John Calvin Commentary Exodus 29

And this is the thing that you shall do unto them. Since I will again repeat and more fully explain these things as they are written in Leviticus 9, in the history of the consecration of the tabernacle, it will be sufficient to give nothing more than a brief summary of them here. Nor is it my custom to invent mysteries from vague speculations,¹⁷⁴ such as might rather gratify than instruct my readers.

First, since the whole human race is corrupt and infected with many impurities, their uncleanness prevents every single individual from having access to God. Therefore, Moses, before he consecrates the priests, washes them by the sprinkling of water, so that they would no longer be considered to be of ordinary rank.

From this we gather that true purity and innocence, which was only typical in the Law, is found in Christ alone. For such an high priest became us, says the Apostle, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, to present Himself before God for us (Hebrews 7:26).

After they had been washed, God commands that they should be invested with the sacerdotal dress, according to their respective ranks: the high priest was to wear the ephod with the Urim and Thummim, and the mitre with the golden plate, on which shone forth holiness to Jehovah; and in the third place, He adds the anointing.

This preparation was for the purpose of initiating them before they performed the office of sacrificing. However, it must be observed that, concerning this first sacrifice, the duties which were afterwards transferred to Aaron were imposed upon Moses, as if he were the only priest. Indeed, the temporal dignity which he afterwards resigned to his brother was still in his own hands.

What Moses introduces about the division of the victim, we will more conveniently explain elsewhere, when treating of the offerings, which we have stated to be the third part of the legal worship.

And thou shalt slay the ram. Moses had previously been commanded to take the parts of the victim from Aaron’s hands to propitiate God with them, so that he and his descendants might be able to perform the same office in the future. But here a particular ceremony is described: he was to smear the right ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the toe of the right foot of both Aaron and his sons with the blood of a ram. Then, he was to sprinkle them and their garments with the blood that was on the altar.

The first thing we must observe here is that the priest must be sprinkled with blood, so that he may gain God’s favor for himself for the purpose of intercession. Thus, the priesthood of Christ was dedicated with blood, so that it might be effective in reconciling God with us.

The question now arises: why were only the right ear, the right thumb, and the right toe sprinkled with blood, as if the priests were consecrated and devoted to God in only half of their persons? I reply that the other part was included in this one part, since both ears, and both hands and feet, have the same purpose, and their functions are so connected that what is said of one ear applies to the other.

Again, it is asked: why were the ear, foot, and hand smeared rather than the breast and the tongue? I do not doubt that the ear designated obedience, and the hands and feet all the actions and the whole course of life. For there is scarcely anything more common in Scripture than these metonymies, by which the cleanness of the hands is taken to mean the integrity of the whole life, and the way, course, or walk is taken to mean the direction or manner of living.

It is therefore very appropriate that a person’s life should be consecrated by blood. Since the foundation of doing good is obedience, which is preferred to all sacrifices, Moses is commanded to begin with the ear. And we know that the “odor of a sweet smell” in the sacrifice of Christ was obedience (Philippians 4:18); for this reason, David, in the spirit of prophecy, introduces himself, saying, “Mine ears hast thou bored.”¹⁷⁵ (Psalms 40:6).

If anyone should object that the tongue is no less important, because the priest is the messenger of the Lord of hosts, I answer that the office of teaching is not referred to here, but only that of intercession. Therefore, in these three members, Moses included everything that related to atonement.

But we must remember that what is said of the consecration of Christ does not apply to His own person but refers to the benefit of the whole Church. For He was neither anointed for His own sake, nor did He need to borrow¹⁷⁶ grace from the blood. Instead, He considered His members and devoted Himself entirely to their salvation, as He Himself testifies, “For their sake I sanctify myself.” (John 17:19).

And thou shalt offer every day a bullock. Since the ancient altar was no less a type of Christ than the priest was, it may naturally be asked what its expiation could mean, as if there were anything impure or polluted in Christ.

But we must remember, what I previously mentioned, that no likeness is identical (with the reality); for then the substance and reality of the shadows could not be represented in their perfection. Yet this was an apt likeness, showing that God could only be made gracious toward the human race by an expiation made with blood.

