Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
Parallel Translations
-
Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
-
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
-
And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
Cross-references
No cross-references for this verse.
Explain this verse (14 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain Those that had a natural blemish, though they were…
Those that had a natural blemish, though they were forbidden to do the priests' work, were yet allowed to eat of the holy things: and the Jewish writers say that "to keep them from idleness they were employed in the wood-room, to pick out that which was worm-eaten, that it might not be used in the fire upon the altar; they might also be employed in the judgment of leprosy:" but,
I. Those that were under any ceremonial uncleanness, which possibly they contracted by their own fault, might no so much as eat of the holy things while they continued in their pollution. 1. Some pollutions were permanent, as a leprosy or a running issue, Lev 22:4. These separated the people from the sanctuary, and God would show that they were so far from being more excusable that really they were more abominable in a priest. 2. Others were more transient, as the touching of a dead body, or any thing else that was unclean, from which, after a certain time, a man was cleansed by bathing his flesh in water, Lev 22:6. But whoever was thus defiled might not eat of the holy things, under pain of God's highest displeasure, who said, and ratified the saying, That soul shall be cut off from my presence, Lev 22:3. Our being in the presence of God, and attending upon him, will be so far from securing us that it will but the more expose us to God's wrath, if we dare to draw nigh to him in our uncleanness. The destruction shall come from the presence of the Lord (Th2 1:9), as the fire by which Nadab and Abihu died came from before the Lord. Thus those who profane the holy word of God will be cut off by that word which they make so light of; it shall condemn them. They are again warned of their danger if they eat the holy thing in their uncleanness (Lev 22:9), lest they bear sin, and die therefore. Note, (1.) Those contract great guilt who profane sacred things, by touching them with unhallowed hands. Eating the holy things signified an interest in the atonement; but, if they ate of them in their uncleanness, they were so far from lessening their guilt that they increased it: They shall bear sin. (2.) Sin is a burden which, if infinite mercy prevent not, will certainly sink those that bear it: They shall die therefore. Even priests may be ruined by their pollutions and presumptions.
Read full note →
II. As to the design of this law we may observe, 1. This obliged the priests carefully to preserve their purity, and to dread every thing that would defile them. The holy things were their livelihood; if they might not eat of them, how must they subsist? The more we have to lose of comfort and honour by our defilement, the more careful we should be to preserve our purity. 2. This impressed the people with a reverence for the holy things, when they saw the priests themselves separated from them (as the expression is, Lev 22:2) so long as they were in their uncleanness. He is doubtless a God of infinite purity who kept his immediate attendants under so strict a discipline. 3. This teaches us carefully to watch against all moral pollutions, because by them we are unfitted to receive the comfort of God's sanctuary. Though we labour not under habitual deformities, yet actual defilements deprive us of the pleasure of communion with God; and therefore he that is washed needeth to wash his feet (Joh 13:10), to wash his hands, and so to compass the altar, Psa 26:6. Herein we have need to be jealous over ourselves, lest (as it is observably expressed here) we profane God's holy name in those things which we hallow unto him, Lev 22:2. If we affront God in those very performances wherein we pretend to honour him, and provoke him instead of pleasing him, we shall make up but a bad account shortly; yet thus we do if we profane God's name, by doing that in our uncleanness which pretends to be hallowed to him.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... Immediately after he…
And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... Immediately after he had spoken concerning blemishes in priests, and in a continued discourse signifying, that though priests that had blemishes might eat of the holy things, yet neither they, nor even such who had not any, if they were under legal impurity, might eat of them:
saying; as follows.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain A priest, having any uncleanness, must not eat of…
A priest, having any uncleanness, must not eat of the holy things, ver. 1-7. No priest must eat that which dies of itself, or is torn, ver. 8, 9. No stranger must eat of holy things, ver. 10-13. Of them that do it ignorantly, ver. 14-16. Sacrifices must be without blemish, and of a due age, ver. 17-27. Thank offerings must be eaten the same day, ver. 29, 30. An exhortation to obedience, ver. 31-33.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Of the uncleanness of the priests, by which they…
CHAPTER XXII
Of the uncleanness of the priests, by which they were prevented
Read full note →
from ministering in holy things, 1-5.
How they should be cleansed, 6, 7.
The priest must not eat of any animal that had died of itself,
or was torn by wild beasts, but must keep God's ordinances,
8, 9.
