Exo 30 | CalvinCommentaries | STEP | 1. And thou shalt make an altar. God now issues His commands respecting the altar of burnt incense, whereby the people were assured that the odor of the worship under the Law was sweet to Him. This ceremony indeed also prevailed among the Gentiles; whence there is frequent mention made by heathen authors of incense-burning; but what its object was they knew not themselves, nor did they care to reflect upon its proper intention, since they conceived themselves to have done all that was required of them, by the bare sign itself. In this way, however, God would encourage His believing people, by giving them to know that the worship which they offered at this command sent up to him a sweet savor. Meanwhile He admonished them diligently to beware lest any uncleanness should profane their sacrifices, but that they should come cleansed and pure into His sight. And David applies this type specially to prayer, when he says: "Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense.” ( .) Therefore, as the other altar of which we have been hearing, was devoted to the victims for the purpose of propitiating God, so also this altar perfumed the sacrifices with the odor of its incense, that they might be acceptable to God. Hence it was placed near the ark of the testimony, though with the vail between, that its savor might ascend directly to God without any let or hindrance. There is no ambiguity in the words, except that some think there is a repetition where it is said, “every morning,” and “between the two evens;” others suppose that there are two separate oblations, and this latter view is the more probable, i.e., that the incense was offered morning and evening. He afterwards forbids either the altar itself to be transferred to other uses, or any other kind of incense to be burnt upon it; of this he will speak elsewhere.

‏ Exodus 30

1. And thou shalt make an altar. God now issues His commands respecting the altar of burnt incense, whereby the people were assured that the odor of the worship under the Law was sweet to Him. This ceremony indeed also prevailed among the Gentiles; whence there is frequent mention made by heathen authors of incense-burning; but what its object was they knew not themselves, nor did they care to reflect upon its proper intention, since they conceived themselves to have done all that was required of them, by the bare sign itself. In this way, however, God would encourage His believing people, by giving them to know that the worship which they offered at this command sent up to him a sweet savor. Meanwhile He admonished them diligently to beware lest any uncleanness should profane their sacrifices, but that they should come cleansed and pure into His sight. And David applies this type specially to prayer, when he says:

"Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense.”

(Psalm 131:2.)

Therefore, as the other altar of which we have been hearing, was devoted to the victims for the purpose of propitiating God, so also this altar perfumed the sacrifices with the odor of its incense, that they might be acceptable to God. Hence it was placed near the ark of the testimony, though with the vail between, that its savor might ascend directly to God without any let or hindrance. There is no ambiguity in the words, except that some think there is a repetition where it is said, “every morning,” and “between the two evens;” ^{▼▼
A. V., Margin, ver. 8.} others suppose that there are two separate oblations, and this latter view is the more probable, i.e., that the incense was offered morning and evening. He afterwards forbids either the altar itself to be transferred to other uses, or any other kind of incense to be burnt upon it; of this he will speak elsewhere.

10. And Aaron shall make an atonement. We should observe here the correspondence between the two altars; for, as the Israelites were admonished that the sacrifices would not please God, unless all uncleanness were wiped away by pure and holy prayers, so also the altar of incense was purified by the sprinkling of blood, that they might learn that their prayers obtained acceptance through sacrifices. Although this was only done once a year, yet it was daily to be called to mind, in order that they might offer the death of Christ by faith and prayer, ^{▼▼
“ Ut fide et precibus adolerent mortem Christi.” — Lat. “ Afin qu’en appliquant a eux la vertu de la mort de Jesus Christ par foy et prieres;” in order that applying to themselves the virtue of the death of Jesus Christ by faith and prayers. — Fr.} and yet might know that their prayers had no sweet savor, unless in so far as they were sprinkled with the blood of atonement.

