offer two turtle-doves, or pigeons, might be quit for a small measure of flour. Hence we infer that God’s only design was to shew the one true means of reconciliation to the people, that they might have recourse to the Mediator and His sacrifice; for the poor are here commanded to offer either two turtle-doves, or a small quantity of meal, which would propitiate God towards them, just as much as would the victim required of the rich. The citation, ²³ however, which our interpreters make from the poet is a lame one; viz., “Whoever shall have brought integrity of mind into the temples, makes a sacrifice of corn;” since this blind man did not see what was the object of sacrifices, and thus despised all kinds of propitiations, as if purity and innocency alone recommended men to God. We must remember, then, that the victims of themselves were of no importance, and yet that the ancient people were exercised in these ceremonies, to teach them that God can only be appeased by the payment of a ransom.

LEVITICUS 5

GO TO LEVITICUS 5: 14-19

14. And the Lord spake unto Moses. The difference of the victim clearly shews, that another kind of offense is here referred to; for God now requires a male instead of a female. Before, He had been contented with an ewe lamb or a female kid; but inasmuch as a ram is more valuable, it follows that punishment is now awarded to a heavier offense. The heinousness of the fault depends upon the quality of the act; i.e., when a person shall have wronged not a mortal man merely, but God Himself, nor shall have transgressed only one of the Commandments of the first Table, but shall not have paid a vow, or shall have offered a defective victim, or shall have defrauded God of His right in any oblation; since this is what is meant by the clause “in the holy things of the Lord.” In this expression Moses includes both vows voluntarily made, as well as the legitimate oblations, such as tithes, first-fruits, the offering of the first-born; since in all these things the Israelites were strictly charged to deal most faithfully with God. If by chance avarice had blinded any one, so that in pursuit of personal gain he paid God less than he ought, his recklessness justly received a heavier punishment. Yet it must be understood, that the offense here referred to is one in which no fraud or evil deceit had place; for if any one had designedly and craftily appropriated what was sacred, the impiety of this sacrilege was not so easily expiated. But inasmuch as it often happens that the covetous and grasping are too ready to spare themselves, God enjoins a sacrifice in such a case, where private advantage has through thoughtlessness prevailed over religious feeling. The words, “with thy estimation,” some refer to Moses, others to the priest; but I prefer taking it passively for the estimation prescribed by God; which is called the estimation of the people, because they were bound to acquiesce in the Law appointed by Him, and not arbitrarily to alter the value. Moses estimates the ram at two shekels of the sanctuary, equivalent to four common shekels, ²⁴ amounting in French money to about twenty-eight sols, (asses.)

16. And he shall make amends for the harm. Hence it more plainly appears, as I have recently stated, that they, who withheld anything of God’s full right, are said to have sinned “in the holy thing;” since they are commanded to make restitution with the addition of a fifth part. Yet let my readers remember, that those who are compelled to make restitution, are not such as have fraudulently embezzled the sacred things, but those who under some vain pretext have flattered themselves for a time, so as to be unaffected by any conviction of their fault. The object therefore of this sacrifice, was to arouse the people to attention, so that postponing their private advantage, they should freely pay what was due to God. ²⁵

Theirs is but foolish trifling who think that Moses, having before spoken of sins (peccata), now prescribes the mode of making expiation for delinquencies (delicta), since he uses the same words indifferently on all occasions, and also designates all the victims by the same name. But to make out a delinquency to be greater than a sin is a piece of gross ignorance; nor does it need a long refutation, since it manifestly appears that in this passage a special rule is delivered as to the means of obtaining pardon when a person through thoughtlessness has not reflected that he has omitted to discharge in full either his vows or oblations.

17. And if soul sin. Although the expressions seem to be general, as if he briefly confirmed what he had said before, yet it is necessary to connect them with the last sentence, or at least to restrict them to certain cases. The former exposition appears to me to be the right one; nor is there any absurdity in the repetition, to cut off all occasion for subterfuge from the disobedient. Still I do not deny that the reason which is added at the end, applies to all the modes of expiation of which he has been treating; viz., that although he may pretend ignorance who has fallen into sin inconsiderately, or who has not intentionally sinned, or who through forgetfulness has contracted any defilement, still he is guilty before God until he makes reconciliation. When therefore he again commands that a ram without blemish, and of full value should be offered, he once more shews how they must purge themselves who have been too stingy in their oblations. Immediately after he adds a reason common to all the other errors; as if he had said, that they are not absolved before God who offer the excuse of ignorance as a cover for their fault.

LEVITICUS 6

GO TO LEVITICUS 6: 19-22

GO TO LEVITICUS 6: 1-7

1. And the Lord spake unto Moses. Moses now no longer treats of the means of expiating errors when the sinner is guilty through thoughtlessness; but he prescribes the mode of reconciliation, when any one shall have wilfully and designedly offended God. And this is well worthy of notice, lest those who may have been guilty of voluntary sin should doubt whether God will be propitiated towards them, provided they make application to the one sacrifice of Christ, in which consists the entire substance of the shadows of the Law. We must indeed beware lest we indulge ourselves under the cover of God’s clemency and readiness to pardon, — for the lust of the flesh provokes us to sin more than enough, without the addition of this snare, — nor is it less than a blasphemous insult to God to take occasion and license for sin, from the fact of His willingness to pardon. Let then the fear of God reign in us, which will repress our wicked desires like a rein, so that we should not wilfully fall into sin; and let His mercy rather engender the hatred and detestation of sin in our hearts, than incite us to audacity. Yet, at the same time, we must prudently take heed, lest if we imagine God to be inexorable to our voluntary sins, this excessive severity should overthrow the hope of salvation even in those who are the holiest. For even now-a-days there are some madmen who deny pardon to all who may have chanted to fall through the infirmity of the flesh, since to morose men this severity has its charms, and by this hallucination Novatus ²⁶ greatly troubled the Church of old. But if we all honestly examine ourselves, it will plainly appear that those rigid censors, who affect the reputation of sanctity by immoderate asperity, are the grossest hypocrites. For if they would abandon their pride, and examine into their lives, which of them would find himself free from concupiscence? and whose conscience must not often smite him?