No stranger, sojourner, nor hired servant shall eat of the holy
things, 10.
A servant bought with money may eat of them, 11.
Who of the priest's family may not eat of them, 12, 13.
Of improper persons who partake of the holy things unknowingly,
14-16.
Freewill-offerings, and sacrifices in general, must be without
blemish, 17-25.
The age at which different animals were to be offered to God,
26, 27.
No animal and its young shall be offered on the same day, 28.
How the sacrifice of thanks-giving was to be offered, 29, 30.
All God's testimonies to be observed, and the reason, 31-33.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXII
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Lev 22:1. The foregoing rules relate to the personal…
Lev 22:1. The foregoing rules relate to the personal qualifications of priests: here follow several cautions relating to the privileges which they and their families had of eating their share of the sacrifices, from Lev 22:1 to Lev 22:17, which cautions served to remind them of that reverence and moral purity wherewith their worship ought to be paid to God.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain 1And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2Speak unto…
B.—”KEEPING HOLY OF THE SACRIFICE, OR OF WHAT HAS BEEN HALLOWED.—LANGE.
Lev_22:1-33
Read full note →
1And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the Lord. 3Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the Lord. 4What man soever of the seed of Aaran is a leper, or hath a running issue; he shall not eat of the holy things, until he be clean. And whoso toucheth any thing that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goeth from him; 5or whosoever toucheth any1 creeping thing, whereby he may be made unclean, or a man of whom he may take uncleanness,2 whatsoever uncleanness he hath; 6the soul which hath touched any such shall be unclean until even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash [bathe3] his flesh with water. 7And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food. 8That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith: I am the Lord. 9They shall therefore keep mine ordinance,4 lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it: I the Lord do sanctify them.
10There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing. 11But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and Hebrews 5 that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat [food6]. 12If the priest’s daughter also be married unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things. 13But if the priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as7 in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s meat [food6]: but there shall no stranger eat thereof. 14And if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly [inadvertently8], then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it, and shall give it unto the priest with the holy thing. 15And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer9 unto the Lord; 16or suffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass, when they eat [or, lade themselves with the iniquity of trespass in their eating10] their holy things: for I the Lord do sanctify them.
17And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 18Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers11 in Israel, that will offer his oblation [offering12] for all [any of] his vows, and for all [any of] his free-will offerings, which they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt offering; 19ye shall offer at your own will [for your acceptance13] a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the 20goats. But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you 21And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep [of the flock14], it shall be perfect to be accepted: there shall be no blemish therein. 22Blind, or broken, or maimed,15 or having a wen [or ulcerous16], or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the Lord, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the Lord. 23Either a bullock or a lamb [one of the flock17] that hath anything superfluous18 or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted. 24Ye shall not offer unto the Lord that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof [make such19] in your land. 25Neither from a stranger’s20 hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these; because their corruption is in them, and blemishes be in them: they shall not be accepted for you
26And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 27When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; and from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto 28the Lord. And whether it be cow or ewe [female of the flock21], ye shall not kill it and her young both in one day.
29And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the Lord, offer it at your own will [for your acceptance13]. 30On the same day it shall be eaten up; ye shall leave none of it until the morrow: I am the Lord.
31Therefore shall ye keep my commandments, and do them: I am the Lord. 32Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the Lord which hallow you, 33that brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the Lord.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev_22:5. The Sam. and LXX. supply the word unclean. According to the law, the “creeping thing” could only communicate uncleanness when dead.
Lev_22:5. Rosenmüller translates: or a man who may be unclean on account of it, sc. the creeping thing. He refers the pronoun in לֹו to שֶׁרֶץ
Lev_22:6. רָחַץ. See Textual Note 30 on Lev_14:8.
Lev_22:9. שָׁמְרוּ אֶת־מִשְׁמַרְתִּי The want of an appropriate verb and noun from the same root in English makes it impossible to give the full force of this phrase so often impressively repeated. See Gen_26:5; Lev_8:35; Num_3:7; Num_9:19. Lange uses a paraphrase: Und sie sollen beobachten, was gegen mich zu beobachten ist.
Lev_22:11. The Sam., LXX. and Chald. have the plural.
Lev_22:11. בְּלַחְמּוֹ. See Com. on Lev_21:6. On the daghesh in the מּ See Textual Note 10 on Lev_4:13.
