John Calvin Commentary Numbers 15

And the Lord spake. He partly refers here to those precepts which he had treated more distinctly and fully in Leviticus, and partly gathers into one place what he had previously spoken of in various places and more obscurely. For he had not yet delivered any certain regulations concerning the accessories to the meat-offering of oil and wine. However, what he had previously designated for particular cases, he now commands to be generally observed, and what he had treated more accurately, he now passes over lightly. He does not enter into full particulars but only forbids sacrifices from being offered without flour, a libation of wine, and oil.

We have seen elsewhere that in the sacrifices and oblations, in which God accommodated Himself to the undeveloped state of the people, He took, as it were, the character of a man, as if He feasted there familiarly with them. In this sense He elsewhere calls the sacrifices His meat,²⁹¹ not because He, who is life in Himself and inspires the life of all, requires the supports of life, but because, unless He condescends to people, He cannot lift up their minds to things above.

Still, since there was a danger, on the other hand, that the people might introduce many senseless and superfluous displays (as we see that in their sacred feasts the Gentiles were foolishly and immoderately extravagant, as if their delicacies pleased God), the measure of each particular thing is prescribed. This was so they would not dare to invent anything arbitrarily.

The conjecture is probable that what had been previously delivered with sufficient clearness is here recalled to their memory. However, since this reason is not expressly given, it will be enough to hold fast to what has been frequently stated: although the ceremonies might be of minor importance, it was still necessary that the lawful be carefully distinguished from the unauthorized. This distinction was crucial to prevent human licentiousness, as people would otherwise surely have mixed in their own leaven.

The sum of this passage is that in both the solemn sacrifices which the Law demands and the free-will offerings, they should observe that proportion of which we have treated elsewhere.

And if you have erred. He teaches by what kind of sacrifice the sins of the whole people or of each individual are to be expiated. He enumerates only two of the four classes mentioned in Leviticus, for a special atonement is prescribed there for both the priest and the ruler.

However, the ceremony of sacrificing is not described here, since Moses only wished to refresh their memories in passing about the manner in which, either publicly or privately, they were to be reconciled to God.

This word “error,”²⁶⁴ as we have said, extends to thoughtlessness, which partakes of contempt of God and arises from too great security, when people inconsiderately fall into the sins to which their lusts invite them. Deliberate impiety is afterwards brought into contrast with error, when people intentionally rush into violations of the law.

But since it is very easy for people to err, this remedy was most necessary, so that those who had sinned would not fall into despair. Therefore, so that the people or private individuals would not despair of pardon and abandon the pursuit of holiness when they saw their guilt, God anticipates them. He shows them by what means He is to be propitiated, so that the sins which had occurred would not interrupt His service.

However, since Moses here only repeats what has already been explained, there is no need to discuss it at length, except that in one point he seems to deliver a law different from the former one. For in Leviticus, he commands two bullocks to be slain for the reconciliation of the people,²⁶⁵ one as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering. Yet, if the second was not easily obtained, permission was given to substitute a goat.

In Leviticus, therefore, the regular and perfect rite was delivered; the permissive alteration is only added here. Nor does Moses contradict himself, though, for the sake of brevity, he only refers to one of the two modes.

At the end, a clearer explanation is added: namely, that the same law should be common to all, since it was not at all expedient to introduce any diversity.

But the soul that does anything. This verse is variously translated. For some read it thus⁶⁸: “The soul that does anything with a high hand, the same reproaches the Lord, and, therefore, shall be cut off;” thus there would be two propositions.

We have followed another opinion, reading it connectedly: “The soul, who shall have raised a high hand to the reproach of God, shall be cut off.” Literally, it is: “The soul, who shall have dealt with a high hand, whether born in the land, or a stranger, himself blaspheming God, and that soul shall be plucked up from the midst of his people.”

But, since either version is probable, and makes no difference in substance, I have allowed myself freely to choose that which expressed the meaning more clearly.

“To deal with a high hand” is nothing more than to attempt, or undertake proudly, what is not lawful. For our hands ought to be guided, and, as it were, restrained by God’s word, lest they should lift themselves up.

But although men’s hands are used in various acts of audacity and wantonness, yet here there is special mention of the profanation of God’s true and legitimate worship, when anything is invented inconsistent with its purity. For the punishment is not decreed against thefts, or murders, or other similar crimes, but against the perverse imaginations, which tend to the corruption of religion.

The reason is afterwards added: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has broken His commandment.” For it is no light offense to transgress the bounds which God has placed.

Now, it is certain that all self-invented services betray an impious contempt of God, as if men designedly despised Him, and spurned at His commands. From this we infer, that nothing is more opposed to perfect and sincere religion than that temerity which induces men to follow whatever course they please.

The clause, “his iniquity shall be upon him,” may be explained in two ways: either as a confirmation by Moses of the justice of this punishment, and of its merited infliction, or as an admonition, that the impiety should be corrected promptly, before it has advanced too far. There is no objection to either.