It is then monstrous blindness to exalt men, clothed in human flesh, to such a pitch of perfection, as that their conscience should not convict them of any fault or blame. And nothing is more pestilent than this imposture of the devil, excluding from the hope of pardon those who knowingly and willingly have sinned; since there is not one even of God’s best servants, in whom the corrupt affections of the flesh do not sometimes prevail; for although they be neither adulterers, nor thieves, nor murderers, yet there is none whom the last Commandment of the Law — “Thou shalt not covet,” — does not convict of sin. And assuredly the more advance one has made in endeavors after purity, the more he feels and acknowledges that he is still very far from reaching its goal. Therefore, unless we would purposely close the gate of salvation against us, we must hold that God is placable towards all, who trust that their sin is forgiven them by the sacrifice of Christ; for God is neither changed, nor is our condition worse than that of the fathers, whereas under the Law God appointed sacrifices for the expiation even of voluntary offenses. Hence it follows, that although we are convicted of voluntary sin, yet a remedy is set before us in the Gospel for procuring pardon: else would these ancient figures be more than delusive, which had no other object than to be testimonies and mirrors of the grace which was finally manifested to us in Christ. If there ought to be a mutual agreement between the external representation of grace under the Law, and the spiritual effect which Christ brought in, it plainly appears that sins are no less forgiven to us now, than to the ancient people; and thus that believers are reminded by this symbol, that they are not to despair of reconciliation, whilst they take no pleasure in their sins; but rather that they should boldly seek for pardon in the perpetual sacrifice which constantly renders God favorable to all the godly. And surely since repentance and faith are the sure pledges of God’s favor, it cannot be but that they should be received into His grace who are endued with these two gifts. Besides, the remission of sins is an inestimable treasure, which God has deposited in His Church, to be the peculiar blessing of His children; as the Confession of Faith declares, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the forgiveness of sins.” Nor would what Paul proclaims concerning the embassy entrusted to him be consistent, unless Christ’s satisfaction daily propitiated God towards believers. (2 Corinthians 5:20.)

The question here is not about some trifling offense, but about the crime of unfaithfulness, doubled by the addition of perjury. It is true that perfidy, or deceit, or violence, are first mentioned, to mark the grossness of the sin; but the guilt lies chiefly in the profanation of God’s name when the injury done to man is sheltered under a false oath. At any rate, he is admitted to pardon who has both iniquitously deceived his brother and has impiously abused God’s name. Hence it appears that God spares wretched sinners although they may have contaminated themselves by faithlessness, and have aggravated the crime committed against men by sacrilege, having insulted God through their perjury. But although Moses only enumerates transgressions of the Eighth Commandment, still he teaches, according to his usual manner, by synecdoche what must be done in the case of other offenses also. If, then, anything shall have been taken away by violence, or by fraud, and perjury has been superadded, he commands not only that satisfaction should be made to the neighbor who is defrauded, but that the price of atonement should also be offered to God. And the reason for this is expressly given, because not only has a mortal man been injured, but God has also been offended, who would have men conduct themselves justly and reverently towards each other; and then the crime is carried to extremity by the violation of God’s sacred name. The sacrifice is not indeed required from a thief or robber, or from the denier of a deposit, or the appropriator of anything lost, unless they have also perjured themselves; yet the words of Moses are not without their weight: if any one, by the denial of a deposit, or by theft, or robbery, shall have “committed a trespass against the Lord;” whereby he signifies, that whenever an injury is inflicted on men, God in their person is offended, because every transgression of the Law violates and perverts His justice.

We shall elsewhere see more about the restitution to be made in case of theft or robbery, especially when a person has been found guilty. This point, however, is alone referred to directly in this passage, viz., that whoever injures or inflicts a loss upon his brother, incurs guilt and condemnation before God; but if he proceeds to such a pitch of obstinacy, as to cover his crime by falsely appealing to the sacred name of God, he is polluted by double iniquity, so that compensation of the damage is not sufficient, but he must also make atonement to God. But we must understand this of those who, having escaped from the fear of punishment, voluntarily repent. The notion of some commentators who alter the copula into the disjunctive particle, and consider perjury to be one of the various sins referred to, I reject as foreign to the meaning of Moses. Others explain it thus: “If any shall have committed robbery or theft, or shall have sworn falsely about a thing lawful in itself:” but I do not see why the words should be wrested thus; besides, their mistake is refitted by the context itself, in which restitution is coupled with the sacrifices, and this could not be applicable unless perjury were conjoined also with fraud or violence. Nor does the disjunctive particle which follows help them; for after he has commanded what was taken away by force or deceit to be restored, because all the various points could not be separately expressed, it is added, “Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely,” not as if the guilt of perjury had been contracted in any other matters, but that he might cut away all means of subterfuge, which the repetition also confirms; for, after having introduced the crime of swearing falsely, he again, as if more clearly explaining what he had said, commands the restitution of the principal, together with the fifth part. But what is it that he commands to be restored except what the deceiver had kept back under cover of his oath? Of this a clearer exposition will be found under the Eighth Commandment.

