John Calvin Commentary Leviticus 6

And the Lord spake unto Moses. Moses now no longer deals with the means of expiating errors when the sinner is guilty through thoughtlessness; but he prescribes the mode of reconciliation when anyone has willfully and deliberately offended God.

This is well worth noting, lest those who may have been guilty of voluntary sin doubt whether God will be propitiated toward them, provided they apply to the one sacrifice of Christ, in which the entire substance of the shadows of the Law consists.

We must indeed be careful not to indulge ourselves under the cover of God’s clemency and readiness to pardon—for the lust of the flesh provokes us to sin more than enough, without this additional snare—nor is it less than a blasphemous insult to God to take opportunity and license for sin from His willingness to pardon.

Let the fear of God then reign in us, which will restrain our wicked desires like a rein, so that we do not willfully fall into sin; and let His mercy rather engender hatred and detestation of sin in our hearts, than incite us to audacity.

Yet, at the same time, we must prudently be careful, lest, if we imagine God to be inexorable toward our voluntary sins, this excessive severity should overthrow the hope of salvation even in the holiest people.

For even nowadays there are some fanatics who deny pardon to all who may have chanced to fall through the weakness of the flesh, since for morose men this severity has its appeal, and by this hallucination Novatus²⁷¹ greatly troubled the Church in ancient times.

But if we all honestly examine ourselves, it will plainly appear that those rigid critics, who feign a reputation for sanctity through excessive harshness, are the worst hypocrites.

For if they would abandon their pride and examine their lives, which of them would find himself free from concupiscence? And whose conscience must not often convict him?

It is then monstrous blindness to exalt men, clothed in human flesh, to such a level of perfection that their conscience does not convict them of any fault or blame.

And nothing is more destructive than this deception of the devil, excluding from the hope of pardon those who have knowingly and willingly sinned.

For there is not one even of God’s best servants in whom the corrupt desires of the flesh do not sometimes prevail; for although they are neither adulterers, nor thieves, nor murderers, yet there is no one whom the last Commandment of the Law—Thou shalt not covet—does not convict of sin.

And certainly, the more progress one has made in striving for purity, the more one feels and acknowledges that one is still very far from reaching its goal.

Therefore, unless we would purposely close the gate of salvation against ourselves, we must hold that God is reconcilable toward all who trust that their sin is forgiven them by the sacrifice of Christ.

For God has not changed, nor is our condition worse than that of the fathers, whereas under the Law God appointed sacrifices for the expiation even of voluntary offenses.

Hence it follows that although we are convicted of voluntary sin, yet a remedy is set before us in the Gospel for obtaining pardon; otherwise, these ancient figures would be more than deceptive, as they had no other object than to be testimonies and mirrors of the grace that was finally manifested to us in Christ.

If there ought to be a mutual agreement between the external representation of grace under the Law and the spiritual effect which Christ brought, it plainly appears that sins are no less forgiven to us now than to the ancient people.

Thus, believers are reminded by this symbol not to despair of reconciliation while they take no pleasure in their sins, but rather that they should boldly seek pardon in the perpetual sacrifice which constantly makes God favorable to all the godly.

And surely, since repentance and faith are the sure pledges of God’s favor, it cannot be otherwise than that those who are endowed with these two gifts should be received into His grace.

Besides, the remission of sins is an inestimable treasure, which God has deposited in His Church to be the peculiar blessing of His children; as the Confession of Faith declares, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the forgiveness of sins.”

Nor would what Paul proclaims concerning the ministry entrusted to him be consistent, unless Christ’s satisfaction daily propitiated God toward believers (2 Corinthians 5:20).

The question here is not about some trifling offense, but about the crime of unfaithfulness, compounded by the addition of perjury.

It is true that treachery, deceit, or violence are first mentioned to mark the severity of the sin; but the guilt lies chiefly in the profanation of God’s name when the injury done to a person is sheltered under a false oath.

In any case, one is admitted to pardon who has both wickedly deceived his brother and has impiously abused God’s name.

Hence it appears that God spares wretched sinners even though they may have contaminated themselves by faithlessness and have aggravated the crime committed against people by sacrilege, having insulted God through their perjury.

But although Moses only lists transgressions of the Eighth Commandment, still he teaches, according to his usual manner, by synecdoche, what must be done in the case of other offenses also.

If, then, anything has been taken away by violence or by fraud, and perjury has been added, he commands not only that restitution should be made to the neighbor who is defrauded, but also that the price of atonement should be offered to God.

And the reason for this is expressly given: because not only has a mortal human been injured, but God has also been offended, who would have people conduct themselves justly and reverently toward each other; and then the crime is carried to its extreme by the violation of God’s sacred name.

The sacrifice is not indeed required from a thief or robber, or from one who denies a deposit, or appropriates anything lost, unless they have also perjured themselves.