Lev_22:13. Sixteen MSS. for the particle of comparison כִּ have בִּ.
Lev_22:14. בִּשְׁגָגָה. See Textual Note 1 on Lev_4:2.
Lev_22:15. יָרִימוּ, lit. which they heave or lift up; but evidently the reference is more general than to the heave-offerings, and the offer of the A. V. is by all means to be retained.
Lev_22:16. The sense of this verse is doubtful. The A. V., Patrick, Pool, Keil and others refer the pronouns them and they to the people, and understand the precept that the priests should prevent the people from eating of the holy things which it belonged to the priests to eat; on the other hand, the margin of the A. V., Calvin, Knobel, Zunz, Riggs and Lange understand it as meaning lade themselves with the iniquity of trespass in their eating. The latter is more in accordance with the general subject of the chapter, and is preferable. So the LXX. understood by the use of ἐαυτούς. So Houbigant.
Lev_22:18. The Sam., 14 MSS, and all the ancient versions supply that sojourn.
Lev_22:18. קָרְבָן. See Textual Note2 on Lev_2:1.
Lev_22:19. לִרְצנְכֶם. See Textual Note5 on Lev_1:3. Comp. also Lev_22:21.
Lev_22:21. בַצֹּאן includes both sheep (A. V.) and goats (marg.). It is better therefore to use the ordinary comprehensive term.
Lev_22:22. On the precise sense of חָרוּץ, the authorities differ. LXX. γλωσσότμητον = having the tongue cut; Targ. Jon. = having the eyelids torn; Jerome, cicatricem habens. The A. V. has followed the Targ. Onk. in a sense which may be considered as sufficiently general to include all the others.
Lev_22:22. יַבֶּלֶת, adj. fem. from יָבַּל = to flow. It is ἅπ. λεγ., but there seems no doubt of its meaning.
Lev_22:23. שֶׂה is neither specifically a lamb (A. V.) nor a kid (marg.), but may be either. See Textual Note14 on Lev_22:21. Gesen.: “a noun of unity corresponding to the collect. צֹאן, a flock, sc. of sheep or goats.”
Lev_22:23. שָׂרוּעַ is an animal which has an inequality between the corresponding parts, as the two legs, or two eyes, so that one of them is longer or larger than it should be; while קָלוּט, on the other hand, signifies one having such part smaller than its normally developed fellow.
Lev_22:24 According to all authorities the preceding clause refers to the four ways of castration practised among the ancients (see Aristot. hist. an. ix. 37, 3, and the other authorities cited by Knobel and Keil); the latter clause contains, incidentally, an absolute prohibition of such customs in the land, and has nothing to do with sacrifice, there being no word for offering in the Heb. Such is the interpretation of Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 40) and of the Jewish authorities generally. So also the LXX., the Targs., and the Vulg. The sense of the A. V., however, is found in the Syr., and is sustained by Knobel and Lange, who says expressly: “It is particularly to be noticed that castration of animals was not universally forbidden in Israel, only no castrated animals might be offered in sacrifice.”
Lev_22:25. בֶּן־נֵכָר, a different word from the זָר of Lev_22:10 and the גֵּר of Lev_22:18, and probably referring to a foreigner, not even sojourning in the land.
Lev_22:28. See Note 17 on Lev_22:23. אֹתוֹ וְאֶת־בְּנוֹ in masc. form; but Rosenmüller notes that in regard to brute animals, the verbs, as well as the nouns and adjectives, take no note of sex.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The analysis of this chapter given by Keil is a very clear one. “Lev_22:1-16. Reverence for things sanctified.—The law on this matter was (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev_22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat of them who was not a member of the priestly family (Lev_22:10-16). Lev_22:17-33. Acceptable Sacrifices.” Lange introduces the chapter thus: “The keeping holy of the sacrifice was to correspond to the keeping holy of the priesthood, since this is indeed at the bottom an expression of keeping the priesthood holy. It was most strongly insisted upon.” The centre, however, of the whole Levitical system is rather the sacrifice than the priest, and the priest is for the sake of the sacrifice, as is distinctly brought out in this chapter, rather than the reverse. Certainly the sacrifice was earlier, and the necessity for it more fundamental. The symbolical holiness of the priesthood must therefore be considered as an essential requirement in order to their offering of acceptable sacrifices. Lange thus analyzes the chapter: “a. In relation to the conduct of the priest, Lev_22:3-9. b. In relation to the conduct of the laity, Lev_22:10-16. c. In relation to the condition of the sacrificial animals, and especially to the fact that everything defective was excluded, Lev_22:17-25; but also that every proper offering was to be offered to the Lord in the right way, or to be eaten as a thank-offering, Lev_22:26-33.”