A satisfaction is therefore enjoined to be made towards men together with the offering. Nor is it without reason that God commands them to make up the loss on the day when the offering is made, lest hypocrites should promise themselves impunity after having enriched themselves by the property of another. It was indeed permitted them to restore their property to others before they propitiated God by the sacrifice; but God will not have His altar defiled, which would be the case if thieves or robbers offered victims belonging to others. He would, therefore, have the hands of those who sacrifice cleansed from pollution. And surely those who offer a victim to God out of spoils unjustly obtained, in some measure implicate Him as a participator in their crime. Hence may profitable instruction be drawn, viz., that hypocrites busy themselves in vain in reconciling God to themselves, unless they honestly restore what they have unjustly taken. Meanwhile we must observe the distinction in the words of Moses between the satisfaction made to men and the sinoffering which propitiates God; for we gather from hence, as I have said, that they obtain not pardon from God who desire to remain enriched by their stolen property; and yet that God is not appeased by anything but sacrifice. Clear proof of this latter point may be gathered from the whole Law, which prescribes but one means of reconciling God, i.e., when the sinner makes atonement for himself by offering a victim. Hence the diabolical figment as to satisfactions is refuted ²⁷ by which the Papists imagine that they are redeemed from God’s judgment; for although God shall have remitted the guilt, they still think that the liability to punishment remains, until the sinner shall have delivered himself by his own works. To this end they have invented works of supererogation, to be meritorious in redeeming from punishment; hence, too, purgatory has come into existence. But when you have studied all the writings of Moses, and diligently weighed whatsoever is revealed in the Law as to the means of appeasing God, you will find that the Jews were everywhere brought back to sacrifices. Now, it is certain that whatever is attributed to sacrifices is so much taken away from men’s own works. But if it were not God’s intention to down His ancient people to outward ceremonies, it follows that it is only by the one Mediator, through the outpouring of His blood, that men are absolved from all liability either to guilt or punishment, so as to be restored to favor by God.

7. And the priest shall make an atonement. From this form of expression also, which frequently occurs, we must learn that the victim in itself was not the price of redemption, but that expiation was founded on the priesthood. For they have foolishly and falsely invented the notion that men work something themselves in the sacraments, ²⁸ whereas their virtue and effect proceeds from quite another quarter. The offering, therefore, properly speaking, is passive rather than active as regards man. ²⁹ The force of this will be more clearly understood from the delusion of the Papists. They are indeed compelled to acknowledge that in the sacraments men are passive, in so far as they receive the grace there offered to them; but they presently pervert this doctrine, by inventing their opus operatum, as they call it. But, lest the people should think that they bring from their own stores (domo) the price of their redemption, Moses constantly inculcates that it is the peculiar office of the priest, to appease God, and to blot out sin by expiation. It is also worthy of observation that he adds, “before the Lord,” for by this clause the profane notion is refuted, that men are purged by the legal sacrifices only civilly, as they say, i.e., before men, as if there were no spiritual promise included in them. Now, if this were so, the fathers would have been confirmed in the confidence of pardon by no external symbols, than which nothing can be more absurd; but by this one clause all ambiguity is removed, when Moses declares that they were absolved “before the Lord.”

LEVITICUS 6

GO TO LEVITICUS 6: 8-15, 23-25, 30

9. Command Aaron and his sons. He more distinctly explains what might have appeared to be omitted; nor is it without reason that he carefully enters into these full details, for since God prefers obedience to all sacrifices, he was unwilling that anything should remain doubtful as to the external rites, which were not otherwise of great importance; that they might learn to observe precisely, and with the most exact care, whatever the Law commanded, and that they should not obtrude anything of themselves, inasmuch as the purity of the holy things was corrupted by the very smallest invention. He would, therefore, leave nothing to the people’s judgment, but directed them by a fixed rule even in the most trifling matters. As to the burnt-offerings, he commands that they should not be taken away from the altar till they were consumed by the fire; but after they were put on, he commands them to be burnt in a constant fire till the morrow. With this intent, he expressly says, that the fire should be kept alight on the altar all the night, since the sacrifices would not have been reduced to ashes without the application of fuel. Secondly, he commands the priest, clothed in the linen garment, and breeches, as he was wont to be in the performance of his sacred duties, to go to the altar, and to take away the ashes and put them by the side, or at some part of the altar; but when he shall have gone away from the altar, he bids him take off his holy garments, and carry the ashes out of the camp to a clean place. But what he had before briefly adverted to as to the supply of wood, he immediately declares more fully to be, lest the fire should go out. Again, he assigns to the priest the office of setting the wood in order every morning. But, because in the sacrifices ³⁰ of prosperities the Law commanded the fat only to be burnt, Moses now adds, verse 12, that the fat was to be burnt on the same fire. It is worthy of particular observation, that he finally subjoins a precept as to so keeping up the fire that it may never go out.