On this account, not only was the altar to be cleansed, but also dedicated to its use, so that reconciliation might proceed from it. This is expressed by the word “sanctify,” especially when it is added, it shall be the holiness of holinesses,¹⁵¹ so that it may sanctify whatever is put upon it.

Others read it in the masculine gender: Whosoever shall touch it, shall be holy; and understand it of the priest, who by right of his anointing might approach the altar. But it rather dignifies the consecration of the altar by its consequence, namely, because it sanctifies the victims themselves.

The sum is that the body of Christ, since it was offered as a sacrifice and consecrated with blood, was acceptable to God, so that its holiness washes away and blots out all our uncleanness.

We shall speak of the anointing a little further on.

Now this is what you shall offer. I have thought it well to give the first place among the sacrifices to that daily one which is called the continual sacrifice. God would have two lambs offered to Him every morning and evening, so that the people might continually exercise themselves in the recollection of the future reconciliation.

But, although the sacrifices were constantly repeated under the Law, since their offering had no efficacy in expiating sin, it must still be observed that, just as the priest entered the holy of holies once every year with blood, so it was beneficial that another kind of victim should be daily set before the people’s eyes, so that they might reflect that they had constant need of being reconciled to God.

Propitiation was, therefore, daily made with two lambs, so that the Israelites, being reminded of their guilt and condemnation from the beginning to the end of the day, might learn to flee to God’s mercy.

The lamb chosen for this sacrifice was spotless and entire, for the mention of its age (one year) implies its perfection or completeness. It was offered with a cake made with oil, and a libation of wine. Doubtless, the ancients were reminded by these symbols that it is not lawful to offer anything tasteless to God.

It is true that God was not gratified by their sweet aroma, nor did He desire to accustom the priests to delicacies so that they might be gluttons under the guise of religion; for the scent of wine cannot in itself be pleasing to God. The object of these seasonings was that the people should not rest in the bare and empty symbols, but should acknowledge that something better and more excellent lay beneath them.

The aroma of the wine and oil, then, was nothing other than the spiritual truth: that the people, for their part, might bring faith and repentance to the sacrifices. And certainly, the external ceremony without the reality would have been mere folly. Even heathen nations partially imitated this rite, from which come those words of Horace—

"Utque sacerdotis fugitivus, liba recuso:”²³⁰
"And like a runaway from priests, cakes I refuse:"

By which he implies that cakes were universally offered to idols. But this was a mere blind mimicry, for they looked no higher, but thought that their gods took delight, like human beings, in sweet and delicate foods.

While, as I have hinted above, God’s intention was very different. For by the external aroma, He desired to arouse His people, so that, being moved by a serious feeling of repentance and by pure faith, they should seek the remission of their sins, not in these lambs that they saw slain, but in the victim promised to them.

They called it the “continual” sacrifice because God commanded it to be offered continually through all generations. But it appears from Daniel that it was temporary, for it ceased at the coming of Christ. For so speaks the angel: Christ

"shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the continual sacrifice, and the oblation (minha) to cease.”²³¹ (Daniel 9:27)

It is clear that he speaks of this kind of sacrifice. From this, we certainly gather that by this sacrifice the minds of the people were directed to Christ. But if this was its use and object with the ancients, its profit now returns to us, that we may know that whatever was then shown under the symbol was fulfilled in Christ.

God promises that this sacrifice would be to Him “a savor of rest.”²³² We may not, therefore, doubt that He has been completely propitiated to us by the sacrifices of His only-begotten Son, and has remitted our sins.

But although Christ was once offered, that by that one offering He might consecrate us forever to God, yet by this daily sacrifice under the Law, we learn that by the benefit of His death pardon is always ready for us, as Paul says²³³ that God continually reconciles Himself to the Church when He sets before it the sacrifice of Christ in the Gospel.

As for the word minha,²³⁴ although it is derived from נחה nachah, which means to offer, we must still consider it to be specifically applied to this oblation, which was a kind of appendix to the daily sacrifice. There are some, also, who restrict it to the evening sacrifice alone, but when it is used in connection with victims, it is also extended generally to other offerings.