The chapter consists of three Divine communications, all given to Moses, the first (Lev_22:1-16) to be communicated to Aaron and his sons, prescribing under what conditions the priests are not to touch the offerings (1–9), and who beside the priests might partake of them (10–16); the second (17–25) is to be communicated not only to Aaron, but unto all the children of Israel, determining the quality of the victims; while the third (26–33) is to Moses alone, prescribing certain conditions to be observed with all victims, and concluding the chapter.
Lev_22:1-9. For his view of the difficult passage in Lev_22:2, “Lange refers to his translation, which runs thus: that they profane not my holy name—even they, who have it in charge to keep holy for Me,” thus referring the relative אֲשֶׁר to the name. Other commentators refer it to the holy things of the children of Israel, as in the A. V., LXX. and Vulg. (Rosenmüller, Knobel, Kalisch, Murphy, Keil, Clark, etc.). The sense of the whole verse is certainly that the priests should not profane the holy gifts of the people by approaching them when themselves in a condition unlawful for priestly ministrations. The expression separate themselves from the holy things is clearly to be understood as meaning under the circumstances mentioned below. “הִנָּזֵר with מִן, to keep away, separate one’s self from anything, i.e. not to regard or treat them as on a par with unconsecrated things.” Keil. The Divine acceptance of the sacrifices was expressed by the priests’ eating certain parts of them as the representatives of God. These were allowed to be eaten by those who were permanently disqualified by physical defects from offering the sacrifices (Lev_21:22); but if consumed by those in a state of uncleanness, would be a profanation of the name of the Lord. The prohibition extends not only to the eating, but to the touching them at all. Lev_22:3. Shall be cut off from my presence is considered by Rosenmüller and others as equivalent to the expression “shall be cut off from the midst of his people.” A better interpretation (Knobel, Clark) is that it means: “shall be excluded from the sanctuary”—deprived of his priestly office. Lange, however, interprets it that “the penalty of death is pronounced upon every one of the priestly family who approaches the holy things in a state of uncleanness, whether it be to offer or to eat the priestly sacrificial food.” But he afterwards adds: “With the positive death penalty is connected at the same time a mysterious destiny of death, which Jehovah reserves to Himself. The legislation has as yet no idea of the ruder forms of desecration of the sacrifice in the future as e.g.1Sa_2:12 sqq.” This was the penalty attached to the violation of any of the precepts in this paragraph. The uncleannesses mentioned in Lev_22:4-6 have already been treated in their appropriate places. They are only mentioned here as showing that they excluded the priest from contact with holy things. Lev_22:6-7, prescribe for the priest, as for the people in similar cases, the simplest forms of purification, and when these are observed, limit the time of the uncleanness to the going down of the sun. In accordance with the considerate character of the Divine legislation, it then allows him to eat of the sacrifice, because it is his food. In Lev_22:8 the eating of that which had not been properly slain, and was therefore still contaminated with the blood, is forbidden with especial emphasis to the priests whose office was to make atonement with the blood. This had already been forbidden to all the people (Lev_11:39-40) with but a slight penalty for transgression. Here the transgression for the priest comes under the heavier sentence of Lev_22:3. Calvin notes that such a special prohibition was needed lest the priests might think themselves, in virtue of their office, exempt from the laws binding upon the rest of the people. Lev_22:9. Lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, gives the penalty in general of a priestly neglect to keep God’s ordinance, but is not necessarily to be understood of the penalty for the breach of each particular precept mentioned. The command here, as everywhere, is made to rest upon the consideration, I the Lord do sanctify them.