The intent of this perpetuity was, that the offerings should be burnt with heavenly fire; for on the day that Aaron was consecrated, the sacrifice was reduced to ashes not by human means but miraculously, in token of approbation. True that God did not choose daily to exert this power; but He interposed the hand and labor of men in such a manner that the origin of the sacred fire should still be from heaven. The same thing afterwards happened at the dedication of Solomon’s temple, because that alteration of the divine decree demanded a sign (tesseram,) lest any should think that it was at the will of man that the splendor of the temple should outvie the tabernacle. Finally, the sacrifice of Elijah was graced by the same privilege when he restored the abolished legal service; and then also God upheld what He had ordained in His Law, in opposition to all corrupt and degenerate rites. Meanwhile, in order to prevent any adulterations, He chose to have the fire continually burning on the altar day and night, nor was it allowable to take it from elsewhere. There was, indeed, amongst the Persians ³¹ a perpetual fire, and at Rome also under the guardianship of the Vestal virgins; ³² and it may be, that in foolish mimicry they transferred to themselves the custom which they had heard of being observed by the Jews; for thus it is that, for the purpose of deceiving unbelievers, the devil often falsely makes a pretense of something divine, and imitates God just as an ape imitates man: but the purpose of God in rejecting strange fire was to retain the people in His own genuine ordinance prescribed by the Law, lest any inventions of men should insinuate themselves; for the prohibition of strange fire was tantamount to forbidding men to introduce anything of their own, or to add to the pure doctrine of the Law, or to decline from its rule. Meanwhile, since God had once testified, as if by stretching forth His hand from heaven (to receive them, ³³) that the sacrifices were acceptable to Him, believers were confirmed in their confidence of this by the pledge of the perpetual fire.

14. And this is the Law of the meat-offering. We have already seen that there were various kinds of this offering; now, the cakes or wafers are omitted, ³⁴ and mention is only made of uncooked flour, whereof God commands that the priest should burn on the altar as much as his hand could hold. But this law was necessary in order that believers might be fully assured that God was propitiated by the due offering of this part, and that none might complain because the greater portion remained with the priests. Lest, however, the dignity of the sacrifice should be impaired, it was only permitted to the priests to make unleavened bread of it, which they were to eat in the sanctuary, as we have seen elsewhere. The meatoffering of the priests is excepted, which I conceive to be for two reasons, — first, that the excellency and dignity of their gift, honored as it was by special privilege, might stimulate the priests to greater efforts of piety, so as not to exercise themselves in God’s service in a common and perfunctory manner; secondly, that they might be thus restrained from the affectation of offering it too frequently. For if it only cost them a little flour, a door was opened to vain ostentation; they would have never ceased offering their ³⁵ minha, the profit of which returned to themselves; perhaps they might even have made a trade of it, as we see the Popish sacrificers entice the simple populace to profuse expenditure in offerings by the pomp of their fictitious devotion. Lest, therefore, they should cause their immoderate oblations to minister both to their vainglory and avarice, God willed that their meat-offering should be entirely consumed.

25. Speak unto Aaron. We everywhere see how carefully God provided that the people should have no doubts about anything. And assuredly true religion is distinguished from false imaginations by this peculiar mark, that God Himself prescribes what is to be done. Nor can certainty, though religion ought to be based upon it, be derived elsewhere than from His own mouth. Now, because there was a difference between burnt-offerings and sin-offerings, it would have been natural to kill them separately in different, places, unless the error had been anticipated; but all doubt, is removed when God assigns the same place to them both. Whence, too, we gather that one law suffices for the proper worship of God, if men are not wise in their own conceits, but depend on His mouth. For how came it to pass that, whilst these two kinds of oblations differed from each other, the rule respecting them was the same on this point, except because it so pleased God? This passage, therefore, sufficiently reminds us with how great sober-mindedness and modesty it becomes us to follow what is pointed out to us in God’s word. A reason, however, is at the same time added, which may invite reverence to be paid to the sin-offerings, when especial sanctity is attributed to them, which, according to the idiom of the Hebrew language, is called “holiness of holinesses.” Moreover, Moses begins to distinguish between חטאה, chateah, ³⁶ and אשם, asham, which the Latins translate peccatum, and delictum, though he had before used them indifferently to express the same thing. What the difference was, I confess, I know not; I see the guesses of others, but nothing certain.

30. And no sin-offering. The exception is repeated both with reference to the sacrifices mentioned in the fourth chapter, and also to the solemn sacrifice, whereby the priest and the people were reconciled every year: for private persons individually atoned for their sins at less expense, and only the greater altar, which stood in the court, was sprinkled with blood; but if the priest reconciled God to the whole people, or to himself, in order that the intercession might be more efficacious, he entered the sanctuary to pour out blood on the opposite side of the veil. God now again commands that such victims should be entirely burnt. This passage, then, is nothing but a confirmation of the others in which a like command is given. Hence the Apostle, in an apt allusion, infers that the distinction of meats is abolished; for he says that the minor altar, which under the Law was hidden, is now laid open to us, (Hebrews 13:10,) and therefore we no longer eat of the legal sacrifices; yea, forasmuch as our One Priest has brought His blood into the sanctuary, it only remains for us to go forth with Him without the camp.

LEVITICUS 7

GO TO LEVITICUS 7: 1-5

1. Likewise this is the law. I have just confessed that I do not sufficiently understand how these two words, חטאה, chateah, and אשם, asham, differ from each other; and I have therefore followed the sense which is commonly received, and called them the sin and the trespass-offering, (hostiam pro peccato vel pro delicto.) Although in this second kind of offering he commands the same ceremony to be observed as in the former one, yet he mentions some things which he had before omitted, such as the sprinkling of blood around the altar, the offering of the fat, kidneys, etc., which had not been before expressed. The sum amounts to this, that they were to sacrifice in the same manner, and with the same rites for sin as for trespass, and make not the smallest alteration in the rule laid down for them.

