John Calvin Commentary Exodus 25

Speak unto the children of Israel. If any objector should raise a question about the time in which I have thought fit to introduce this history,¹¹⁴ although I would not stubbornly contend with him, I still have not only a probable, but a sure reason for my opinion.

For it appears to me that I clearly gather from Exodus 33 that the tabernacle was already built before Moses brought down the first tablets from the Mount. It is said there that, as a sign of their divorce, so that the people might know they were rejected by God, Moses took the tabernacle and pitched it separately for himself outside the camp. This was not for his personal use, because it is expressly said that he did not dwell there, but that he went out of the camp as often as he desired to consult God, while Joshua was its keeper and guardian (aedituus.).

There is no doubt that this took place before his second ascent to bring down new tablets from the Lord; therefore, it is clear that the tabernacle was already erected. If anyone objects that it was not set up until the end of the second year, the reply is easy: it was newly placed in its proper position, so that being everywhere surrounded by the children of Israel, it might have all its guards, according to the twelve tribes encamped in their due order. Furthermore, the tablets were then actually deposited in the Ark of the Covenant, and by them God represented Himself, so that without them the tabernacle was in a way empty. Finally, the solemn dedication is discussed there, for which the proper time had not arrived until, in testimony of God’s presence, the covenant was deposited in the Ark as a pledge.

To better remove all ambiguity, we must briefly calculate the time. In the third month from their exodus, the people reached Mount Sinai. On what day the Law was given is nowhere stated, unless we may probably conjecture that it was proclaimed about the end of that month. Thus, there will be eight months to be calculated until the day on which the tabernacle was dedicated, and the tablets deposited in the Ark of the Covenant, as Moses expressly says in the last chapter of Exodus. However, in the Book of Numbers, he relates that in the second month of that year, the people moved the camp from that place and departed to Kibroth-hattaavah.¹¹⁵ Since only one month passed between the dedication of the tabernacle and their departure, we must admit that the two ascents into the mountain had happened earlier.

Now, the question is, was he called to receive the first tablets in the beginning of the fourth month? If this is allowed, he could hardly have prescribed the building of the sanctuary before the end of the eighth month, for it would have been absurd to give¹¹⁶ the tablets of God’s paternal favor between the two ascents, while the separation of the tabernacle was testifying to their divorce from Him.

Thus, I establish the fact that four whole months were spent on this long and difficult work. And surely it was wonderful that such a short time should be enough, had incredible activity not surpassed everyone's expectation, while they all eagerly devoted themselves with tireless labor to speed up the work. It is probable that after God had established His covenant, He immediately delivered the ordinances concerning the tabernacle and its accessories, so that the people would not be without the external exercises of religion, which we have seen to be so very necessary.

But after the completion of the work, Moses was again commanded to come near to God with Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders. After the offering of sacrifices, he was taken up into the cloud to have close communion with God, where he spent about a month and a half. Having returned and becoming aware of the people's rebellion, the slaughter of the three thousand took place, and he commanded the people to mourn. How long he remained we do not know, but it is probable that at least a month passed before he was recalled.

We now have more than nine months; and if we add the month and a half during which he was kept on the mount, we will not be far from the end of the year. God then reconciled Himself to the people, and thus the proper dedication of the tabernacle soon followed, which took place in the second year at the beginning of the first month. After the Passover was celebrated, the sign for removal was given in the second month.

If any disagree with me, let them answer me: how is it consistent that Moses, having detected the people’s transgression, should then have begun to exhort them to build the sanctuary, when in his whole address there is no mention of idolatry? Surely, all things considered, we must be ready to confess that the people were still loyal when they so heartily consecrated their property to God.

But the whole question is sufficiently settled by what I have alleged from the testimony of Moses, namely, that before he came down with the first tablets the tabernacle was already in existence—unless, perhaps, it is objected that it was another tabernacle, different from that which was afterwards set up by God’s command. But this is a very foolish quibble, for Moses had no authority to make an earthly dwelling-place for God and to impose on it the sacred name by which the sanctuary is always honored. He expressly relates that God’s glory appeared in it, so that the people might more surely know that they were separated from God for their uncleanness, a matter we will discuss again in its proper place.

