John Calvin Commentary Numbers 5

Command the children of Israel. This passage clearly shows that God, in desiring the lepers to be put out of the camp, was not acting as a physician by any means, nor merely consulting the health of the people. Rather, by this external rite and ceremony, He exercised them in the pursuit of purity. For by joining with the lepers those who had an issue,² and who were defiled by the dead, He instructs the people simply to keep away from all uncleanness.

The reason, which follows, confirms this—that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof He dwells. It is just as if He had said that all the habitations of His elect people were parts of His sanctuary, which it was a shame to defile with any pollution.

For we know what license men give themselves in corrupting³ the service of God, by mixing, as the proverb says, sacred things with profane. Thus we see that the very worst of men boast themselves to be anything but the least zealous of His worshipers, and do not hesitate to lift up polluted hands, although God so sternly repudiates them.

It was, then, profitable that the ancient people should be reminded by this visible proof: that all those who are defiled cannot duly serve God, but rather pollute with their filthiness what is otherwise holy and thus grossly abuse religious exercises; and furthermore, that they ought not to be tolerated in the holy congregation, lest their infection should spread to others.

Let us now briefly examine Leviticus 13.

And the Lord spoke to Moses. Although at the outset He seems to include all trespasses, we gather from the context that the precept only refers to things stolen or fraudulently withheld, so that he who is conscious of his guilt should make reparation. It must be observed, however, that the law relates to more secret thefts, which are not usually brought to justice. For this reason, it is said, “If they have committed any sin after the manner of men, they must not seek evasion from ordinary use and custom.” Therefore, even if they may have many companions, God declares that this will not serve as their excuse and consequently commands them to voluntarily restore what they have fraudulently or wrongfully appropriated.

He will address the punishment of theft later. For now, He only prescribes that even if no one brings the guilty parties to justice and their crime is not discovered, they should still diligently examine their consciences and sincerely declare the secret transgression. They must also make compensation for the loss caused, since, without restitution, their confession would be merely illusory.

I will now pass over what Moses adds: that if no heir exists to whom the stolen goods may be restored, they should offer it to the priest, as I have already explained this. However, from this we gather that a contamination is contracted by fraud and plunder, which is never cleansed unless the house is thoroughly cleared of the ill-gotten gain.

This offering was addressed in the laws of the priests.¹²⁸ Now, concerning restitution, we must consider that the fifth part was added, not so much so that he who had suffered the loss should be enriched, but so that all should diligently beware of every offense, which they learn is not only useless to themselves but also productive of loss. Besides, when a man has been robbed, the deprivation of the use of his property is often of more consequence than this additional fifth part.

But if the man have no kinsman. This passage, which I have inserted from chapter 5, is connected²¹³ indeed with another subject; yet, because it directly refers to the right of the priests, it was necessary to move it to this place, especially since it expresses that kind of sacrifice to which Moses has recently referred, that is, when they atoned for the crime of theft.

God did not indeed desire that the priests should be enriched by others’ losses, nor that thieves should go free if they offered what they had stolen to the priests. But if there was no one to whom they could restore it, He would have their houses freed from (the proceeds of) their sin. And this was with very good reason, since otherwise the most flagrant offender would never have hesitated to plunder the goods of a dead man, if he were without heirs.

First, therefore, He commanded that their property be restored to the lawful owners. If the owners were dead, He substituted their kinsmen. These kinsmen are called גאלים, goelim, on account of the right of redemption which God granted in the Law to relatives (as we will see elsewhere), and also because the one who was next of kin was commanded to marry the widow of one who had left no seed.

It was therefore a very uncommon thing for a person who had defrauded another to have to recompense the loss to the priest, for in most cases some successor to the dead man would be found.

And every offering. Until now, I have brought together the passages in which Moses discusses the office of the priests and have briefly explained them. I will now begin to discuss their rights, that is, the honor with which God invested them, so that they would be ready and cheerful in their obedience.