12. When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel. The tribute which God here demands at the taking of the census, is very fitly annexed to the First Commandment; for God, in making them tributary to Himself, shews that they were under His jurisdiction and power; and because He had purchased them to Himself, He willed that this voluntary gift of acknowledgment should be paid to Him. Princes, in numbering their subjects, make an estimate of their power; but God, who needs not the aid and assistance of men, would have the Israelites testify, at least by some sign, that they live in subjection to Him by whom they were redeemed. Therefore, when David numbered the people, (2 Samuel 24:2,) it was a kind of emancipation of them from their subjection to God; and hence this pride, or temerity, or ingratitude, was so severely punished. But because it was useful and right that the people should be numbered, it is permitted upon this condition, that by paying a ransom for every individual, they should acknowledge God as their sole King. The word is not badly rendered by some an atonement or expiation, because, whilst they confessed that they owed their life to God, He was appeased towards them on the score of this testimony of their gratitude. But it may be derived from a word meaning to cover; for when they voluntarily subjected themselves to God, and fled beneath the shelter of his wings, they were protected and secure, under this covering. Therefore it is said below, that this gift was offered to God as “an atonement for their souls;” and this is expressed in other words, that there should “be no plague” or destruction among them, because their safety rested in God’s protection alone, that they should not be exposed to any evils. And since they had been Pharaoh’s servants, their freedom would have been unlawful unless God had authorized and maintained it. Wherefore it was just. that they should ascribe their deliverance by a solemn rite to God, lest they should suffer the punishment of fugitive slaves. But He appointed the same sum for all, that every one, of whatever rank, from the least, to the greatest, might know that they were altogether His. Nor need we wonder, that since this was a personal due, (as it is commonly phrased,) their condition was not taken into account, so that the rich should pay more than the poor, but that the same price should be paid for every soul. The shekel ^{▼▼
I am indebted to an anonymous writer in that useful little publication, “Notes and Queries,” vol. 5, p. 325, for the following note. Having given a translation almost identical with that in the text, he adds, “which is as much as to say, that the sickle (or shekel) equalled 14 solidi, less four deniers; or 13.67 solidi. But owing to the rapid declension in the value of French coin after the tenth century, it is manifestly impossible to assign a value to these solidi, unless the precise date of their coinage were known. A writer may, of course, allude to coin indefinitely precedent to his own time. In the present ease, however, we may, as a matter of curiosity, analytically approximate to a result in this way: — The drachm, is now known to have contained about 65 grains of pure silver, consequently the tetradrachma contained 260 grains. The present franc contains about 70 grains of pure silver, and consequently the sol, or 20th part, is 3.5 grains. This last multiplied by 13.67 produces about 48 grains. But the weight of the tetradrachma is 260 grains; therefore the sol with which the comparison was made, must have contained upwards of fivefold its present value in pure silver. Now, according to the depreciation tables of M. Dennis, this condition obtained in 1483, under Charles VIII., at which time Budaeus was actually living, having been born in 1467; but from other circumstances I am induced to believe that the solidus Gallicus mentioned by him was coined by Louis XII. in 1498, at which time the quantity of pure silver was fourfold and a half that of the present day.” Dean Prideaux, Connexion 1:3, says, “Every Jew annually paid a half shekel, i.e., about eighteenpence of our money.”} of the sanctuary was equivalent to an Attic tetra-drachma, which Budaeus estimates at 14 sols French, or thereabouts; for the didrachma amounts to seven sols, and the common drachma to three and a half sols, minus a denier Tournois. This is the didrachma of which mention is made in Matthew 17:24; for when the Jews were conquered by the Romans, it is probable that, in order to make their yoke more galling, this right of tribute was transferred to their conquerors. For this divinely prescribed offering being the symbol of their freedom, exempted the Jews from all heathen dominion, as if free or only belonging to God. But. since by their own rebellion they had shaken off God’s yoke, He purposely suffered them to be despoiled of their right, in order to subject them to the tyranny of strangers. And this occurred just before Christ’s coming, that this new and unwonted oppression might increase their longing for Him. But inasmuch as this tribute was paid by command of the Law, the Jews were reminded that they were a people consecrated to God.