Again, the word לקח, lakach,¹¹⁷ implies that Moses took the tabernacle out of the camp to transfer it to another place. If anyone should now object that the tabernacle was arranged according to the pattern Moses saw on the mount, the reply is easy: Moses was not then first instructed in the true worship of God and heavenly mysteries on the mountain when he was kept there forty days, but already before the proclamation of the Law. Nor is there any doubt that the same things were then shown to him which he had learned before, so that the people might be more inclined to diligent meditation on the Law.

For, from the length of time, they could acknowledge that nothing was omitted which it would be useful for them to know. Although God could have instructed His servant in a moment so that nothing would have been lacking, He still chose gradually, and as if at His leisure, to form for Himself a perfect teacher; and this concession was made to the weakness of the people. For thus we read in Exodus 19:9,

Behold I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever.

And again, Exodus 20:21,

And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness, where God was.

From this it is clear that there is no absurdity in saying that he had already seen the pattern of the tabernacle in which God would be worshipped.

But lest anyone object that I rest upon conjectures only, Moses himself plainly shows that, before he received the tablets, God gave him instructions concerning the making of the tabernacle. For twice in Exodus 25 it is said, Thou shalt put in the Ark the testimony which I shall give thee (Exodus 25:16, 21). From which it is clear that the tablets were not yet given when, from God’s command, he described the whole structure. From this we again infer that, when the tabernacle was set up, he went up into the mount to bring down the tablets which were to be placed in the Ark.

But, before he begins to discuss the construction of the tabernacle, he imposes a tribute upon the people, that each, according to his means, should contribute materials both for the tabernacle itself and for all its furniture. The heaving, or, תרומה, therumah,¹¹⁸ is here used simply for an offering, and is not, as in other passages, distinguished from another kind of sacrifice, which is called תנופה, thenuphah. But the Israelites are simply commanded to bestow from their abundance what may be sufficient for the worship of God.

It is indeed certain that all we have is God’s, and that all He bountifully gives us is polluted unless we devote it to His glory. Still, in His indulgence, He permits us the free use of all, if only we testify that it remains under His power and are ready to expend it as He shall command. Thus we duly offer alms as sacrifices of sweet-smelling aroma; although the rich may not exhaust himself to poverty, but, while he relieves the poor, enjoys the goods which he possesses. In sum, whatever we offer to God is like the first-fruits, by which we testify that all we have is consecrated to His glory.

Now, although He required no assistance from the people for the building and adorning of His tabernacle, since it was He who, for the sustenance for them all, daily rained down manna from heaven, yet He wanted everyone, from the very least to the greatest, to bring together, in testimony of their piety, whatever was necessary for the sacred work. But what He then would have spent on the visible sanctuary, He now requires for the building of His spiritual temple. Properly speaking, it is He alone that builds His Church; yet He uses the work of men and will have many builders associated with Him, so that the building of His Church may arise in some measure by the labor of men, as He also ascribes the praise of its prosperity and success to them.

Meanwhile, we offer nothing which He Himself has not bestowed, just as the Israelites gave nothing but what had been derived from His bounty alone. Therefore, He distributes the gifts of His Spirit in certain measures (1 Corinthians 12:7), so that, as each has received more or less, he may employ it on the building of the Church. But this should be the best incentive to activity: that no one is so poor or humble that his offering is not acceptable and pleasing, however small it may be, and almost worthless in the eyes of men.

Moreover, it must be observed that the tribute is not demanded authoritatively, but it is declared that each should freely offer what he pleased. For, from the beginning, Paul’s word was true, that God loveth a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 4:7); and all Scripture teaches us that no obedience is pleasing to God except what is voluntary. For, although the word ידבנו, yidbenu,¹¹⁹ is variously rendered by the translators, the sum comes to this: that the gift of each would be pleasing to God according to the cheerful alacrity of his mind.

The old interpreter (i.e., the Vulgate) has it “qui offert ultroneus,” (he who offers voluntarily); but this is rather more paraphrastic than literal.¹²⁰ Others differ from each other: some understand the relative as referring to the offering, and translate it, “whose heart shall have voluntarily given it;” others, “He who shall have shown his heart liberal, or willing.” The second rendering is the right one.

And let them make me a sanctuary. By first setting before them an inestimable recompense, God stirs up the people to give largely. Although liberality is praised by all as a most excellent virtue, yet no one willingly deprives himself of his own to give it to others, since all think that it is so much lost to themselves, unless they have some compensation in view. Therefore, so that they may give cheerfully, God promises that He will dwell among them, than which nothing is more desirable.