Here, however, Moses briefly addresses what he explains more fully in other passages, as we will soon see: namely, He assigns to the priests all the holy offerings, the various kinds of which He later lists. There were three principal reasons for this law:

1. So that what had already been dedicated to God would not be profaned by its indiscriminate use; for, so that the sacrifices might retain their proper dignity, it was necessary to distinguish the sacred from ordinary foods.
2. A vainglorious excess regarding the ceremonies was restrained. For if, after the victims were killed, all the flesh had been returned to the owners, a desire for ostentation²⁰⁷ would have developed among foolish men. The rich would have competed to gain applause, and after feasting magnificently, they would have offered the rest for sale. In this way, they would have abused their false pretense of worshipping God to acquire favor for themselves.
3. The third reason is what Paul mentions, namely, that it is just that the ministers of the altar should live by the altar (1 Corinthians 9:13). For although it is an unworthy thing for the servants of God to be attracted by their payment, God was nevertheless unwilling for the priests, who had freely given their labor to the worship of the sanctuary, to suffer from hunger, so that their eagerness would not be suppressed.

For if they wished to carry out their office properly, it was necessary for them to attend entirely to spiritual things and give up the care of their domestic affairs.

If anyone should object that these were incentives to greed, and that an excellent and profitable calling was offered to the priests, the reply is easy: whatever came to their share, since it was restricted to their own consumption, could not have been excessive in quantity. For they were not allowed to sell any of it, nor even to give it away to others, as we have already seen and as will be repeated later.

Thus, then, the foul dishonesty of those who taunt Moses as if he had enriched the priests with the spoils of the people is thoroughly refuted. For if there were any whose interests he would have wished to consider, surely his own sons would have been preferred above all; yet there is no reference to them here. Indeed, whatever he grants to the priests, he takes away from his own sons and their descendants, as if he purposely deprived them of advantages that were not otherwise unlawful.

In short, only the dignity of holy things was considered, without any attempt being made to enrich the priests.

And the Lord spoke to Moses. Although this ceremony appears to be part of the legal services, I have nevertheless decided to address it here, because it relates to the observance of the Seventh Commandment. Its purpose is to prevent women, trusting they might escape punishment, from abandoning themselves to unchastity, or to prevent jealousy from leading to dissension. Such jealousy, by alienating the husband's mind from his wife, would loosen the ties of pure affection, and in this way, the door would be opened to many sins.

Through this rite, therefore, God proclaims Himself the guardian and avenger of marital faithfulness. From this, it becomes clear how acceptable a sacrifice in His sight is the chastity of married women, for which He condescends to declare Himself the guardian. It is, therefore, no small consolation to husbands that God undertakes to examine the secret wrong, if, by chance, their wives have been unfaithful to them.

However, it will be better to examine the details in order. When at the beginning he says—If a man’s wife goes aside, and her offense is concealed—an absurdity seems to be implied, as if God would thereby bring to judgment only those who were already convicted. However, if the fact were established, there would be no use for the test.

But the condition, if she commits a trespass against him, does not mean that the woman’s adultery must be discovered, but refers to her husband's suspicion. And so, the words must be paraphrased this way: If anyone suspects that his wife has had relations with another man, and he cannot otherwise be relieved from the anxiety that oppresses him, let him appeal to God for that judgment which is beyond human reach.

Yet God⁷⁸ seems to have deliberately specified the crime, to prevent husbands from carelessly involving their innocent wives in disgrace. We know that many are suspicious without cause; and when jealousy has once taken possession of the mind, there is no room for moderation or fairness.⁷⁹

Therefore, it would be inhuman to allow morose and unreasonable husbands to drag their wives to this terrifying judgment of God because of mere trivial suspicions. For, if the husband were cruel and ungodly, giving him such power without any distinction would be like putting a sword into the hands of a madman.

God, therefore, implies that the priest should consider carefully, so as not to receive every complaint too easily; although He later expresses Himself more clearly in another part of the conditions: if a man is jealous of his wife, and she is not defiled.