Another Supplement

as to the Vow of the Nazarites

(Heading from the French,

“Autre dependence du Voeu des Nazariens.”)

Numbers 6

18. Thou shalt also make a laver of brass. Although this oblation was a sign of the purity which God required in His priests, yet, inasmuch as this hollow vessel (concha) or laver, which supplied the water, was a part or utensil of the sanctuary, I have thought it best to insert here what is ordained respecting it, not only as to its fashion, but also its use, which could not be well separated: for if bare mention had only been made of a laver or water-vessel, ^{▼▼
Addition in Fr., " Sans savoir pourquoy il estoit basti;” without knowing what it was made for.} the reader would have received no profit from it. But, when God expressly commands that water should always be ready in this basin for the priests to wash their hands and feet, we gather from hence with what reverence and sanctity God would have His holy service performed. It was, indeed, a common proverb among the Gentiles that they were guilty of impiety who handled holy things with unwashen hands, and they testified in this ceremony that they could not worship God aright except when purified from all pollution and uncleanness. One in Virgil says: —

"——— donec me flumine vivo Abluero." ^{▼▼
AEn. 2:719, 720. They are among the words which AEneas reports himself to have spoken to Anchises, when about to bear him out of Troy:

" Tu, genitor, cape sacra manu, patriosque Penates.
Me, bello e tanto digressum et caede recenti,
Adtrectare nefas; donec me flumine vivo Abluero."}

"Till in some living stream I cleanse the guilt

Of dire debate and blood in battle spilt.” — Dryden.

And such expressions are of constant occurrence. Sometimes they even seemed almost to hit the right point; as where the poet commands the ungodly and the criminal to depart from the sacrifices, lest they should contaminate them; ^{▼▼
Doering’s note on Hor. Carm. 3:1. 1. — “ Odi profanum vulgus et arceo,” contains the following words: “He uses these formulas which the priests were accustomed to use at the commencement of their ceremonies, in order to drive away the profane, ἑκάς, βέβηλοι! or ἑκάς, ἑκάς, ὅστις ἀλιτρός· (Callim. Hymn., Ap. 2.) Procul o procul este, profani. (Virg. AEn. 6:258.)"} but this was only a fleeting imagination, since no anxiety to repent had awakened in them a desire to propitiate God; and so, even whilst they were diligent in performing ablutions, their minds, darkened with error, knew not what it meant. But the Israelites were thus chiefly reminded how unworthy they were to offer sacrifices to God, since the impurity of the very priests, who were chosen to this once, prevented them from exercising it, until they were cleansed with water. The washing of the hands and feet denoted that all parts of the body were infected with uncleanness; for, since Scripture often uses the word “hands” for the actions of life, and compares the whole course of life to a way or journey, it is very suitable to say by synecdoche that all impurity is purged away by the washing of the hands and feet. The comparison with Christ now remains to be considered; but this we shall understand better a little beyond in reference to the sacrifices.

The Priesthood

Exodus 28

We now arrive at the second part of the Legal Worship, i.e., the Priesthood; for we must bear in mind what I have said, that there are three things to be considered, —