But we must beware of imagining anything inconsistent with the nature of God. For He who sits above the heavens, and whose footstool is the earth, could not be enclosed in the tabernacle. Because in His indulgence for the weaknesses of an ignorant people, He desired to testify to the presence of His grace and help by a visible symbol, the earthly sanctuary is called His dwelling among men, since there He was not worshipped in vain.

And we must remember what we have recently seen: that it was not the infinite essence of God, but His name, or the record of His name, that dwelt there. This was the object of the expressions: that the Israelites should not be slow or lazy in setting up the tabernacle, because by these means they would obtain for themselves an inestimable advantage.

Another clause follows: that the artisans should copy the pattern shown to Moses and not dare to invent anything, since it would be a profanation to mix up anything human with the commands of God. We shall treat this matter more extensively when we speak generally of the types.

Now the form of the Ark and its covering is described, for the composition of the tabernacle and its various parts, which Moses now only slightly refers to, will be shortly repeated at greater length in chapter 32. But, although the tabernacle was called God’s house, yet there was a more express image of His glory in the Ark of the Covenant, because the Law, by which God bound the people to Himself, was deposited there.

The material was shittim-wood, covered or overlaid with plates of gold. As to the species of the tree,¹²¹ not even the Hebrews are agreed among themselves, although we may conjecture that it was beautiful and costly. Yet God would have gold over its whole surface, and even shining on its staves, so that the dignity of the Law might be enhanced.

But here a question may arise, which introduces many others with it: how did the sumptuous splendor of the Ark, as well as the tabernacle and all its utensils, contribute to the worship of God? For it is certain that God would never be worshipped except agreeably to His nature, from which it follows that His true worship was always spiritual and therefore by no means comprised in external pomp.

But the great number and intricacy of the ceremonies were so far from awakening piety that they were even the occasion of superstition, or a foolish and perverse confidence. Again, so many and such various rites seem to have had no other tendency than to feed curiosity. It will be therefore worthwhile briefly to preface something about this point.

They are, in my judgment, at fault who think that the eyes of the people were captivated by these magnificent sights, for fear that their religion, being stripped of all ornament, should become dishonored when among the Gentiles their false worship was splendid even to a miracle. They also think that a depraved rivalry might affect their minds¹²² if the beauty of the tabernacle did not at least equal the pomp of others, as though the God they worshipped were inferior to idols.

On the same grounds, they imagine that the Jews were burdened with many observances, for fear that if God had only sparingly and slightly exercised them, they would in their natural curiosity have sought in all directions after profane trifles. They tell part of the truth, but not the whole. For I admit that this was given to the ancient people so that, when they saw the tabernacle so brilliantly ornamented, they might be inspired with greater reverence.

I also admit that, by God’s command, they were engrossed with many ceremonies so that they might not seek after strange ones. But if this had been the only object proposed in them, the whole legal service would have served only for show in its shadows and theatrical displays. But it is most absurd to think that God so trifled with His people. We see, too, how honorably David and the Prophets speak of these exercises.¹²³ It is, therefore, impiety to suppose that the legal rites were like farces composed in imitation of the Gentiles.

In order, then, to preserve their honor and dignity, we must remember the principle to which we have recently alluded, namely, that all of them were arranged according to the spiritual pattern which had been shown to Moses on the mount (Exodus 25:40). And this both Stephen and the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews wisely observed, when they would reprove the gross follies of the people who continued to be wrapped up in the external ceremonies, as if religion were comprised in them (Acts 7:44; Hebrews 8:5).

Stephen and the Apostle, therefore, are our best expositors that the tabernacle, the altar, the table, and the Ark of the Covenant were of no importance except insofar as they referred to the heavenly pattern, of which they were the shadows and images. Hence, their entire utility, and even their legitimate use, depended on the truth (which they represented).¹²⁴ For the slaughter of an ox profits nothing in itself; indeed, it is but an unimportant thing, and so all the sacrifices, unless they were types, would have been thought nothing of.

From this we gather that there is the greatest difference between the ceremonies of the Law and the profane rites of the Gentiles. For they differ from each other not only because God is the author of the one, and the rashness of men has foolishly invented the other, but because among the Gentiles their religion was entirely comprised in these bare and empty pomps, while God, by these rudiments which He gave to His people, elevated pious minds, as it were by steps, to higher things.

