John Calvin Commentary Leviticus 4

After Moses had discussed the offerings and other sacrifices, which were testimonies of gratitude and exercises of piety, he now turns to the sin-offering (expiationem). This held the chief place among the sacrifices, since, without reconciliation, there could never be any communion between people and God. For since He rightly abominates the whole human race on account of the corruption of our nature, and because we all continually provoke His wrath, the whole hope of salvation must necessarily be founded on the remedies provided for propitiating Him.

Once this principle is established, we must remember that Moses will from now on speak of the expiatory sacrifices which make God favorable to people by the removal of their guilt. Here he shows how God is to be appeased when a person has sinned through ignorance or thoughtlessness.

In this, a distinction is also made between different persons, since one kind of victim is required of a king, another of the priests, and another of ordinary people, while consideration is given to the poor, so that they may not be burdened by such a great expense as the rich.

But, since it will become clear from the context that not all kinds of ignorance are included here, we must examine what the word שגגה, shegagah,²⁵⁶ means, which I have chosen to translate as “error” rather than “ignorance.” For Moses is not referring to those transgressions into which we are trapped when we are led astray by what appears to be right, causing us to think we are without blame.

Instead, he refers to those we pay no attention to, and by which our consciences are not stirred, or to those sudden falls in which the weakness of the flesh so stifles reason and judgment as to blind the sinner. It is of such sins that Paul speaks when he instructs us:

Restore in the spirit of meekness those who are overtaken in a fault (Galatians 6:1).

For he does not mean those who are deceived by their good intentions (as they call them), or rather by their foolish opinion, so that they are unconscious of their sin; but those who fall through the weakness of their flesh, and whom Satan catches unexpectedly in his snares; or who, in any case, do not perceive the evil they have done, so as to immediately apply the remedy.

This will be more clearly understood from Psalm 19:12-13, where David, after asking pardon for his errors, seeks to be kept free from presumptuous sins.²⁵⁷ The contrast between שגיאות, shegioth,²⁵⁸ and זדים, zedim, shows that those transgressions are called errors in which there is no criminal pride against God.

The phrase If a soul shall sin — from all the commandments,²⁵⁹ is a harsh expression; and therefore some refer it to sins of omission, but I interpret it more simply as, If he sin by turning away from the commandments, or if he commit any thing opposed (alienum) to the commandments.

If the priest that is anointed. He now distinguishes between different persons and begins with the high priest, who alone bore the high distinction of the holy anointing, unless it is considered better to apply it to the entire supreme class.²⁶⁰ It is probable, however, that it refers only to one.

The more illustrious his dignity was, the more diligently and zealously his life ought to conform to the model of holiness; and therefore, the weakness that was more tolerable in others was more exceedingly reprehensible in him. This is why he was required to atone for himself with a greater victim.

But this, in some measure, related to all the Levites, since they were chosen to be of the sacred class. It now extends to all the ministers and pastors of the Church—not that they should ransom themselves by the sacrifice of a calf, but that they should diligently beware of every sin and be more intent on pursuing holiness.

The clause “according to the sin of the people,” could also be rendered “unto the sin,” etc., as if Moses had said that the priest, through sin, corrupted the people by his bad example. For since his life is the rule of holiness and righteousness, his faults also give rise to the errors of others. The meaning, however, that I have followed is simpler: i.e., that even if the priest's transgression is an ordinary one, yet, considering his office, it becomes more weighty and deserving of greater punishment.

And if the whole congregation. The very same sacrifice which was prescribed for the priest is required of the people, since he who went into the sanctuary in the name of all to present all the tribes before God represented the whole body.

It seems indeed that the kind of ignorance spoken of here is different from the former kind, since it was said, if the thing be hid; yet I think that these weaknesses are included, in which it often happens that people are blinded for a time.²⁶¹ For many do not examine themselves and therefore slumber in their sins; whereas if they honestly examined their actions, their conscience would immediately convict them. It might, then, happen that the whole people should fail to be aware of their sin, while dealing with themselves too gently and indulgently.

The meaning therefore is, that although no sense of sin should at first arouse them to repentance, yet, if afterwards they should be awakened so as to begin to acknowledge their crime, God must be propitiated by sacrifices; for otherwise the people might use their error as an excuse.

When a ruler has sinned.

A specific atonement is also appointed for the transgression of rulers. Although he speaks of the ruler in the singular, since the law was not yet enacted for one individual to rule, he undoubtedly designates the heads and governors generally. This is because those who rule do more injury by their bad example than private individuals.

If, then, any of the judges or governors had sinned through error, he could indeed be set free by a lesser victim than the priest or the whole people. However, there was this individual difference between them: they were to offer female goats or lambs, while the ruler was to offer a male goat. The purpose of this was that those in authority should more carefully keep themselves pure from every transgression, as they otherwise tend to indulge themselves more freely, as if their rank and dignity allowed them greater license.

Concerning our translation, “If (the sin) shall have become known” (si innotuerit), translators do not agree.²⁶² The word used is properly a disjunctive particle, Or;²⁶³ but it is sometimes used for the conditional particle, as we will see in the next chapter.

Those who retain the primary and genuine meaning of the word do violence to the meaning of the last word of the preceding verse, and translate it “shall have offended” instead of “shall have felt that he has offended.” But since it appears from many passages that או, o, is equivalent to אם, im, there is no need of twisting the words to an incorrect meaning.

The word הודע, hodang, which they render transitively as “to make known,” can appropriately support my translation, unless this is preferred: “if he shall have known” (si cognoverit).

The words which Moses continually repeats, the priest shall make an atonement for him, and his iniquity shall be forgiven him, some coldly restrict to external and civil cleansing, as if Moses only removed his condemnation before men. But God rather offers pardon to sinners and assures them that He will be favorable to them, so that fear or doubt should not prevent them from freely calling upon Him.

Certainly, those who do not acknowledge that the legal rites were sacraments are not acquainted with the very rudiments of the faith. Now, to all sacraments, at any rate to the common sacraments of the Church, a spiritual promise is attached. It follows, therefore, that pardon was truly promised to the fathers, who reconciled themselves to God by offering sacrifices—not because the slaying of beasts expiated sins, but because it was a certain and infallible symbol in which pious minds might acquiesce, so as to dare to come before God with tranquil confidence.

In sum, as now in baptism sins are sacramentally washed away, so under the Law also the sacrifices were means of expiation, though in a different way, since baptism sets Christ before us as if He were present, while under the Law He was only obscurely typified.

Figuratively, indeed, what applies to Christ only is transferred to the signs, for in Him alone was manifested to us the fulfillment of all spiritual blessings, and He finally blotted out sins by His one and perpetual sacrifice. But since the question here is not as to the value of the legal ceremonies in themselves, let it be sufficient that they truly testified of the grace of God, of which they were the types. And so, that profane imagination should not be heeded—that the sacrifices only politically and as far as regarded men absolved those by whom they were offered from guilt and condemnation.