Lev_22:10-16. This forms the second part of the first Divine communication, and prescribes who beside the priests themselves might or might not eat of the holy things. It has nothing to do with the most holy things which could be eaten only by the priests themselves. “The זָר is the stranger relatively;” accordingly those who are not Israelites, not Levites, not relatives; here, those who are not priests. He might not eat of the holy food of the offerings, however near he might stand to the priest as a neighbor, or a day laborer; but on the other hand, the purchased slave, since he had become by circumcision an Israelite and one of the household of the priest, might certainly eat of it, together with those born in the priest’s house. And here again the house appears in its full theocratic significance. (Comp. Com. on Matt., p. 146.) It results from this, that the married daughter of a priest is excluded; she belonged to another house (if it were a priestly house she might of course eat there with them). Her right revives again, however, if she comes back to her father’s house as a childless widow or divorced; but if she had children, she formed with the children another house. If one who had no right ate of the holy things by mistake, he must make restitution to the priest for what he had eaten, and add a fifth part thereto. “The verse refers only to something unimportant, for in the case of greater things he was commanded, moreover, to offer a trespass offering (Lev_5:15).” Knobel. “The difference is in this, that here the subject is the transgression of eating the priestly portion of the heave offering; there, of heedless injury done to the sanctuary in regard to the portion hallowed to Jehovah.” [It seems more probable that the case here referred to is exactly included under that in Lev_5:15-16, and that the trespass offering is not expressly mentioned here because it is only necessary to show that this case comes under the category of those for which the trespass offering was required. Calvin well observes that this prohibition was necessary to prevent the “holy things being regarded as common food.”—F. G.] “Here too the law is led back to I the LORD do sanctify them. The history of David (1 Samuel 21) and the New Testament explanation of it (Mat_12:3) show that necessity provided exceptions to this rule. But the rule rests upon the truth that religion must be kept holy, in the strongest sense, even in its sacrifices, otherwise guilt will accumulate upon the people who profess the religion (Lev_22:16). When deceit is practised against Jehovah in any way, e.g. by feigned fasts, by asceticism, joined with secret sins, by fanatic faith joined with a life of plunder, the manliness itself of the natural man is buried more and more, and the intercourse of the people loses more and more of its saving salt of moral truth—not to speak of the refining fire of the spirit of the new birth.—When they eat their holy things.—That which as holy things belonged to them no longer.” Lange. On the meaning of the last clause see Textual Note 10. The provision in regard to the purchased servant in Lev_22:11 is of importance as showing how completely such servants became identified with the house of their masters. The command was given only about a year after the Exodus when the tribes of Israel doubtless included a large number of the circumcised descendants of the servants of the patriarchs; but there can be no stronger identification than is here given in allowing the purchased servants of the priests from whatever nation, in contradistinction to a servant hired from any other family in Israel, to eat of the priestly portion of the holy things.
Lev_22:17-25. Moses is directed to convey this communication unto all the children of Israel, because it was important to have them all entirely familiar with the conditions necessary to an acceptable victim. They were to know all the laws; but their attention would naturally be more fixed upon those which were immediately addressed to them. The law in regard to the victims necessarily applies to all cases, whether they were offered by persons of the house of Israel, or of the strangers (Lev_22:18), because it prescribes what was required in the victim itself in order to its acceptance. The burnt offering is first treated of (Lev_22:18-20), and then the peace offering. Vow and free-will offerings might be made of either kind of sacrifice; but the regulations concerning the victim differed. If it was a burnt offering, it must be a male, as well as without blemish, according to the law of the burnt offering in Lev_1:3; Lev_1:10; if it was a peace offering, there was no law concerning the sex of the victim; but it was still required (Lev_22:21) there shall be no blemish therein. The rigidness of the law was, however, somewhat relaxed in case of the free-will offering (Lev_22:23), so that for this purpose a victim was allowed to have some thing superfluous or lacking in his parts. For the distinction between the vow and the free-will offering, see Com. on Lev_7:15. The other kind of peace offering, the thank offering, is not mentioned here; being the highest of all, it of course required the perfect victim. Among the Gentiles also a sense of natural fitness generally required that the victim should be integrus and τελείος. See abundant references in Rosenmüller and Knobel here, in Outram L. I. c. 9, and Bochart Hieroz. I. L. II. c. 46. Lev_22:24 absolutely prohibits the offering in sacrifice of any castrated animals. See Textual Note. Lange: “The minute, precise definition of this defect requires the perfect fitness for breeding in the male animals, without which it lost in a great degree its signification of a worthy resignation.” In Lev_22:25 the priests are forbidden to accept even from a stranger’s hand victims marked with any of the defects that have been enumerated, because their corruption is in them,i.e. because these defects render them unfit for sacrifice. The bread of your God “must be derived from a perfect victim to represent that which is acceptable to God, which in moral things is perfect righteousness.” Murphy.