Thus the Gentiles seemed to themselves duly to propitiate (their gods) when they offered victims, while the sacrifices of the Jews were acceptable to God because they were exercises of repentance and faith. So the Law instructed the Jews in the spiritual worship of God, and in nothing else, though it was clothed in ceremonies agreeably to the requirements of the age. For, before the truth was fully made known, the childhood of the Church was to be directed by earthly elements. Thus, though there was great affinity and likeness between the Jews and Gentiles as regarded the external form of their religious service, yet its end was widely different.

Moreover, when we would seek the body or substance of the ancient shadows, and the truth of the figures, we may learn them not only from the Apostles but also from the Prophets, who everywhere draw the attention of believers to the kingdom of Christ. Yet their clearer explanation must be sought in the Gospel, where Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, shining forth, shows that their fulfillment exists in Himself alone.

But, although by His coming He abolished these typical ceremonies as regards their use, yet at the same time He established the reverence justly due to them. For they have no claim to be held in esteem on any other grounds, except that their completion is found in Him. If they are separated from Him, it is plain that they are mere farces,¹²⁵ since neither the blood of animals, nor the sweetness of fat, nor aromatic odors, nor candles, nor anything of that sort, have any power to propitiate God.

This indeed must be remembered: that the Jews did not pay attention to the legal sacrifices in vain, since the promises were annexed to them. As often, therefore, as these sentences occur, “your iniquity shall be blotted out,” — “you shall appear before my face,” — “I will hear you from the sanctuary,” we are reminded that all the ancient figures were sure testimonies of God’s grace and of eternal salvation. Thus Christ was represented in them, since all the promises are in Him, yes, and amen (2 Corinthians 1:20).

Yet it by no means follows from this that there were mysteries hidden in all their details, since some, with mistaken acuteness, pass over no point, however trifling, without an allegorical exposition; as, in this passage, for instance, the dimensions of the ark afford them matter of speculation.¹²⁶ But it will be enough for the sound and sober-minded to know that God would have His Law deposited in a handsome vessel, so that its majesty should be recognized. He commanded that the ark itself should be carried with staves, so that the hands of the Levites might not touch it, and thus that its sanctity might be the greater.

And you shall put into the ark the testimony. The title of “the testimony,” which is often given to the law, indicates that something more is contained in it than the rule of a just and holy life; namely, the compact by which God bound Himself to His people, and His people to Himself. Therefore, the words “the table of the covenant” are afterwards used instead of “the testimony.”

Thus the word עדת, ¹²⁷gneduth, in this passage and similar ones, is equivalent to a contract, which is commonly called a convention. In this sense, the Prophet in Psalm 114 calls by the name of testimonies not only the Commandments, but whatever God has delivered by the hand of Moses for the salvation of His people.

In Psalm 14:7, the word testimony is added as if in explanation of the word law: The law of the Lord is perfect; the testimony of the Lord is sure. As in Isaiah 8:20, where it is said, To the law and to the testimony, it is not that two different things are referred to, but the utility of the law is commended, because it contains all that God willed to testify to His people.

And you shall make a mercy-seat. The primary root of the verb כפר, caphar, from which this noun is derived,¹²⁸ is used for “to smear with pitch.” In the Hiphil conjugation, however, it signifies either to expiate, to purge, or to receive into favor. From this, כפר, copher, is expiation, as we have seen elsewhere, and כפרת, caphoreth, is a covering or lid.

Yet I do not doubt that Moses alludes in this word to a metaphorical meaning, for the law requires a covering to conceal our transgressions.

It is probable that when Paul calls Christ ἱλαστήριον, (Romans 3:25), and John uses the term ἱλασμὸν, (1 John 2:2), they both refer to this figure. This is because God was propitiated towards believers by the covering of the Law, so as to show Himself favorable to them by hearing their vows and prayers.

For as long as the law stands before God’s face, it subjects us to His wrath and curse. Therefore, it is necessary that the blotting out of our guilt should be interposed, so that God may be reconciled with us.

Nor is it without reason that David exclaims, after he has proclaimed the righteousness of the law, “Who can understand his errors?” (Psalms 19:12).

From this we gather that, without a propitiation, the law does not bring us near to God but accuses us before Him.

And assuredly, when I consider all things, it seems to me a tame explanation, that Moses spoke literally of the cover, when he¹²⁹ directed that the Cherubim turn their faces toward it, and God promises that He will give His answers from it.

By these honorable distinctions, it is exalted above the Ark.