John Calvin Commentary Exodus 40

On the first day of the first month—I cannot at all approve of the opinion of those commentators who think that the tabernacle was only now set up. That it was already complete in all its parts before Moses went the second time into the Mount, we infer from the fact that the ark was then prepared in which the tables were deposited, as we shall see from the context. Besides, it has elsewhere³⁹⁴ been shown by sound arguments, as I think, that it was pitched without the camp as a token of divorce from the time that the people had made the calf.

What, then, is the meaning of the setting-up which is now spoken of? I reply that it is said to have been set up when³⁹⁵ it was brought back from its unusual location to its proper place. For then it was both anointed and honored by sacred oblations, while Aaron and his sons were consecrated to the performance of the priestly office. Since, therefore, it had not yet been duly placed in the middle of the camp, or rather, had been removed from the people so they could not enjoy that pledge of God’s presence, its solemn dedication is justly celebrated after the renewal of the covenant.

This passage also confirms what I have said elsewhere,³⁹⁶ that this was the tabernacle which Moses pitched at a distance from the camp. For, by the addition of its title, he speaks as of something well known: You shall set up (He says) the tabernacle, namely, the tabernacle of convention. Now Moses himself had already stated that this name had been given to it by the mouth of God. He repeats, however, the same injunctions, not because He distrusted the memory of His servant, but so that it might be more fully apparent that He Himself was the sole Author of the whole work, and also that it might obtain more reverence, since He had so often deigned to give instructions concerning things of very great importance.

And you shall take the anointing oil. There was by no means any inherent power or efficacy for sanctification in the oil, except insofar as it was a type of the Spirit, from whom, as its only source, all holiness originates. Assuredly, the oil, being a perishable liquid, neither penetrates the soul nor would it, by itself, be at all effective for spiritual service. It appears, however, from many passages of Scripture, that it was a symbol of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

This figure, therefore, clearly shows that nothing pleases God, and nothing is pure or holy in His sight, except what has been cleansed and properly consecrated by the influence and grace of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, God wanted all the vessels of the sanctuary to be set apart from common use by this sacred anointing. This was so that the Israelites might distinguish between sacred and profane things. In this way, God’s service would receive its due reverence, ensuring that no one would introduce the pollutions of the flesh into that place, the purity of which had been marked by that sacred symbol.

A question, however, arises here: why He dignifies the altar of burnt-offering with a more exalted title? For after calling the tabernacle itself and its vessels simply holy, He calls the altar “holy of holies,” which I have rendered sacrosanctum.

I do not doubt that it acquired this name from the sacrifices, which are also described as such because of the atonement made by them,³⁹⁷ as we have seen elsewhere. The children of Israel, therefore, were taught that God is truly reconciled by whole burnt offerings and burnt offerings, since “the holiness of holinesses” resided on the altar itself.

And you shall bring Aaron and his sons. I have already explained all that might seem useful regarding the garments and the method of anointing. Let my readers simply remember that the priest,³⁹⁸ who had been previously appointed, is now finally inaugurated, so that he may begin to perform the duties of his office.

At the same time, let them also keep in mind that this oil was consecrated by God. Therefore, it appears how foolishly the Popish bishops, as it were, ape Moses when, in imitation of him, they sprinkle their priests and altars and other rubbish with foul-smelling oil, since it is abundantly clear that this ceremony of anointing, which belonged to the ancient shadows of the Law, ceased at the coming of Christ.

What Augustine³⁹⁹ reminds us of is also worthy of observation: Moses, who was commissioned to anoint the others, was never himself consecrated by any visible symbol, so that we may understand that outward signs are not to be valued according to the dignity of the minister, but only by God’s ordinance. Furthermore, invisible grace has benefited some without visible sacraments, while visible sanctification, though it may be imparted, cannot be beneficial without the invisible.