LEVITICUS 7

GO TO LEVITICUS 7: 11-18

<032229> LEVITICUS 22:29, 30
29. And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the Lord, offer it at your own will.	29. Quum vero sacrificaveritis sacrificium gratiarum actionis Jehovae, in acceptationem vestri sacrificabitis.
30. On the same day it shall be eaten up; ye shall leave none of it until the morrow: I am the Lord.	30. 30 Die ipsa comedetur: non relinquetus usque mane ex eo; ego Jehova,

GO TO LEVITICUS 19: 5-8

LEVITICUS 7:11. And this is the law of the sacrifice. I have elsewhere ³⁷ stated my reasons for calling this kind of sacrifice “the sacrifice of prosperities.” That they were offered not only in token of gratitude, but when God’s aid was implored, is plain both from this and other passages; yet in all cases the Jews thus testified that they acknowledged God as the author of all good things, whether they returned thanks for some notable blessing, or sought by His aid to be delivered from dangers, or whether they professed in general their piety, or paid the vows which they had made simply and without condition; for the payment of a conditional vow was an act of thanksgiving. At any rate, since in all they honored God with His due service, they gave proof of their gratitude. Hence this name was justly given to these sacrifices, because in them they either besought good success of Him, or acknowledged that what they had already obtained was owing to His grace, or asked for relief in adversity, or congratulated themselves on their welfare and safety. Moses, however, distinguishes one kind, as it were, from the others:, i.e., the sacrifice of thanksgiving, whereby they professedly returned thanks for some notable deliverance, which was not; always offered. ³⁸ In this case he commands unleavened cakes fried in oil, wafers seasoned with oil, and fine flour fried to be offered, together with leavened bread; and also commands that the flesh of the sacrifice should be eaten on the day of the oblation, so that none should be left. In vows and free-will-offerings greater liberty is conceded, viz., that they might eat the residue on the next day, provided they kept nothing till the third day. In the passage which I have inserted from chapter 22, the words I have translated “unto your acceptance,” might also be rendered “unto His good-will,” (in beneplacitum,) for the gratuitous favor of God is called רצון, ratson. The meaning therefore is, if you would have your sacrifice accepted by God, take care that none of the flesh should remain to the following day. Others, however, understand it of man’s good-will, as if it were said, “at your own will,” or “as it shall please you.” And I admit, indeed, that the word רצון, ratson, is sometimes used in this sense; but since in the same chapter ³⁹ it can only be taken for God’s favor or acceptance, I have preferred avoiding a variation; yet I make no objection if any one likes the other reading better. But if my readers weigh well the antithesis, when it is presently added, that if the flesh should remain beyond the proper time ⁴⁰ the sacrifice would not be pleasing to God, they will agree with me. There is, indeed, an apparent discrepancy here, since in this way Moses would command the voluntary sacrifice to be eaten on the same day, which, however, he does not do. If we prefer understanding it of the liberal feelings of men, he will exhort the people cheerfully to offer their victims in thanksgiving. I have, however, shewn the meaning which I approve of, and thus it will be easy to reconcile these things, for God’s goodwill does not require this similarity, ⁴¹ nor is it necessary to observe the same mode of offering that they may be grateful; but they are said to offer “unto their acceptance,” when they intermix no corruption, but offer purely and duly. If the cause of this distinction is asked, it is no clearer to me than is the variety between the bread and wafers or cakes. It is certain, indeed, that God had a reason for dealing more strictly or more indulgently; but to inquire now-adays as to things unknown, and which conduce not at all to piety, is neither right nor expedient.

16. But if the sacrifice of his offering. I have observed a little above that it is not a conditional but a simple vow which is here meant; because, if a person were under the obligation of a vow, ⁴² his payment was an act of thanksgiving, and thus his sacrifice was comprised under the first head. But it would not be without absurdity that similar things should be distinguished as if they differed. But inasmuch as many made gratuitous vows, Moses combines this kind of sacrifice with the free-will-offering, as standing in the same rank. It has also been stated that the consecrated meats were not kept too long, lest they should become tainted or putrified, and thus religion should fall into contempt. Perhaps, too, vainglory was thus provided against; for if it had been allowable to eat the meats salted, many would have made ostentatious offerings without expense. God, therefore, imposed a restraint, that they might offer their sacrifices more sparingly and reverently. The penalty is added, that; the sacrifice would not be acceptable to God, but rather abominable; and hence all who ate of them would be guilty. Moreover, when Moses says that polluted sacrifices would not be “imputed,” we may infer that those which are duly offered come into account before God, so that He reckons them as things expended for Himself. Still we must not, imagine them to be merits which lay Him under obligation; but because He deigns to deal so liberally with us, that no duty which we pay Him is useless.

LEVITICUS 7

GO TO LEVITICUS 7: 19-25, 28-31, 37, 38

19. And the flesh that toucheth. It was not indeed lawful to eat of any polluted flesh, but in the sacrifices there was a special reason for this, i.e., because the uncleanness involved sacrilege. On this account he commands it to be burnt, just like that which had not been consumed within the legitimate time; and the punishment is, ⁴³ that if any unclean person shall have touched the consecrated meat, he should be cut off from the people. The cruelty or immoderate severity of this has induced some to think that to be “cut off” is nothing more than to be cast out of the camp. But it is not wonderful that God should have thus severely dealt with those who knowingly and wilfully contaminated what was holy; for if any one had sinned in error, he was not to receive this sentence, but only he who had betrayed his open contempt of God by impious profanation of sacred things.