Lev_22:26-33. The final communication made to Moses alone. Lange: “Even in the case of sacrificial animals without blemish, there yet appear particular conditions of acceptableness for the offerers. First, the victim must be eight days old; it must be kept seven days under the dam to enjoy the full pleasure of existence.” See the same law in Exo_22:30 in regard to firstlings. “The reason for this was, that the young animal had not attained to a mature and self-sustained life during the first week of its existence.” Keil. It is noticeable that the age at which the animal became admissible for sacrifice is the same as that at which man was received into covenant relation by circumcision. At this age, too, the animal first began to be eatable, and this fact doubtless had its significance in the laws for the symbolical food of Jehovah. Similar restrictions of age were in use among the Romans, Pliny Nat. Hist. viii. 77. The prohibition in Lev_22:28 of killing both dam and offspring on the same day is analogous to the thrice repeated precept: “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exo_23:19; Exo_34:26; Deu_14:21), and rests upon the same principle as the prohibition to take from a bird’s nest the mother together with the young (Deu_22:6-7). All these precepts were of an educational character and imposed upon the Israelites the duty of keeping sacred, even among the lower animals, the relation which God has established between parent and offspring. The law could not have been for the sake of the brute, but was altogether for man’s sake; he must not allow himself to violate the finer susceptibilities implanted in his nature, even when mere utilitarian reasoning could see no use in the command. The Targ. Jon. prefaces the command with the words: “As our Father is merciful in heaven, so be ye merciful on earth.” The connection here applies the precept especially to killing for sacrifice; but it is noticeable that the word used is the more general שָׁחַט, as if the command was meant to apply to all killing whatever. In Lev_22:30 the law for eating the thank offering on the same day on which it is presented is repeated from Lev_7:15. Such repetitions, if not of necessity, are yet at least highly desirable in a lengthened code of laws. The conclusion, Lev_22:31-33, is like that of chapters 18 and 19, and rests upon the fact that He who gives the commands is Jehovah—Jehovah who sanctifies them, and who has brought them up out of the land of Egypt. Lange: “I am Jehovah is said again to seal this command, and the following explanation shows plainly the educational view: that Jehovah seeks to bring them up to be a holy people of God by means of these fixed directions. The educational idea is negative: only certainly no kind of dishonor, or deceit, or faithlessness is allowable in matters of religion.”
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. “The symbolical and definite thought of the whole chapter has the highest meaning for every form of religion, but particularly for the Christian Church. It seeks a faultless, normal priesthood, a priesthood which does not darken, but glorifies religion, the service of God. When we think of the sad fact that priests have often altogether, or in a great degree, corrupted their religious community, or are now corrupting it, that so many spiritual and hierarchical cripples of every kind darken and disfigure so many congregations, the contents of our section will give us a strong witness against a laxity and untruth which is guilty especially of the corruption of the religious life. The church training was to be before all things self-training, the ladder of the churchly life. How many reflections in regard to the choice of the theological profession, the tests, the ordinations, and the ecclesiastical visitations belong to this chapter. Also the family circumstances of spiritual persons are here estimated according to their significance.” Lange.
II. The relation of the priests to the people is here again distinctly brought out. They were under precisely the same laws as others, became unclean from the same causes, and were to be purified in the same way; in short, they were fully citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. But inasmuch as they had also special duties toward God, they were incapacitated for their performance by this uncleanness.
III. The identification of the household with its head, always strongly marked in the Hebrew polity, appears in the case of the priest with especial clearness. The family is the unit of the Hebrew commonwealth and the basis of the Mosaic legislation. On this see Maine’s Ancient Law.
IV. The law of the conditions of the acceptable victim was precisely the same for the Israelite and the stranger. The law thus intimates not obscurely that in their approach to God all men stand on precisely the same footing. “There is no distinction of persons.”
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Lange: “Chap. 22 is concerned with the pure conduct of the priests face to face with the sacrifice of the congregation; observances of cleanness of the most varied kind, and especially of sacrifices according to their spiritual meaning.”
