John Calvin Commentary Numbers 9

And there were certain men. A question is introduced here incidentally, namely, what must be done if any sudden defilement should prevent any persons from celebrating the Passover with the rest, since God would cut off from among His people whoever should not observe this memorial of their redemption. Although the history is touched upon here, yet because the doctrine concerning the just and pure observance of the Passover is its main subject, indeed, because this passage is a kind of supplement to the general command, I have thought it proper to connect them here.

Moses says that certain men were found defiled over the soul of a man,³²⁴ that is, either because they had touched a dead body, had gone into a house of mourning, or had been present at a man's funeral; for the Law accounted such persons to be polluted, as will be seen elsewhere. From this arose a kind of discrepancy: while the unclean were not permitted to approach the sacred feast, it was sinful to neglect this exercise of religion. Even Moses confessed that he was perplexed about this matter, as he sought time to inquire of God.

The extraordinary modesty of the Prophet displays itself here, in not daring to pronounce on a doubtful matter, although he was their lawgiver. But he thus more clearly showed that he by no means delivered the Law from his own understanding, since he did not dare even to interpret it, except after receiving a new command. God, therefore, by establishing a special exception, removes the contradiction (ἀντινομίαν). For to those whom just necessity excused, He assigns the second month, so that they too might be partakers of the Passover, though they might not change the day at their own option.

By this privilege He not only relieves the unclean but also those who might be at a distance³²⁵ from the company of their fellows, concerning whom the same question might be raised. For it was not suitable that anyone should eat the Passover by himself; and even if a family were too small, neighbors were called in so that the number might be sufficient to eat the whole lamb. Therefore, the traveler abroad, or even at home, if he was far from his friends, needed some provision to preserve him from punishment.

Moreover, we must remember that this was not a concession to despisers, nor was profane carelessness encouraged by this indulgence. It was only a provision for the necessity of those who had inadvertently contracted defilement, could not escape it, or were unexpectedly delayed on their journey. For they are said to have complained of their own accord to Moses that, on account of their uncleanness, they were prevented from eating the Passover lamb; from this, we infer their pious solicitude.

For such persons, then, another Passover is permitted, so that in the second month they might recover what they had lost without their fault. Meanwhile, it is strictly enjoined on them that they should change nothing in the whole ceremony. On this account, what we have already seen is again repeated, namely, that they should eat it with bitter herbs, that they should not break a bone of it, and the like. But, so that the permission might not be extended too far, the penalty is again proclaimed if anyone, except for these two reasons, should have neglected to celebrate the Passover. For we know how people, unless they are restrained, allow themselves too much freedom in searching for excuses.

It is more clearly expressed here than before that the Passover lamb was a victim.³²⁶ For it is said in verse 7, “Wherefore are we kept back, that we may not offer an offering?” (Numbers 9:7) and in verse 13, “because he brought not the offering of the Lord” (Numbers 9:13). I call attention to this because there are some who think that the Passover lamb was so slain as not to be the offering of a sacrifice, whereas Paul distinctly teaches that a victim was offered in it, and then the feast was connected with it. For such is the meaning of his words, “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast,” etc. (1 Corinthians 5:7–8).

Whenever the word “soul”³²⁷ is used for a dead body, I take it to be a fairly common metaphor in the Hebrew language.

At the commandment of the Lord.² The mouth is here used by metonymy for speech; nor does the Hebraism seem to me so harsh that it cannot be appropriately retained.

But it is asked whether God actually spoke or not, for the word mouth is often repeated. It is indeed likely that Moses was instructed only once what was meant by the removal or remaining of the cloud; yet I do not doubt that the name of word or commandment was given to the sign, since God speaks as much to the eyes by outward signs as He does to the ears by His voice.

Still, from this mode of expression we may gather that the use of signs³ is perverted and nullified unless they are taken to be visible doctrine, as Augustine writes. The repetition, which certainly has considerable force, shows how worthy this is of observation.

Then the children kept the charge of the Lord.⁴ Some, in my opinion, extend this too far, thinking that when the cloud remained, the children of Israel, being, as it were, at leisure, occupied themselves with the worship of God. However, I restrict it rather to that attentiveness which is then praised at some length. To keep the charge (Latin: custodiam), then, is equivalent to regarding the will of God with the greatest earnestness and care. For when the cloud had begun to rest in any place, the people knew that they were to remain there; but if on the next day they were not attentive, the cloud might vanish, and thus their neglect and carelessness might deprive them of this incomparable advantage.

To this end, it is said immediately afterwards that if for one day, or more, or even for a month, or a year, the cloud stood still, the people were, as it were, tied to the spot. The old interpreter⁵ has not badly rendered it, “The children of Israel were upon the watch,” since day and night they anxiously expected the time when God would command them to move forward.

The last verse of the chapter confirms this sense, where it is again added that they kept the charge of the Lord at His mouth by the hand of Moses: from which it appears that Moses was God’s interpreter, so that they might set forth on their march whenever the cloud, being lifted up, pointed out the way to them. Nor can it be doubted that it preceded them, so that they might know in what direction God would have them proceed and where they were to go.

Moreover, it must be observed that in both respects it is counted worthy of praise in the people that they should either journey or continue where they were, at God’s command. Thus, that absurd activity is condemned which engages in endless work, as if people could only obey God through turmoil. Whereas it is sometimes no less a virtue to rest when it so pleases God.⁶