23. Speak unto the children of Israel. Since in all sacrifices the fat was consecrated to God, and was burnt on the altar, God forbade His people to eat fat even in their ordinary meals, in order that they might cultivate piety even in their homes. For unquestionably this was an exercise of piety, that they who were far away from the temple should still accustom themselves in their daily meals to the service of God. Nor am I ignorant of the allegories ⁴⁴ in which some interpreters indulge, but I willingly acquiesce in the reason which God reveals, viz., that the people was prohibited from eating fat, because He had assigned it to Himself. Nevertheless, the Law permits the fat of a carcase, ⁴⁵ or of an animal torn (by beasts) to be applied to any use, provided they abstain from the fat of those animals which might be legally offered.

37. This is the law of the burnt-offering. In this conclusion Moses indicates that full provision had been made lest any addition should insinuate itself from man’s inventions to vitiate the sacrifices. In the day, he says, that God appointed the sacrifices to be offered to Him on Mount Sinai, He omitted nothing which was to be observed, lest men should dare to introduce anything except what He prescribed. And surely, when He had thus carefully embraced all the ceremonies, we may easily infer from hence how earnestly we should avoid all temerity and audacity in invention. The design, therefore, of Moses was in this brief admonition to exhort the people to soberness, lest they should transgress the limits placed by God.

NUMBERS 15

GO TO NUMBERS 15: 1-16

1. And the Lord spake. He partly here adverts to those precepts of which he had treated more distinctly and fully in Leviticus, and partly gathers into one place what he had before spoken of in various places and more obscurely. For as yet he had delivered no certain regulations as to the accessories to the meat-offering of oil and wine; but what he had before appropriated to particular cases he now commands to be observed generally, and what he had treated of more accurately he now lightly passes over; for he does not enter into full particulars, but only forbids that sacrifices should be offered without flour, a libation of wine, and oil. We have seen elsewhere that in the sacrifices and oblations, wherein God consulted the rude condition of the people, He took as it were the character of a man, as if He feasted there familiarly with them. In this sense He elsewhere calls the sacrifices His meat, ⁴⁶ not because He, who is the life in Himself and inspires the life of all, requires the supports of life, but because, unless He descends to men, He cannot lift up their minds to things above. Still, inasmuch as there was danger on the other side lest the people should introduce many inane and superfluous pomps, as we see that in their sacred feasts the Gentiles were foolishly and immoderately luxurious, as if their delicacies gave pleasure to God, the measure of each particular thing is prescribed, that they may not dare to invent anything arbitrarily. The conjecture is probable that what had been before delivered with sufficient clearness is here again recalled to their memory. But since this reason is not expressly given, it will be enough to hold fast what has been frequently stated, that although the ceremonies might be of trifling importance, still it was necessary that the lawful should be carefully distinguished from the unauthorized, in order that the licentiousness of men might be anticipated, who would otherwise have failed not to mingle their own leaven. The sum of this passage is, that both in the solemn sacrifices which the Law demands, as well as in the free-willofferings, they should observe that proportion of which we have treated elsewhere.

14. And if a stranger sojourn with you. He does not mean all strangers, but only those who, descending from heathen nations, had professedly turned to God, and thus had been received into the body of the Church; for the uncleanness of those who remained in uncircumcision excluded them from the legal service. I conceive that there were two reasons why God would have one and the same form observed; first, that the proselytes who had been lately incorporated might more cheerfully devote themselves to the exercises of piety, when they saw themselves placed in the same position as the children of Abraham; and secondly, lest if any distinction should be made, corrupt mixtures should immediately creep in. Lest, therefore, the purity of God’s worship should be gradually corrupted by absurd imitation, the gate was shut against that variety which usually draws men aside in different directions.

LEVITICUS 22

GO TO LEVITICUS 22: 17-25

DEUTERONOMY 17:1

<051701> DEUTERONOMY 17:1
1. Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God any bullock or sheep wherein is blemish, or any evil favoredness: for that is an abomination unto the Lord thy God.	1. Non sacrificabis Jehovae Deo tuo bovem, aut agnum, in quo fuerit macula, aut quidpiam vitii, quia abominatio Jehovae Dei tui est.

LEVITICUS 22:17. And the Lord spake. He now more clearly teaches and more copiously inculcates what he has frequently adverted to heretofore, that it is sinful to offer to God a maimed, or weak, or otherwise imperfect animal. Now this external soundness admonished the ancient people that God is served amiss when He is served by halves, since He abominates a double heart. ⁴⁷ (Proverbs 11:20.) At the same time, in this symbol was shewn forth the perfect purity of that victim by which God was at length to be reconciled. We know in how great liberties the world indulges itself in the service of God; for whilst it lightly and contemptuously obtrudes mere trifling upon Him as if He were a child, it still fancies that its duty is properly discharged. Hence it is that it claims reward for any rubbish (sordibus,) and exults in mere mockeries of God, as if it were laying Him under obligation. A notable example of this stupid security is seen now-a-days in the Papacy, when they mock God with no less audacity than as if they were dealing with a block of wood. To omit innumerable other cases, what can be more monstrous than this arrogance of theirs, when, as they mutter their prayers, their minds wander not only into frivolous but even into unholy imaginations, and yet they pretend that the final intention, as they call it, is meritorious and approved by God? ⁴⁸ Suppose a priest (sacrificus) shall have proposed to recite the godly prayers of his breviary, and, when scarcely three words have been said, his mind shall be occupied with dishes, shall run away now to his cups, now to dicing, or other pastimes, still, as if his task were performed, he will boast that he has offered worship to God. In order, therefore, to obviate this fault, God commands that sacrifices free from all blemish should be presented to Him. Hence that sharp expostulation of His in Malachi 1:7, 8, because the Jews polluted His altar and thought His table contemptible, when they said that their blind, and lame, and sick victims were not evil. “Offer it now (he says) to thy governor, will he — accept thy person?” not because God cared for the fatness or the juiciness of the animals, but because it thus was made plain that true piety was neglected, nay, altogether despised. We perceive, then, that all defective sacrifices were rejected, that the Israelites might learn sincerely and seriously to consecrate themselves entirely to God, and not to play childishly with Him, as is often the case. Elsewhere we have seen indeed that all uncleanness is repudiated by God; but we must remember that two things are required for legitimate worship; first, that he who approaches God should be purged from every stain, and secondly, that he should offer nothing except what is pure and free from all imperfection. What Solomon says, that “the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord,” (Proverbs 15:8,) is true, although it be fat and splendid. But in order that the things which are offered by the good should be pleasing to God, another point must also be attended to, viz., that the offering should not be poor, and stingy, and deficient; and again, by this symbol, as I have already said, they were directed to Christ, besides whom no integrity will anywhere be found which will satisfy God.