As symbolical cleanness was required of those who partook of the sacrifices which typified the death of Christ, so is spiritual cleanness necessary in those who feed upon the memorial of the same. See 1Co_11:28, etc. Wordsworth. The whole house of the priest was sanctified through him to partake of the holy things; so is the whole house of the Great High Priest sanctified through Him, even His body, the blessed company of all faithful people.
But to be partakers of the table of this Great High Priest men must not be merely sojourners in His house, or serving Him as hired servants for gain, but truly identified with Him, and forming an actual part of His household. Wordsworth.
Again and again the law insists that the victim for the acceptable sacrifice must be without blemish. Whatever is offered to God must be of the best; especially must the offering of the heart be perfect and complete. Christ Himself is described as having offered Himself “without spot,” and the Church which He presents unto Himself must “be holy and without blemish.” Eph_5:27.
By forbidding the Israelites to kill on the same day the dam and its offspring God taught them, and through them the church in all ages, to be merciful; not only merciful to those who can understand and appreciate it, but to exercise this virtue for its own sake—to be merciful always and everywhere, even as our Father in heaven is merciful.
Calvin draws from the often repeated and here extended precept that the sacrifice must be perfect and without blemish, this lesson: that whatever we offer to God must be whole-hearted and true. We cannot serve God and mammon. He applies this to prayers in which the heart is not engaged, and a multitude of other things in which man may undertake to offer an imperfect and divided, and therefore unacceptable service.
Footnotes:
[1]Lev_22:5. The Sam. and LXX. supply the word unclean. According to the law, the “creeping thing” could only communicate uncleanness when dead.
[2]Lev_22:5. Rosenmüller translates: or a man who may be unclean on account of it, sc. the creeping thing. He refers the pronoun in לֹו to שֶׁרֶץ
[3]Lev_22:6. רָחַץ. See Textual Note 30 on Lev_14:8.
[4]Lev_22:9. שָׁמְרוּ אֶת־מִשְׁמַרְתִּי The want of an appropriate verb and noun from the same root in English makes it impossible to give the full force of this phrase so often impressively repeated. See Gen_26:5; Lev_8:35; Num_3:7; Num_9:19. Lange uses a paraphrase: Und sie sollen beobachten, was gegen mich zu beobachten ist.
[5]Lev_22:11. The Sam., LXX. and Chald. have the plural.
[6]Lev_22:11. בְּלַחְמּוֹ. See Com. on Lev_21:6. On the daghesh in the מּ See Textual Note 10 on Lev_4:13.
[7]Lev_22:13. Sixteen MSS. for the particle of comparison כִּ have בִּ.
[8]Lev_22:14. בִּשְׁגָגָה. See Textual Note 1 on Lev_4:2.
[9]Lev_22:15. יָרִימוּ, lit. which they heave or lift up; but evidently the reference is more general than to the heave-offerings, and the offer of the A. V. is by all means to be retained.
[10]Lev_22:16. The sense of this verse is doubtful. The A. V., Patrick, Pool, Keil and others refer the pronouns them and they to the people, and understand the precept that the priests should prevent the people from eating of the holy things which it belonged to the priests to eat; on the other hand, the margin of the A. V., Calvin, Knobel, Zunz, Riggs and Lange understand it as meaning lade themselves with the iniquity of trespass in their eating. The latter is more in accordance with the general subject of the chapter, and is preferable. So the LXX. understood by the use of ἐαυτούς. So Houbigant.
[11]Lev_22:18. The Sam., 14 MSS, and all the ancient versions supply that sojourn.
[12]Lev_22:18. קָרְבָן. See Textual Note2 on Lev_2:1.
[13]Lev_22:19. לִרְצנְכֶם. See Textual Note5 on Lev_1:3. Comp. also Lev_22:21.
[14]Lev_22:21. בַצֹּאן includes both sheep (A. V.) and goats (marg.). It is better therefore to use the ordinary comprehensive term.
[15]Lev_22:22. On the precise sense of חָרוּץ, the authorities differ. LXX. γλωσσότμητον = having the tongue cut; Targ. Jon. = having the eyelids torn; Jerome, cicatricem habens. The A. V. has followed the Targ. Onk. in a sense which may be considered as sufficiently general to include all the others.
[16]Lev_22:22. יַבֶּלֶת, adj. fem. from יָבַּל = to flow. It is ἅπ. λεγ., but there seems no doubt of its meaning.
