John Calvin Commentary Leviticus 7

And this is the law of the sacrifice.²⁸² I have stated elsewhere my reasons for calling this kind of sacrifice “the sacrifice of prosperities.” It is clear from this and other passages that they were offered not only as a sign of gratitude but also when God’s aid was earnestly requested. Yet, in all cases, the Jews in this way testified that they acknowledged God as the author of all good things: whether they returned thanks for some significant blessing, sought by His aid to be delivered from dangers, professed their piety in general, or paid the vows they had made simply and without condition. For the payment of a conditional vow was an act of thanksgiving.

In any case, since in all these offerings they honored God with His fitting service, they gave proof of their gratitude. For this reason, this name was rightly given to these sacrifices, because in them they either sought good success from Him, acknowledged that what they had already obtained was due to His grace, asked for relief in adversity, or congratulated themselves on their welfare and safety.

Moses, however, distinguishes one kind, as it were, from the others; that is, the sacrifice of thanksgiving, by which they explicitly returned thanks for some significant deliverance, which was not always offered.²⁸³ In this case, he commands unleavened cakes fried in oil, wafers seasoned with oil, and fine flour fried to be offered, together with leavened bread. He also commands that the flesh of the sacrifice should be eaten on the day of the offering, so that none of it would be left.

In vows and free-will offerings, greater liberty is granted, namely, that they might eat the remainder on the next day, provided they kept nothing until the third day.

In the passage I have inserted from chapter 22, the words I have translated unto your acceptance, might also be translated as unto His good-will (in beneplacitum), for the unmerited favor of God is called רצון, ratson. The meaning, therefore, is: if you wish your sacrifice to be accepted by God, ensure that none of the flesh remains until the following day.

Others, however, understand it as referring to human good-will, as if it said, “at your own will,” or “as it shall please you.” And I admit, indeed, that the word רצון, ratson, is sometimes used in this sense. But since in the same chapter²⁸⁴ it can only be understood as God’s favor or acceptance, I have preferred avoiding a variation; yet I do not object if anyone prefers the other reading. But if my readers carefully consider the antithesis, when it is added shortly after that if the flesh should remain beyond the proper time,²⁸⁵ the sacrifice would not be pleasing to God, they will agree with me.

There is, indeed, an apparent inconsistency here, since in this interpretation Moses would command the voluntary sacrifice to be eaten on the same day, which, however, he does not do. If we prefer understanding it as referring to the generous feelings of people, he would be exhorting the people to offer their victims cheerfully in thanksgiving. I have, however, shown the meaning I endorse, and in this way it will be easy to reconcile these matters. For God’s goodwill does not require this similarity,²⁸⁶ nor is it necessary to observe the same method of offering for them to be grateful. Instead, they are said to offer unto their acceptance when they mix in no corruption, but offer purely and properly.

If the cause of this distinction is asked, it is no clearer to me than the reason for the variety between the bread and wafers or cakes. It is certain, indeed, that God had a reason for dealing more strictly or more leniently; but to inquire nowadays about things unknown, and which do not contribute at all to piety, is neither right nor expedient.

But if the sacrifice of his offering. I have observed a little earlier that it is not a conditional but a simple vow that is meant here. If a person were under the obligation of a vow,²⁸⁷ his payment was an act of thanksgiving, and thus his sacrifice was included in the first category. However, it would be absurd to distinguish similar things as if they differed.

Since many made voluntary vows, Moses combines this kind of sacrifice with the free-will offering, as standing in the same rank. It has also been stated that the consecrated meats were not kept too long, so that they would not become tainted or putrid, and thus religion would fall into contempt.

Perhaps, too, vainglory was prevented in this way; for if it had been permissible to eat the meats salted, many would have made ostentatious offerings without cost. God, therefore, imposed a restriction, so that they would offer their sacrifices more sparingly and reverently.

The penalty is added: the sacrifice would not be acceptable to God, but rather abominable, and therefore all who ate of them would be guilty. Moreover, when Moses says that polluted sacrifices would not be “imputed,” we may infer that those which are properly offered are taken into account by God, so that He considers them as things spent for Himself.

Still, we must not imagine them to be merits that place Him under obligation; but because He condescends to deal so generously with us, no duty we perform for Him is useless.

And the flesh that touches. Indeed, it was not lawful to eat any polluted flesh, but in the sacrifices there was a special reason for this, i.e., because the uncleanness involved sacrilege. For this reason, he commands it to be burned, just like that which had not been consumed within the legitimate time; and the punishment is, ²⁸⁸ that if any unclean person has touched the consecrated meat, he should be cut off from the people.

The cruelty or immoderate severity of this has induced some to think that to be “cut off” is nothing more than to be cast out of the camp. But it is not surprising that God should have dealt so severely with those who knowingly and willfully contaminated what was holy. For if anyone had sinned in error, he was not to receive this sentence, but only he who had betrayed his open contempt of God by impious profanation of sacred things.

Speak to the children of Israel. Since in all sacrifices the fat was consecrated to God, and was burnt on the altar, God forbade His people to eat fat even in their ordinary meals, in order that they might cultivate piety even in their homes. For unquestionably this was an exercise of piety, that those who were far away from the temple should still accustom themselves in their daily meals to the service of God.

Nor am I ignorant of the allegories²⁸⁹ in which some interpreters indulge, but I willingly acquiesce in the reason which God reveals, namely, that the people was prohibited from eating fat, because He had assigned it to Himself. Nevertheless, the Law permits the fat of a carcass,²⁹⁰ or of an animal torn (by beasts) to be applied to any use, provided they abstain from the fat of those animals which might be legally offered.