John Calvin Commentary Leviticus 6:1

"And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying," — Leviticus 6:1 (ASV)

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.

²⁷¹ Novatus, a Carthaginian Presbyter, who in conjunction with Novatian a Presbyter of Rome, was the founder of the Novatian sect, a.d. 251, also called Cathari, or Aristeri. They “considered the genuine Church of Christ to be a society, where virtue and innocence reigned universally, and refused any longer to acknowledge those as its members who had even once degenerated into unrighteousness.” — Waddington’s Church Hist., vol. 1 pp. 165, 166.

²⁷² For a statement of this doctrine, see Canons of the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Can. 30; Sess. 14. Caput. 8, 9, Can. 12, 13, 14, 15. See C.’s “Antidote to the Canons of the Council of Trent,” (Calvin Society’s Edition,) p. 160.Antidote to the Canons of the Council of Trent,” (Calvin Society’s Edition,) p. 160.