Yet the words of Moses are not without their weight: if anyone, by the denial of a deposit, or by theft, or robbery, has committed a trespass against the Lord; whereby he signifies that whenever an injury is inflicted on people, God in their person is offended, because every transgression of the Law violates and perverts His justice.

We will elsewhere see more about the restitution to be made in case of theft or robbery, especially when a person has been found guilty.

This point, however, is solely referred to directly in this passage: namely, that whoever injures or inflicts a loss upon his brother incurs guilt and condemnation before God.

But if he proceeds to such a level of obstinacy as to cover his crime by falsely appealing to the sacred name of God, he is polluted by double iniquity, so that compensation for the damage is not sufficient, but he must also make atonement to God.

But we must understand this to apply to those who, having escaped the fear of punishment, voluntarily repent.

The notion of some commentators who change the connecting word into a disjunctive particle, and consider perjury to be one of the various sins referred to, I reject as foreign to the meaning of Moses.

Others explain it thus: “If any has committed robbery or theft, or has sworn falsely about a thing lawful in itself.” But I do not see why the words should be twisted in this way; besides, their mistake is refuted by the context itself, in which restitution is coupled with the sacrifices, and this could not be applicable unless perjury were also conjoined with fraud or violence.

Nor does the disjunctive particle that follows help them. For after he has commanded that what was taken away by force or deceit be restored, because all the various points could not be separately expressed, it is added, Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely—not as if the guilt of perjury had been contracted in any other matters, but that he might eliminate all means of evasion, which the repetition also confirms.

For, after having introduced the crime of swearing falsely, he again, as if more clearly explaining what he had said, commands the restitution of the principal, together with the fifth part.

But what does he command to be restored except what the deceiver had kept back under cover of his oath? A clearer explanation of this will be found under the Eighth Commandment.

Restitution is therefore commanded to be made toward people, together with the offering.

Nor is it without reason that God commands them to make up for the loss on the day the offering is made, lest hypocrites promise themselves impunity after having enriched themselves with the property of another.

It was indeed permitted for them to restore property to others before they propitiated God by the sacrifice; but God will not have His altar defiled, which would be the case if thieves or robbers offered victims belonging to others.

He would, therefore, have the hands of those who sacrifice cleansed from pollution. And surely, those who offer a victim to God from spoils unjustly obtained, in some measure implicate Him as a participant in their crime.

Hence, profitable instruction may be drawn: namely, that hypocrites busy themselves in vain in reconciling God to themselves unless they honestly restore what they have unjustly taken.

Meanwhile, we must observe the distinction in the words of Moses between the restitution made to people and the sin-offering which propitiates God.

For we gather from this, as I have said, that those who desire to remain enriched by their stolen property do not obtain pardon from God, and yet God is not appeased by anything but sacrifice.

Clear proof of this latter point may be gathered from the whole Law, which prescribes only one means of reconciling God, that is, when the sinner makes atonement for himself by offering a victim.

Hence the diabolical invention concerning satisfactions is refuted,²⁷² by which the Papists imagine that they are redeemed from God’s judgment; for although God may have remitted the guilt, they still think that the liability for punishment remains until the sinner has delivered himself by his own works.

To this end, they have invented works of supererogation to be meritorious in redeeming from punishment; hence, too, purgatory has come into existence.

But when you have studied all the writings of Moses and diligently weighed whatever is revealed in the Law concerning the means of appeasing God, you will find that the Jews were everywhere brought back to sacrifices.

Now, it is certain that whatever is attributed to sacrifices is so much taken away from people’s own works.

But if it were not God’s intention to confine His ancient people to outward ceremonies, it follows that it is only by the one Mediator, through the outpouring of His blood, that people are absolved from all liability to either guilt or punishment, so as to be restored to favor with God.

And the priest shall make an atonement. From this frequently occurring expression, we must also learn that the victim in itself was not the price of redemption, but that expiation was founded on the priesthood.

For they have foolishly and falsely invented the notion that people accomplish something themselves in the sacraments,²⁷³ whereas their power and effect come from an entirely different source. The offering, therefore, properly speaking, is passive rather than active concerning humanity.²⁷⁴

The significance of this will be more clearly understood from the delusion of the Papists. They are indeed compelled to acknowledge that in the sacraments people are passive, insofar as they receive the grace offered to them there; but they immediately pervert this doctrine by inventing their opus operatum, as they call it.

But, lest the people should think that they bring the price of their redemption from their own resources (domo), Moses constantly impresses that it is the unique role of the priest to appease God and to erase sin by expiation.

It is also noteworthy that he adds, before the Lord, for by this phrase the profane notion is refuted—that people are cleansed by the legal sacrifices only in a civil sense, as they say, i.e., before other people, as if there were no spiritual promise included in them.