1. The Tabernacle;

2. The Priestly Office; and

3. The Sacrifices.

And indeed all the splendor of the tabernacle, of which we have been speaking, would have been an empty parade without the priest, who so mediated as an intercessor, that he reconciled men to God, and in a manner united heaven to earth. Now it is unquestionable, that the Levitical priests were the representatives of Christ; since, with respect to their office, they were even better than the very angels; which would be by no means reasonable, unless they had been the type of Him, who is Himself the head of the angels. The heathen nations, it is true, had their priests, who presided over their religious services, but they were but empty phantoms; for there was no mention with them of the Mediator, so that the people might know that God cannot be duly appeased, and that our prayers cannot be heard by Him, unless a peace-maker interfere between us. But the nature of the Levitical priesthood was widely different; for the Israelites were instructed that all of them were unworthy to stand before God, and so that there was need of an Intercessor to propitiate Him. Now, since the general rule had been laid down, that all things should be rigidly referred to the pattern which had been shewn to Moses in the mount, their minds were necessarily drawn upwards; and this too they might easily have arrived at, for various reasons. The whole body of the people saw a man like themselves, who could not enter the sanctuary trusting in his own innocence, and whose dignity was conferred upon him by adventitious rites; i.e., by anointing, and by investiture. The full truth, therefore, did not shine forth in this, but only a figure to direct them to the truth; and of this they were doubtless admonished, lest they should rest in earthly things. Besides, its interpretation was added (by the prophets ^{▼▼
Supplied from Fr.} ); because, as the Apostle wisely teaches us in the Epistle to Hebrews 7:18, the promise to appoint hereafter a priest after the order of Melchisedec would not hold good, unless it were applied to Christ; for it is plain that the Levitical priesthood is there brought into comparison by contrast with one of a different nature; and since the latter is eternal, it follows that the former is temporary; and, whilst the one is sanctioned by an oath, it clearly is superior to the other. There is no doubt, then, but that David, as a faithful interpreter of the Law, more manifestly shewed forth what there was obscurely shadowed.

Thus far my wish has been to teach that the Levitical priest was ordained, that he might be a type of the true Mediator. It will now be worth our while briefly to advert to the marks by which our perpetual and only Priest, the Son of God, is to be distinguished from those of old; for a fuller exposition will follow hereafter in its proper place. The first distinction I have already pointed out, viz., that the type was temporary; since perpetuity is only to be sought in the reality itself: whence we learn that the priestly office was not so instituted by Moses to last for ever, but to direct the people to a better hope. But what I have said as to the office, must be transferred also to the persons. There was only one high priest under the Law, who was afterwards succeeded by one of his race, since they were all mortal. None, then, was ever such a priest as became us, except Christ; because none other could be perpetual; and hence we arrive at the second distinction. The third arises from Christ’s divinity, which is proved by the fact, that the priest after the order of Melchisedec has no beginning; for we find nowhere the origin of Melchisedec; but he is only brought forward once and unexpectedly, as if be had come down from heaven. The fourth is the combination of the kingdom and the priesthood. Under the Law God would have some to be kings, and others to be priests; nor was it allowable to mix up the one office with the other; but He, of whom it is said that He should be a priest like Melchisedec, is honored with the title of king. The fifth is, that the legal priest only appeared before God in the visible and sanctuary, but Christ entered into heaven, to present us to His Father, not in the external symbols of (precious) stones, ^{▼▼
“ Non pas en effigies exterieures de diamans et rubies.” — Fr.} but in the reality itself; for in Him as our Head we are all gathered together unto God. The sixth lies in the perfect righteousness of Christ; for the legal priest, since he was one of us sinners, had need to seek pardon for himself; but Christ, being free from all guilt, awakens favor towards us by His own purity. The seventh is, that the priest borrowed from external figures what was truly and really shewn forth in Christ. The sacred garments, as we have lately said, denoted something more than human; the anointing, too, was a symbol of the Spirit which dwells in Christ; and He therefore was not consecrated with visible and corruptible oil, but with the fullness of all gifts. The priest of old abstained from intercourse with his wife when he went into the sanctuary; he was only allowed to marry a virgin; the perfect and spiritual purity of Christ was contented with its own perfection. The last distinction consisted in the sacrifices themselves, respecting which I abstain at present from speaking more fully, because they will have their proper place hereafter. This only we must now recollect, that Christ expiated the sins of the world, not with the blood of beasts, but with His own blood. Now we turn to the words of Moses.

