10. And Moses took the anointing oil I have stated why God commanded that the priest himself, as well as all the vessels, should be consecrated with oil, viz., because, without the influence of the Spirit, all the sacrifices would be unsavory. And it is by the operation of the same Spirit that Christ was made the peace-maker between God and men; because this dignity would not otherwise belong to flesh and human nature. Aaron was therefore anointed, together with his sons, before he was admitted to the priestly office; for it is afterwards added, that “the bullock for sin” (405) was brought, upon which Aaron laid his hands. Now, although even then he began to discharge his office, yet Moses still occupied the first place, and performed, as it were, the final act. Hence it was that he sprinkled the horns of the altar with the blood; poured the residue at its base for expiation; and burned the sacrifice upon the altar. Now, the imposition of hands in the sacrifices was not only a symbol of presentation, but also a testimony of guilt transferred to the victim. Since, however, this last statement may be obscure on account of its brevity, I will explain it a little more clearly. If any private person offered a victim, the imposition of hands signified that he cast the guilt of his sin upon the victim. Hence the name of piaculum; (406) because it sustained the curse of God, and was substituted in the sinner’s stead, who disburdens himself upon it of whatever exposed him to the judgment of God. But, inasmuch as common hands were unworthy to consecrate a victim to God, the sacerdotal office interposed. This is the reason why Aaron and his sons put their hands on each of the sacrifices, in order that this kind of atonement (piaculi) might be the beginning of their consecration, which was completed in the second ram, with the blood of which Moses stained their right ears, the thumbs of their right hands, and the great toes of their right feet. A multitude of questions here arises: Why only one side of the priests was consecrated, as if their left side remained polluted? Why consecration was not also imparted to their eyes, and especially to their mouth, which was to be the organ of the Holy Spirit? But this warning must be always borne in mind, that we should be soberly wise in those points, the certain knowledge of which cannot be elicited from Scripture; for our curiosity is not only frivolous, but also perverse and injurious, when we desire to know more than God has revealed. The conjecture, however, is probable, that the whole body was consecrated in the right side. We have already seen elsewhere, (407) that by the hands and feet the whole life and actions of men are designated. In which view the cleanness of the heart and the purity of the hands comprehend all that is internal and external in man, as the root and the fruit. As to the feet, the metaphor of walking is notorious; and the feet are said to run to evil, and to be swift to shed blood, when the wicked and the despisers of God betake themselves to evil deeds. Besides, since this consecration was not to the office of teaching, but to that of intercession, the ear rather than the tongue is stained with blood; because the chief virtue, which obtains grace in the sacrifices, is obedience. To this the passage in Psalms 40:6, refers, “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou bored:” (408) to which the words of Jeremiah correspond,
“Did I command anything respecting sacrifices, and not rather that your fathers should obey my voice?” (409) (Jeremiah 7:22.)
And hence Moses commenced the consecration at the ear, in order to devote the priest to God unto obedience. Paul shews how this was fulfilled in Christ, where he celebrates His obedience in the sacrifice of His death, in order to reconcile His Father to us. (Romans 5:19.) I have spoken elsewhere of the kind of wave-offering which they called tnupha. (410)
(405) “For the sin-offering.” — A. V.
(406) “Et voyla pourquoy les bestes ont porte le nom d’offense;” and behold wherefore the beasts bore the name of offence. — Fr. “ Piaculum; sacrum piaculare, et quicquid ad piandum et purgandum pertinet. Metonymice, ipsa res, qum piaculi causa adhibetur; sic A En. 6:153.
Duc nigos pecudes: ea prima piacula sunto.” — Facciolati.
(407) See ante, vol. 2, p. 211.
(408) A. V., “Mine ears hast thou opened.” Margin, “Heb., digged.” See C.’s translation and note. Cal. Soc. edit., vol. 2, p. 99.
(409) This quotation is much abbreviated. C.’s exposition of the passage, (Cal. Soc. edit., vol. 1, p. 393,) and Mr. Owen’s note, are worthy of consultation.
(410) Heb., תנופה , thenuphah. See ante, vol. 2, p. 132, and note