19. “Unto your acceptance.” ⁴⁹ Some indeed translate this “at your own will,” but the context forbids it; for Moses sometimes uses the word רצה, ratseh, which means “accepted,” in the same sense, and sometimes רצון, ratson, which can only be referred to God’s favor, which is commonly called His “good pleasure.” Again, as he here uses the compound word לרצנכם; leretsoncem, so he soon afterwards adds לרצון לכם, leretson lecem, where he declares that a blemished sacrifice would not be “unto their acceptance,” because it would be rejected by God. The sum therefore is, that if they desire their oblations to be approved by God, they must beware that there be no defect in them. Still, if any one chooses to think that God’s gratuitous favor is expressed by the word “good pleasure,” I willingly admit it, since our services only please God in so far as in His paternal indulgence He deigns to award to them the value of which they are by no means worthy. Nevertheless let us learn meanwhile that we must not play with God, but that He must be so worshipped in integrity and sincerity of heart as that our sacrifices may correspond with His good pleasure. For hence arises the careless profanation of His worship, because we do not sufficiently consider what is due to His perfection. It is indeed certain that nothing can proceed from us which is pure in every respect;

but let us at least aspire at what befits us, and let us mourn that our desires fall so far short of their aim, in order that Christ may by His grace supply what is wanting in US; for it is unquestionable that, provided our sacrifices are the fruits of true regeneration, He washes out their blemishes with His own blood.

22. Either a bullock, or a lamb, that hath anything superfluous. An exception is here stated as to free-will-offerings; for in them God does not refuse a diminutive animal, or one which has a member either contracted, or of excessive size. And doubtless a greater license ought to be given, when a person is not under the obligation either of a vow or any other necessity. Still we must remember that no victim is acceptable to God, which labors under any notable defect.

25. Neither from a stranger’s hand. God here forbids that victims of this sort should be offered to Him, although they might be purchased from foreigners. The Hebrews, however, has invented a different meaning, viz., that not even from foreigners were such sacrifices to be received, as it was unlawful for the children of the Church themselves to offer. But inasmuch as the Law altogether prohibited the unclean nations from making sacred oblations, another solution of this difficulty was still to be discovered. ⁵⁰

They suppose, therefore, that those are called “strangers,” who observe the precepts of the children of Noah, i.e., who honor God, and do not pollute themselves by incest, abstain from the effusion of human blood, and from theft, and who do not worship idols. But the context does not accord with this, for Moses adds at the end that this kind of sacrifice would not be accepted by God from the Jews themselves, which will not agree with their being offered by the Gentiles. This, then, seems to me to be a confirmation of the previous injunction, introduced by way of precaution; for it might have seemed that the offering would have been permissible, if they had purchased the animal, even though it were defective; whereas God declares that what they were not allowed to present from their own stalls, was no more approved of by Him, if it had been purchased, because defectiveness is always displeasing to Him. Nor do I restrict this, as they do, to the foregoing clause, as if it only referred to castrated animals, and such as were wounded in the testicles, but I include with it also warts and eruptions, and other blemishes. In order that the prohibition may have more weight, he again calls the sacrifices “the bread of God,” not because God, who is the fountain of life, has need of food, or eats of corruptible meat, since He is the eternal Spirit; but that men may more diligently take care duly to perform their sacred rites, wherein they familiarly draw nigh to God. Now, if no one would dare to present stale or corrupted food to an earthly prince, much less tolerable is it to contaminate God’s table with anything blemished.

DEUTERONOMY 23

DEUTERONOMY 23:18

<052318> DEUTERONOMY 23:18
18. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow; for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.	18. Non offeres mercedem meretricis, nec pretium canis in domum Jehovae Dei tui, pro quocunque voto: quia abominatio Jehovae Dei tui utrumque est.

18. Thou shalt not bring the hire. This command has an affinity to the foregoing, for God, rejecting whatever is acquired by illicit and filthy traffic, teaches us that the utmost chastity is to be observed in sacred things; nor does He only refuse the hire of a whore, but also the price of a dog, lest the sanctity of the altar should be polluted by any impure oblation. Still the dog seems to be rejected in comparison with other animals out of contempt; for it was just as wrong to kill a pig as a dog, yet might the price of a pig be offered. The dog, therefore, is rejected not only as an unclean animal, but also as vile and contemptible. In sum, God would impress upon them the reverence due to His temple and altar.

