John Calvin Commentary Leviticus 22

And the Lord spoke to Moses. Moses here discusses the circumstances by which pollution is contracted, even if a man is naturally pure and sound. If any suffered from natural defects, Moses prohibited them from exercising the priestly office. Now, if any external pollution might have affected a priest, he commands him to abstain from his duties until he has been purified.

He had already commanded that any unclean person should be separated from the people to prevent their contagion from infecting others. It might therefore seem superfluous to prescribe to the priests what had been universally enjoined.

But men in positions of honor are often likely to abuse God's favor as a pretext for sin. Therefore, to prevent the priestly dignity from being used as a cover for indulging in or excusing scandals, it was necessary to establish a specific law. This law ensured that priests could not plead their privilege to eat the sacrifices in their uncleanness—sacrifices which only the clean were permitted to offer.

And to make their sacrilege even more detestable, He declares death against any who would bring their pollutions into the sacrifices. For it was necessary to motivate by the fear of punishment and, as it were, to compel by force to their duty those who would not otherwise have been restrained by any religious reverence from making God's service contemptible.

He then lists the particular kinds of pollution of which we have spoken before. From this it appears that the priests were disciplined by this law, so that they would not think themselves more free than the rest of the people and thus indulge themselves in a false sense of security.

This is later more clearly expressed where God admonishes them to keep his ordinance¹⁹⁴ (Leviticus 22:9)—that is, diligently to observe whatever He commanded. Indeed, the greater the dignity with which He had honored them, the greater should be their dedication to persevere in the practices of piety. For He shows them that, far from their priestly rights leading to a lessening of their sin, they were even more strongly bound by these rights to keep the Law.

There shall no stranger. It was also necessary to add this, so that the majesty of sacred things might not be impaired. For if it had been indiscriminately permitted for everyone to eat the sacred bread and the other offerings, the people would have immediately inferred that these did not differ from ordinary food.

And unless the greed of the priests had been prevented in this way,¹⁹⁵ an unworthy trade would have prevailed, for banquets would have been set up for sale, and the priest’s house would have become a kind of food market. The prohibition, therefore, that the food offered in sacrifice should not be eaten by strangers, was not made so much with reference to them as to the priests, who would have otherwise driven a profitable trade with the offerings or, by pleasing their guests, would not have hesitated to bring disrepute on the whole service of God.

Consequently, the Law prohibits either a sojourner or a hired servant from eating them, and only gives this permission to their slaves and those who were part of their households. Moreover, He counts the priests’ daughters who had married into another tribe as aliens.

The overall point is that whatever pertains to the service of God should receive its proper reverence; nor could this be the case if what was offered in the temple were not distinguished from common food. Since they were human beings, they were allowed to sustain themselves in the ordinary way; yet this distinction was necessary, as it would reflect something of the sanctity of Christ. This was the cleanness of the priests regarding food.

And if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly. A question may arise here, why God would require restitution to be made to the priests, if anyone had eaten of the offerings; for they deserved punishment rather than reward, if they had allowed sacred things to be treated with contempt by their indiscriminate use. But the error of those is dealt with here, who had not reserved for the priests their lawful share.

A portion, as we will see, was assigned by God, which they were to set aside before they tasted any part of the victim. Those, therefore, who had sinned by inadvertence, are commanded by Him to expiate their fault, to restore that amount to the priest, and to add a fifth part. And this was done for the purpose we have mentioned, lest religion be treated with contempt if the things offered to God were exposed to common use.

What follows, “and they shall not profane the holy things,” I interpret as addressed to the priests themselves. This sentence is connected with the previous one, in which the injunctions were directed to the priests alone. This is further confirmed by the next verse, which declares that the whole people would be accomplices in the sin of the priests if they had polluted the sacred oblations. This is how I interpret the words, “that they should not suffer the people to bear the iniquity,” or the punishment of the transgression, if an unclean person had touched things offered to God. For as the priest is the mediator of reconciliation to propitiate God towards humanity, so his impiety is a common iniquity, which brings guilt upon all.

