John Calvin Commentary Exodus 28

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

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

Among pagan nations, priests were appointed by popular election, so that ambition alone governed their appointment. But God would only have those considered lawful priests whom He had selected by His own will alone. Surely the entire human race together had no power to impose anyone on God, who might interpose himself to obtain pardon and peace. Indeed, not even Christ Himself would have been sufficient to propitiate God unless He had undertaken the office by His Father's decree and appointment.

To this refers the famous oath by which His heavenly Father appointed Him to be priest. And all the more vile and detestable was the sacrilege that afterward prevailed in the Jewish nation, namely, that the successors of Aaron bought the priesthood! This unworthy traffic of the office, which Josephus relates, ought to awaken horror in us now when we see that sacred honor profaned by the family that God had chosen to represent Christ.

Nevertheless, however much they may have violated all law and justice, the counsel of God still remained inviolable, so that believers might know that the priesthood depended on His authority, just as reconciliation flows from His mere mercy. For if it were lawful for men to establish a priest, it would be necessary for them to anticipate God by their own merits; and from this they are very far removed.

The case is different regarding the election of pastors of the Church. After Christ instituted the order itself, He commanded that those who by their doctrine and integrity of life were fitted to exercise the office should be chosen from the Church. Still, He does not thereby resign His own right and power to men, for He does not cease to call through them those (by whom He would be served¹⁶⁰).

Therefore, to show that He is the sole author of the priesthood, God commands Aaron and his sons to be separated from the others; and the performance of this He entrusts to Moses, whom, however, He does not elevate to the same honor.

Moses consecrates Aaron, although he himself was never dedicated by anointing and investiture to the service of God.¹⁶¹ From this we perceive that the sacraments derive their power and effect not from the virtue of the minister, but only from the commandment of God. For Moses would not have given to others what he did not have himself, if it had not so pleased God.

And these are the garments. Here again, I must remind my readers that they should abandon all subtle speculations and be content with simplicity. I could repeat many plausible allegories, which perhaps would find more favor with some than a sound knowledge of facts. If anyone delights in this kind of child’s play, they should only read what Jerome wrote to Fabiola, in which he collected almost everything that he possibly could from the writings of others. However, nothing will be found there except dull trifling, the folly of which is painful even to report, much more to refute. Those who are familiar with my writings are aware that I do not willingly find fault with the opinions of others; but when I reflect on how dangerous those itching ears are, with which many are troubled, I am obliged to prescribe this remedy.

Six principal parts of the dress are enumerated. What the Greeks call the λογεῖον, and the Latins the pectorale, was like a square breastplate attached by small chains so as to be connected with the ephod. Enclosed in it were twelve stones to represent the tribes of Israel, and the Urim and Thummim were also attached to it. However, what its form might have been cannot be certainly declared from the words of Moses; and since even the Jews differ among themselves on this, let us be satisfied with its comparison to a breastplate. I have no objection to the opinion that its name¹⁶² was derived from strength or a treasure.

But this is worthy of the utmost attention: the priest bore the sons of Abraham, as it were, upon his heart, not only that he might present them to God, but also that he might be mindful of them and anxious for their welfare. The twelve precious stones were by no means given to be symbols of the twelve tribes as a cause for awakening their pride, as if they were so highly esteemed on account of their own dignity or excellence. Instead, they were thus reminded that the whole value in which believers are held by God is derived from the sanctity of the priesthood.

Therefore, let us learn from this figure that, however vile and abject we may be in ourselves, and so altogether worthless refuse, yet because Christ deigned to graft us into His body, in Him we are precious stones. And to this Isaiah seems to allude in the passage previously cited, where, speaking of the restoration of the Church which was to take place under the reign of Christ, he says, Behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colors, and lay thy foundations with sapphires; and I will make thy windows with carbuncles, and all thy borders with pleasant stones; for immediately after, the exposition follows, And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord (Isaiah 54:11–13).