Now, if this were so, the forefathers would have been confirmed in their confidence of pardon by no external symbols, which is utterly absurd. But by this one phrase all ambiguity is removed, when Moses declares that they were absolved before the Lord.

Command Aaron and his sons. He more clearly explains what might have seemed to be omitted. It is with good reason that he carefully enters into these full details, for since God prefers obedience to all sacrifices, He was unwilling for anything to remain doubtful concerning the external rites, which were not otherwise of great importance. This was so that they might learn to observe precisely, and with the most exact care, whatever the Law commanded, and that they should not impose anything of their own, since the purity of the holy things was corrupted by the smallest human invention. Therefore, He would leave nothing to the people’s judgment, but directed them by a fixed rule even in the most trivial matters.

Concerning the burnt offerings, He commands that they should not be taken away from the altar until they were consumed by the fire. After they were put on, He commands them to be burned in a constant fire until the next day. For this reason, He expressly says that the fire should be kept burning on the altar all night, since the sacrifices would not have been reduced to ashes without adding fuel.

Secondly, He commands the priest, clothed in the linen garment and breeches as he was accustomed to be in the performance of his sacred duties, to go to the altar, take away the ashes, and put them beside the altar or at some part of it. But when he has gone away from the altar, He instructs him to take off his holy garments and carry the ashes out of the camp to a clean place.

What He had previously briefly mentioned concerning the supply of wood, He now declares more fully: it was so the fire would not go out. Again, He assigns to the priest the task of arranging the wood every morning. Because in the peace offerings²⁷⁵ the Law commanded only the fat to be burned, Moses now adds (Leviticus 6:12) that the fat was to be burned on the same fire. It is worthy of particular observation that He finally adds a command about keeping the fire burning so that it never goes out.

The purpose of this perpetuity was that the offerings should be burned with heavenly fire. For on the day that Aaron was consecrated, the sacrifice was reduced to ashes not by human means but miraculously, as a sign of approval. It is true that God did not choose daily to exert this power; but He involved human hands and labor in such a way that the origin of the sacred fire would still be from heaven.

The same thing afterwards happened at the dedication of Solomon’s temple, because that alteration of the divine decree demanded a sign (tesseram,) so that no one would think it was at man's will that the splendor of the temple should surpass the tabernacle. Finally, Elijah’s sacrifice was graced by the same privilege when he restored the abolished legal service; then also God upheld what He had ordained in His Law, in opposition to all corrupt and degenerate rites.

Meanwhile, to prevent any adulterations, He chose to have the fire continually burning on the altar day and night, nor was it permissible to take it from elsewhere. Indeed, there was a perpetual fire among the Persians²⁷⁶ and also at Rome under the guardianship of the Vestal virgins;²⁷⁷ and it may be that in foolish mimicry they adopted for themselves the custom they had heard was observed by the Jews.

For in this way, to deceive unbelievers, the devil often falsely pretends to something divine and imitates God just as an ape imitates a man. But God’s purpose in rejecting strange fire was to keep the people in His own genuine ordinance prescribed by the Law, so that no human inventions should creep in. The prohibition of strange fire was equivalent to forbidding men to introduce anything of their own, to add to the pure doctrine of the Law, or to deviate from its rule.

Meanwhile, since God had once testified—as if by stretching out His hand from heaven (to receive them,²⁷⁸)—that the sacrifices were acceptable to Him, believers were confirmed in their confidence of this by the pledge of the perpetual fire.

And this is the Law of the meat-offering. We have already seen that there were various kinds of this offering; now, the cakes or wafers are omitted,²⁷⁹ and mention is only made of uncooked flour, of which God commands that the priest should burn on the altar as much as his hand could hold.

But this law was necessary so that believers might be fully assured that God was propitiated by the proper offering of this part, and so that no one might complain because the greater portion remained with the priests.

However, so that the dignity of the sacrifice would not be diminished, the priests were only permitted to make unleavened bread of it, which they were to eat in the sanctuary, as we have seen elsewhere.

The meat-offering of the priests is an exception, which I understand to be for two reasons:

1. That the excellence and dignity of their gift, honored as it was by special privilege, might stimulate the priests to greater efforts of piety, so that they would not perform their duties in God’s service in a common and perfunctory manner.
2. That they might thus be restrained from the pretense of offering it too frequently.

For if it only cost them a little flour, a door would be opened to vain ostentation. They would have never ceased offering their ²⁸⁰minha, the profit of which returned to themselves. Perhaps they might even have made a trade of it, as we see the Popish sacrificers entice the simple populace to lavish spending on offerings through the pomp of their false devotion.

Therefore, so that their excessive offerings would not contribute both to their vainglory and avarice, God willed that their meat-offering should be entirely consumed.