The translation which some give, “that they should not lade themselves,”¹⁹⁶ is further from the meaning, and completely distorted. Finally, God again declares that in proportion to the greatness of the honor which He had conferred on them, would be the severity and inexcusability of the crime, if they acted unworthily of their calling.

And the Lord spoke. He now more clearly teaches and more abundantly instills what He has frequently referred to until now: that it is sinful to offer to God a maimed, or weak, or otherwise imperfect animal. This external soundness admonished the ancient people that God is served improperly when He is served by halves, since He abominates a double heart.²⁹² (Proverbs 11:20). At the same time, this symbol revealed the perfect purity of that victim by which God was finally to be reconciled.

We know how greatly the world indulges itself in the service of God. For while it casually and contemptuously forces mere trifles upon Him as if He were a child, it still imagines that its duty is properly fulfilled. Consequently, it claims a reward for any rubbish (sordibus) and exults in mere mockeries of God, as if it were placing Him under obligation.

A notable example of this foolish complacency is seen today in the Papacy, when they mock God with no less audacity than if they were dealing with a block of wood. To omit innumerable other cases, what can be more monstrous than their arrogance when, as they mutter their prayers, their minds wander not only into frivolous but even into unholy imaginations, and yet they pretend that the final intention, as they call it, is meritorious and approved by God?²⁹³ Suppose a priest (sacrificus) has proposed to recite the godly prayers of his breviary. When scarcely three words have been said, his mind is occupied with dishes, it runs away now to his cups, now to dicing, or other pastimes; still, as if his task were performed, he boasts that he has offered worship to God.

Therefore, to prevent this fault, God commands that sacrifices free from all blemish should be presented to Him. Hence His sharp rebuke in Malachi 1:7-8, because the Jews polluted His altar and thought His table contemptible when they said that their blind, lame, and sick victims were not evil. Offer it now (he says) to thy governor; will he—accept thy person? This was not because God cared for the fatness or the juiciness of the animals, but because it was thus made plain that true piety was neglected, indeed, altogether despised.

We perceive, then, that all defective sacrifices were rejected so that the Israelites might learn sincerely and seriously to consecrate themselves entirely to God, and not to deal childishly with Him, as is often the case. Elsewhere we have indeed seen that all uncleanness is repudiated by God. However, we must remember that two things are required for legitimate worship: first, that he who approaches God should be purged from every stain, and secondly, that he should offer nothing except what is pure and free from all imperfection. What Solomon says, the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord (Proverbs 15:8), is true, even if it is fat and splendid. But for the things offered by the good to be pleasing to God, another point must also be attended to: namely, that the offering should not be poor, stingy, and deficient. And again, by this symbol, as I have already said, they were directed to Christ, besides whom no integrity will anywhere be found that will satisfy God.

“Unto your acceptance.” ²⁹⁴ Some indeed translate this “at your own will,” but the context forbids it. For Moses sometimes uses the word רצה, ratseh, which means “accepted,” in the same sense, and sometimes רצון, ratson, which can only refer to God’s favor, commonly called His “good pleasure.” Again, as he uses the compound word לרצנכם; leretsoncem, here, so he soon afterwards adds לרצון לכם, leretson lecem, where he declares that a blemished sacrifice would not be “unto their acceptance,” because it would be rejected by God.

Therefore, the sum is that if they desire their oblations to be approved by God, they must be careful that there is no defect in them. Still, if anyone chooses to think that God’s gratuitous favor is expressed by the word “good pleasure,” I willingly admit it, since our services only please God insofar as He, in His paternal indulgence, deigns to award them the value of which they are by no means worthy.

Nevertheless, let us learn in the meantime that we must not play with God, but that He must be so worshipped in integrity and sincerity of heart that our sacrifices may correspond with His good pleasure. For from this arises the careless profanation of His worship, because we do not sufficiently consider what is due to His perfection.

It is indeed certain that nothing can proceed from us that is pure in every respect. But let us at least aspire to what befits us, and let us mourn that our desires fall so far short of their aim, so that Christ may by His grace supply what is lacking in us. For it is unquestionable that, provided our sacrifices are the fruits of true regeneration, He washes out their blemishes with His own blood.