23. Take thou also unto thee principal spices. Although the oil here treated of was not only destined for the anointing of the priests, but also of the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, the altars, and all the vessels, yet no fitter place occurs for discussing the sacred unction, than by connecting it with the priesthood, on which it depends. First of all its composition is described, exquisite both in expensiveness and odor; that by its very excellence and costliness the Israelites may learn that no ordinary thing is represented by it; for we have already often seen that there had been set before this rude people a splendor in sacred symbols, which might affect their external senses, so as to uplift them as it were by steps to the knowledge of spiritual things. We must now see why the priest as well as all the vessels and the other parts of the tabernacle had need of anointing. I conclude that without controversy this oil mixed with precious perfumes was a type of the Holy Spirit; for the metaphor of anointing is everywhere met with, when the prophets would commend the power, the effects, and the gifts of the Spirit. Nor is there any doubt but that God, by anointing kings, testified that He would endow them with the spirit of prudence, fortitude, clemency, and justice. Hence it is easily gathered that the tabernacle was sprinkled with oil, that the Israelites might learn that all the exercises of piety profited nothing without the secret operation of the Spirit. Nay, something more was shewn forth, viz., that the efficacy and grace of the Spirit existed and reigned in the truth of the shadows itself; and that whatever good was derived from them was applied by the gift of the same Spirit for the use of believers. In the altar, reconciliation was to be sought, that God might be propitious to them; but, as the Apostle testifies, the sacrifice of Christ’s death would not otherwise have been efficacious to appease God, if He had not suffered by the Spirit, (Hebrews 9:14;) and how does its fruit now reach us, except because the same Spirit washes our souls with the blood, which once was shed, as Peter teaches us? (1 Peter 1:2.) Who now consecrates our prayers but the Spirit, who dictates the groans which cannot be uttered; and by whom we cry, Abba, Father? (Romans 8:15, 26.) Nay, whence comes the faith which admits us to a participation in the benefits of Christ, but from the same Spirit?

But we were especially to consider the anointing of the priest, who was sanctified by the Spirit of God for the performance of his office; thus, as Isaiah, in the person of Jesus Christ, declares that he was anointed with the spirit of prophecy, (Isaiah 61:1;) and David affirms the same of the royal spirit, (Psalm 45:7;) so Daniel is our best interpreter and witness how the sacerdotal unction was at length manifested (in Him ^{▼▼
Added from Fr.} ), for when he says that the time, when by the death of Christ the prophecy shall be sealed up, was determined upon “to anoint the holy of holies,” he plainly reminds us that the spiritual pattern, which answers to the visible sanctuary, is in Christ; so that believers may really feel that these shadows were not mere empty things. (Daniel 9:24.) We now perceive why Aaron was anointed, viz., because Christ was consecrated by the Holy Spirit to be the Mediator between God and man; and why the tabernacle and its vessels were sprinkled with the same oil, viz., because we are only made partakers of the holiness of Christ by the gift and operation of the Spirit. ^{▼▼
“ Ou il est dit, Que tout ce que, etc., aucuns mettent legendre masculin, Celuy qui les sanctifiera;” where it is said, “Whatsoever,” etc., some put the masculine gender, “He who shall sanctify them.” This is the translation of LXX. and V.} Some translate it in the masculine gender, where of the vessels it is said, “whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy;” ver. 29: as if they were not to be touched by any but the priests; but it appears to me to be rather spoken for another reason, viz., that they may embue the oblations with their own sanctity.