Therefore, what was to be fulfilled in Christ was typified by the external sign under the Law; namely, that though we sojourn in the world, we are yet united with Christ by faith, as if we were one with Him. Moreover, He takes care of our welfare, as if He bore us enclosed in His heart; and finally, when our heavenly Father regards us in Him, He esteems us above all the wealth and splendor of the world.

Regarding the Urim and Thummim, it seems probable to me that they were two conspicuous marks on the breastplate corresponding to these names. For the supposition of some of the Jews¹⁶³ that the ineffable name of God was placed beneath its texture is not free from foolish and dangerous superstition. I pass over other fancies, which are equally frivolous, nor am I anxious to know what the form of either of them was; the fact itself is sufficient for me.

By the Urim, therefore, or splendors, I do not doubt that the light of doctrine, with which the true Priest illuminates all believers, was represented. This is first, because He is the one light of the world, without whom all things are full of darkness; and because in Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (John 8:12, John 9:5; Colossians 2:3). Hence Paul justly gloried that he knew nothing but Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 2:2), since His priesthood sufficiently and more than sufficiently enlightens us. Just as the people were then admonished that their eyes should be directed to the splendor of the priest, so now we must diligently remember what Christ Himself teaches, that he that followeth him shall not walk in darkness (John 8:12).

On the other hand, the Thummim, which signifies perfections, was a symbol of the perfect and entire purity that is only to be sought in Christ. For He would not have been a fitting high priest unless He had been perfect, free from every spot, and deficient in nothing that is required for complete holiness.

It is not, then, an improper distinction that the Urim refers to the light of doctrine and the Thummim to life; and this is indeed in some measure applicable to the pastors of the Church, who ought to shine both in sound doctrine and in integrity of life. But it was God’s design to show that neither of these things is to be sought anywhere except in Christ, since from Him we obtain both light and purity when He deigns to make us partakers of them according to the measure of His free bounty. From this it follows that those who seek for the least spark of light or drop of purity outside of Christ plunge themselves into a labyrinth, where they wander in mortal darkness and inhale the deadly fumes of false virtues to their own destruction.

What the Scripture sometimes relates regarding inquiries made by Urim and Thummim was a concession made by God to the unrefined nature of His ancient people. The true Priest had not yet appeared—the Angel of His Almighty counsel, by whose Spirit all the Prophets spoke, who, finally, is the fountain of all revelations and the express image of the Father. Therefore, in order that the typical priest might be the messenger from God to man, it was necessary for him to be invested with the ornaments of Christ.

Thus, even then, believers were taught in a figure that Christ is the way by which we come to the Father, and that He also brings from the secret bosom of His Father whatever is profitable for us to know for salvation. Hence, that fiction of the Jews is contradicted—namely, that the responses were given in this way: if a question was asked respecting a particular tribe, the stone that represented it was lighted up, and the colors of the stones were changed according as God refused or assented. For even if we allow that the Urim and Thummim were the rows of precious stones themselves, this imagination is still altogether meaningless.

But, as I have said, by the very form of the breastplate God would testify that the fullness of wisdom and integrity was contained in it. For this reason, it is called “the breastplate of judgment,” that is, of the most perfect rectitude, which left nothing to be desired. For the word משפט mishpat often signifies in Scripture whatever is well and duly ordered. The interpretation that some give, that “judgment” means “inquiry” because the priest only asked for responses when he had the breastplate on, is too restricted and is even proved to be erroneous by various passages.

Let this then be deemed settled: that this honorable appellation is meant to express a correct and infallible rule (ordinem). Because the breastplate was, as it were, a part of the ephod, it is therefore sometimes comprehended in that word. In this connection, it may also be well to observe that this peculiar ephod of the high priest was different from the others mentioned elsewhere, for all of the sacerdotal lineage wore an ephod in the performance of religious duties (1 Samuel 14:3; 1 Samuel 23:6).

Even David, when he danced before the Ark, wore his ephod (2 Samuel 6:14); and this custom is still retained by the Jews at their chief festivals. The rest I will introduce shortly in their proper places.