LEVITICUS 22

LEVITICUS 22:26-28

<032226> LEVITICUS 22:26-28
26. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,	26. Loquutus est Jehova ad Mosen, dicendo:
27. When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; and from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord.	27. Bos, vel agnus, vel capra, quum natus fuerit, erit septem diebus sub matre sua, a die autem octavo et deinceps, placebit in oblationem sacrificii igniti Jehovae.
28. And whether it be cow or ewe, ye shall not kill it and her young both in one day.	28. Bovem autem, vel pecudem, et fillum ejus non mactabitis die una.

EXODUS 22:30

<022230> EXODUS 22:30

30. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me. [^f197]: “Peace — this word generally signifieth all prosperity, and the perfect enjoying of all good things; it is opposed to war, Ecclesiastes 3:8; to discord and emnity, Ephesians 2:14, 15; Luke 12:51; to tumult and confusion, 1 Corinthians 14:33; and to all adversity, Genesis 43:27; 2 Kings 4:26; Job 16:33; and is therefore added for a conclusion of blessings, Psalm 29:11, and Psalm 125 4; 1 Peter 5: A.V. “the best thereof.” Margin, “Heb., fat.” According to Facciolati, adeps, means liquid fat which does not readily become hard; and pinguedo, simply fat, “an oily substance in animals and other things.” [^f225]: yk for, or because. — W. “On pourroit aussi translater, Combien que ce soit votre loyer;” it might also be translated, although this is your reward. — Fr. [^f226]: About this time King Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshingfloors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests; insomuch that it so fell out that the poorer sort of the priests died for want.” — Whiston’s Josephus. Antiq. 20 ch. 8, sec.

EXODUS 34:26

<023426> EXODUS 34:26
26. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.	26. Non coques hoedum in lacte matris suae.

DEUTERONOMY 14:21

<051421> DEUTERONOMY 14:21
21. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.	21. Non comedetis ullum cadaver: peregrino qui est intra portas tuas dabis illud, et comedet illud, aut vendes alienigenae: populus enim sanctus es Jehovae Deo tuo.

LEVITICUS 22:27. When a bullock or a sheep. God forbids the young to be taken from the womb to the altar, not only because this bad example was likely to be transferred from the sacrifices to the ordinary food, but also because the offering would have been a fraudulent one. We have seen that the sacrifices were called the bread of God, in order that men should be more liberal with respect to them, and not offer meagre victims; but to kill a young animal fresh from the womb would have been a sign of contempt; although regard was also had to humanity, lest, by eating of such sacrifices, they should grow accustomed to cruelty. The eighth day is appointed, on which the lawfulness of the offering should commence. I am afraid that the reason which some assign for this is too subtle, viz., that an animal is made perfect in seven days, because God completed the work of creation in seven days. Besides, on this ground the seventh day would be the fittest for sacrifice, because in six days God completed all His work, and the seventh was hallowed for His service. It is enough for me that regard was had to maturity of age, just as in the case of circumcision. ⁵¹

28. And whether it be a cow or ewe. Though cruelty was indeed condemned in this precept, still I make no doubt but that Moses speaks primarily of the sacrifices. I confess the word שחט, shachat, which he uses, is a general one; but since throughout the chapter he is professedly treating of the sacrifices, and in connection with these words adds the conclusion respecting the hallowing of His holy name, ver. 32, the context requires that we should consider it to be an inculcation of purity in God’s service. If any prefer to extend it further, I will not contest the point; and thus this sentence will be a supplement to the Sixth Commandment. I have, however, followed what appears most probable, and the reader of sound judgment will, I hope, agree with me. Meanwhile, I confess that all barbarity and cruelty was thus prohibited in the sacrifices, and in them the rule was laid down, that men should not be cruel in reference to their daily food. It is a sight by no means pleasant to gentle minds to see the dam killed together with her young; and, if it were a common custom, men would easily grow callous as to blood-shedding in general. God would therefore not have the exercises of religion disconnected from the duties of humanity; and the tendency of the precept is, that God’s altar should not be a Cyclopean slaughter-house.

EXODUS 23

EXODUS 23:19

<022319> EXODUS 23:19
19. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.	19. Non coques hoedum in lacte matris suae.

19. Thou shalt not seethe a kid. The threefold repetition of the command reminds us that a serious matter is spoken of, whereas it would be a light and almost frivolous one, if, as some suppose, it is merely the prohibition of a somewhat unwholesome food. But the Jews, not considering its intent, and affecting sanctity, as they do, in trifling puerilities, dare not taste of cheese together with kid, or lamb’s flesh, until they have well cleaned their teeth. I have no doubt, however, but that this prohibition relates to the sacrifices, for in the first passage quoted, it is added in connection with the offering of the first-fruits; and in the second, we read as follows: “The first of the first-fruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. Nor shalt thou seethe a kid in his mother’s milk;” and so also in the third passage: “Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself, etc., for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; nor shalt thou seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.” I allow indeed that Moses sometimes mixes together precepts respecting different things; but this running context shews that this precept is delivered among the ceremonies, and must therefore be reckoned to be a part of the legal service. Whence I conclude, that the people are not only interdicted from eating this sort of food, as if they were to partake of flesh steeped in blood; but that they should not pollute the sacrifices by the carnal mixture. It is however probable, that meat seasoned with milk was accounted a delicacy; but inasmuch as they might grow cruel, if they ate of a lamb or kid in its mother’s milk, God forbade to be offered to Himself, what was not allowable even in their common meals. The exposition of some, that kids were excluded from their tables until they were weaned, is not agreeable to reason; because they then begin to have a goatish flavor. But the reason is a very appropriate one, i.e., that God would not admit a monstrous thing in His sacrifices, that the flesh of the young should be cooked in its mother’s milk, and thus, as it were, in its own blood.