25. And thou shalt take it an oil of holy ointment. Although the genitive is put in the place of an epithet, as if Moses had said “a holy oil;” yet it is so called from its effect, because without it nothing is accounted pure. And assuredly the Spirit of God sanctifies ourselves and all that is ours, because without Him we are unholy, and all that belongs to us corrupt. He enjoins the use of the ceremony throughout all the generations of the ancient people, ver. 31. In these words there is an implied contrast with the new Church, which wants no shadows since the manifestation of the substance; and justly does the only begotten Son of God possess the name of Christ, since by His coming He has abolished these figures. And Simeon, when he took Him in his arms, and called Him “the Lord’s Christ,” ^{▼▼
The reference here is to Luke 2:28. It does not, however, appear that Simeon actually called Him “the Lord’s Christ,” though the Evangelist states, ver. 26, that “it was revealed to him by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ."} taught that the external use of the legal oil had ceased. So much the sillier is the superstition of the Papacy, when in imitation of the Jews it anoints its priests, and altars, and other toys: ^{▼▼
Lat., “ Nugas;” Fr, “ L’autel avec tout leur bagage.” “Now that your oil came not from the Apostles, your own doctor Panormitane is witness; for thus he writeth: ‘The Apostles in old time gave the Holy Ghost only by laying on of hands; but now-a-days, because bishops be not so holy, order hath been taken that they should give this sacrament with chrism.’” — Jewel’s Defence of the Apology, Parker Society’s edition, p. 178.

" Transtulerunt item sua haec olea, cure ad homines moribundos, tum etiam ad parietes, altaria, and campanas: necnon calices et alia hujusmodi, qum videmus, κακοβηλίᾳ improbanda ex veteri Judaismo esse traducta. Excusat ille Innocentius, (Decret. Greg., lib. 1, tit. 15, de Sacra Unctione.) Ecclesiam haec faciendo non Judaizare,” etc. — Petr. Mart. Loci Com., Cl. 4, cap. 1:21.} as if they desired to bury Christ again with their ointments; wherefore let us hold this invention in detestation as blasphemous, because it overthrows the limits prescribed by God.

In order that the Jews may hold this mystery in just reverence, he forbids similar ointment to be made. We know that ointments were then among the luxuries of a fine banquet; but it is accounted profanation if they make use of this kind; and we must mark the reason, that what is holy, may be holy unto them, ver. 32, i.e., that they may reverently observe what is peculiarly devoted to their salvation. For although the sacred things divinely instituted always retain their nature, and cannot be either corrupted or made void by our vices, yet may we by our filthiness, by our impure use or neglect of them, pollute them as far as in us lies.

Leviticus 8

34. Take unto thee sweet spices. This oblation might have been noticed with the others, yet, since it merely describes the composition of the incense, which is connected with the altar of incense, and in fact is but an appendage to it, I have seen no reason why I should separate them. Let the curious subtilely discuss, if they please, the ingredients themselves; it is enough for me that they were chosen at God’s will to make a very sweet smell. For I know not whether it is likely, as some suppose, that galbanum ^{▼▼
“Not of strong and evil savor, as R. Salomom, for then it had been unfit to make a perfume of.” — Tostatus in Willet. “ Dioscor. asserit galbanum esse gravis odoris, et Plinius ait galbanum foetere et castorem olere; quod forte intelligit de partibus galbani magis terrestribus — ideoque noster interpres addit τὸ bonis odoris;” (i.e., V., after LXX. Χαλβάνην ἡδυσμῦ· ) Corn. a Lapide, in loco.} is of a strong and disagreeable savor, and, since they only offer this conjecture in an unknown matter, they deserve little credit. My conviction is that it was sweet, which the words of Moses himself a little further on confirm, where he denounces the penalty of death upon those who should use such perfume for their private gratification; for this prohibition would have been absurd, unless its odor had been very agreeable. Besides, the analogy between the sign and the thing signified would not have held good, unless its sweet savor had testified that God is greatly pleased with the prayers of His people. Moreover, in order that the sacred symbol might be the more reverenced, it was not allowable to transfer this mixture to private use; for since men are rude and earthly-minded, there is nothing they are more prone to than to mix up heavenly things with those of earth. Therefore, to elevate their minds the more, it was necessary that the incense, in which there was a special holiness due to God alone, should be set apart from common use.