John Calvin Commentary Leviticus 21

Speak to the priests. All these things that follow tend to the same end: that is, that the priests might differ from the rest of the people by notable marks, as if separated from ordinary men, for special purity befitted those who represented the person of Christ.

It seems, indeed, as if God here gave commands concerning small and unimportant things. However, we have said elsewhere that the legal rites were, so to speak, steps by which the Israelites might ascend to the study of true holiness.

The declaration of Paul was indeed always true, that bodily exercise profits little (1 Timothy 4:8), but the use of the ancient shadows under the Law must be evaluated by their end.

Therefore, although observing the things now being discussed did not in itself greatly please God, yet because it had a higher tendency, it was sinful to treat it lightly.

Now, though the priests were thus admonished that holiness was to be cultivated by them with particular diligence, as the sanctity of their office required, yet the principal design of God was to set forth the image of perfect holiness which was eventually seen in Christ.

The first law contains a prohibition of mourning—absolutely and without exception for the high priest, and with certain specified restrictions for the sons of Aaron. For although God elsewhere forbids the people generally to imitate the custom of the Gentiles in excessive mourning, yet here He requires something more of the priests: namely, that they should abstain even from ordinary mourning, such as was permitted to others.

This prohibition was indeed repeated, as we shall see, resulting from an actual event. For when Nadab and Abihu, who had offered incense with strange fire, were consumed by fire from heaven, God allowed them to be mourned by all the people, except the priests.¹⁸⁵ But on this occasion, the general law was reaffirmed, so that the priests would not pollute themselves by mourning for the dead. In that instance, mourning was forbidden even for a domestic loss, so that they might submit to God’s judgment, however sad it might be.

For by these means they were hindered in discharging their duties, because it was not permissible for mourners to enter the sanctuary.

Therefore, God threatens them with death unless they restrain their grief even for the death of a near relative. But this (as is said elsewhere) is a rare virtue: to repress our feelings when we are deprived of our brothers or friends in such a way that the bitterness of our grief does not overcome our resignation and composure of mind.

In this way, therefore, the exemplary piety of the priests was tested. Besides, abstinence from mourning manifests the hope of the blessed resurrection.

Therefore, the priests were forbidden to mourn for the dead, so that the rest of the people might seek consolation from them in their sorrow.¹⁸⁶

This was truly and amply fulfilled in Christ, who, although He endured not only grief but the extreme horror of death, was yet free from every stain and gloriously triumphed over death, so that the very recollection of His cross wipes away our tears and fills us with joy.

Now, when it is said, They shall not profane the name of their God; and in the case of the high priest, neither shall he go out of the sanctuary; this reason confirms what I have just stated: that mourning was forbidden them because it prevented them from discharging their duties. For their very unkempt appearance would have, in some sense, defiled God’s sanctuary, in which nothing improper was to be seen; and being defiled too, they could not intercede as suppliants for the people.

God then commands them to remain pure and clear from all defilement, so that they would not be compelled to desert their office and leave the sanctuary, of which they were the keepers.

Moreover, we learn that the fulfillment of this figure was in Christ from the reason that is immediately added: namely, because the holy oil is on the head of the high priest, by which God intimates that it is by no means right that His glory and dignity should be profaned by any pollution.

As for the words themselves, first, greater liberty is granted to the rest of the descendants of Aaron than to the high priest, but only that they should mourn for their father, mother, children, their own brothers, and unmarried sisters.

To prevent ambition from carrying them further, they are expressly forbidden to put on mourning even upon the death of a prince.

Nor can we doubt that the mourning God permitted them as an indulgence was improper. However, consideration was given to their weakness, so that immoderate strictness would not drive them to passionate excess; yet God so spared them as still to distinguish them from the multitude.

To “defile” oneself (as we have seen elsewhere) is equivalent to putting on mourning for the dead, celebrating the funeral rites, or going to the burial. This is because the curse of God proclaims itself in human death, so that a corpse infects with contagion those by whom it is touched, and again, because it is inevitable that where lamentation is indulged and, so to speak, encouraged, the emotion itself must erupt into impatience.

As for the prohibition to make “baldness,” this was not allowed even to the rest of the people; but God expressly forbids it to the priests in order to keep them under stricter restraint.

With regard to the high priest, something greater seems to be decreed beyond the exceptions: that he shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes: which is also commanded elsewhere for the sons of Aaron.

But here, what would be allowable in others is condemned in the high priest. It was surely reasonable that he should present a particular example of moderation and gravity; therefore, the dignity of his office, in which he was superior to others, is recalled, so that he might acknowledge his obligations to be so much the greater.

This, indeed, is the essence: since the priesthood is the holiness of God, it must not be mingled with any defilements.

And the daughter of any priest. The moderation and chastity (required in the priest¹⁹¹) also extend to his daughter. By synecdoche, this means that all matters of good discipline are included under this one principle: namely, that his children should be educated in the study of virtue and in decent and pure morality.

A heavy punishment is prescribed for a priest’s daughter if she engages in prostitution, because sacrilege would be combined with her disgraceful sexual immorality.

It is, however, a serious crime to violate God’s sanctuary. If the priest had tolerated such an iniquity in his daughter, he could not have been a strict avenger of the same wickedness in others. Indeed, he would not have been free to punish crimes unless he had first made a beginning in his own household.

And he shall take a wife in her virginity. More is required of the high priest, namely, that he should not marry a widow, nor a woman from any tribe other than his own. A question may indeed arise concerning the latter clause: whether the plural word should be restricted to one tribe,¹⁸⁹ whereas it is elsewhere applied to all. But, if we examine it more closely, it is clear that “his peoples” is equivalent to “of his people” (populares). However, nothing unique would be required of the priest here if his wife were to be taken only from the children of Abraham.

I admit that chief priests married wives from other tribes, as Elizabeth, who was from the tribe of Judah, married Zacharias. But since the high priest is distinguished here from all others, I do not see how a law or privilege referring to him would necessarily be observed by all the descendants of Aaron. On this point, however, I will not argue if anyone believes differently.

But assuredly, since the high priest represented the clearest type of Christ, it was right that superior and more perfect holiness should be seen in him.¹⁹⁰ For this was the purpose of the restriction: that his wife, not having known another man, should demonstrate the modesty appropriate to her station and sacred, honorable position.

If anyone should object that the marriage of an old priest to a young girl was ridiculous and somewhat improper, as well as liable to many inconveniences, I answer that special regulations should be interpreted so as not to conflict with general principles. If a decrepit old man falls in love with a young girl, it is a base and shameful lust; moreover, he will defraud her if he marries her. From this, jealousy and wretched anxiety will also arise; or, by foolishly and dotingly seeking to preserve his wife’s love, he will abandon all sense of dignity.

When God forbade the high priest to marry anyone but a virgin, He did not wish to violate this rule, which is dictated by nature and reason. Instead, with regard to age, He desired that modesty and propriety be maintained in the marriage. Thus, if the priest were of advanced years, he should marry a virgin not too far from his own age. However, if he were failing and now hardly fit for marriage because of his old age, the law that he should marry a virgin was more an exhortation to celibacy than an instruction for him to expose himself to many troubles and general ridicule.