[17]Lev_22:23. שֶׂה is neither specifically a lamb (A. V.) nor a kid (marg.), but may be either. See Textual Note14 on Lev_22:21. Gesen.: “a noun of unity corresponding to the collect. צֹאן, a flock, sc. of sheep or goats.”
[18]Lev_22:23. שָׂרוּעַ is an animal which has an inequality between the corresponding parts, as the two legs, or two eyes, so that one of them is longer or larger than it should be; while קָלוּט, on the other hand, signifies one having such part smaller than its normally developed fellow.
[19]Lev_22:24 According to all authorities the preceding clause refers to the four ways of castration practised among the ancients (see Aristot. hist. an. ix. 37, 3, and the other authorities cited by Knobel and Keil); the latter clause contains, incidentally, an absolute prohibition of such customs in the land, and has nothing to do with sacrifice, there being no word for offering in the Heb. Such is the interpretation of Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 40) and of the Jewish authorities generally. So also the LXX., the Targs., and the Vulg. The sense of the A. V., however, is found in the Syr., and is sustained by Knobel and Lange, who says expressly: “It is particularly to be noticed that castration of animals was not universally forbidden in Israel, only no castrated animals might be offered in sacrifice.”
[20]Lev_22:25. בֶּן־נֵכָר, a different word from the זָר of Lev_22:10 and the גֵּר of Lev_22:18, and probably referring to a foreigner, not even sojourning in the land.
[21]Lev_22:28. See Note 17 on Lev_22:23. אֹתוֹ וְאֶת־בְּנוֹ in masc. form; but Rosenmüller notes that in regard to brute animals, the verbs, as well as the nouns and adjectives, take no note of sex.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) And the Lord spake unto Moses.—In this chapter…
XXII.
(1) And the Lord spake unto Moses.—In this chapter the laws regulating the conduct of the priests in their holy ministrations are continued. As the last chapter concluded with the permission to disqualified priests to eat of the sacrifices, this chapter opens with conditions under which even the legally qualified priests must not partake of the offerings.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. H. Mackintosh 1880 · Public Domain Leviticus 21 - 22
Leviticus 21 - 22
These chapters unfold, with great minuteness of detail, the divine requirements in reference to those who were privileged to draw near as priests to "offer the bread of their God." In this, as in the preceding section, we have conduct as the result, not the procuring cause of the relationship. This should be carefully borne in mind. The sons of Aaron were, in virtue of their birth, priests unto God. They all stood in this relationship, one as well as another. It was not a matter of attainment, a question of progress, something which one had, and another had not. All the sons of Aaron were priests. They were born into a priestly place. Their capacity to understand and enjoy their position and its attendant privileges was, obviously, a different thing altogether. One might be a babe; and another might have reached the point of mature and vigorous manhood. The former would, of necessity, be unable to eat of the priestly food, being a babe for whom "milk" and not" strong meat" was adapted: but he was as truly a member of the priestly house as the man who could tread, with firm step, the courts of the Lord’s house, and feed upon "the wave breast" and "heave shoulder" of the sacrifice.
Read full note →
This distinction is easily understood in the case of the sons of Aaron, and, hence, it will serve to illustrate, in a very simple manner, the truth as to the members of the true priestly house over which our Great High Priest presides, and to which all true believers belong. (Heb. 3: 6) Every child of God is a priest. He is enrolled as a member of Christ’s priestly house. He may be very ignorant; but his position, as a priest, is not founded upon knowledge, but upon life. His experience may be very shallow; but his place as a priest does not depend upon experience, but upon life. His capacity may be very limited; but his relationship as a priest does not rest upon an enlarged capacity, but upon life. He was born into the position and relationship of a priest. He did not work himself thereinto. It was not by any efforts of his own that he became a priest. He became a priest by birth. The spiritual priesthood, together with all the spiritual functions attaching thereunto, is the necessary appendage to spiritual birth. The capacity to enjoy the privileges and to discharge the functions of a position must not be confounded with the position itself. They must ever be kept distinct. relationship is one thing; capacity is quite another.
Furthermore, in looking at the family of Aaron, we see that nothing could break the relationship between him and his sons. There were many things which would interfere with the full enjoyment of the privileges attaching to the relationship, A son of Aaron might "defile himself by the dead." He might defile himself by forming an unholy alliance. He might have some bodily "blemish." He might be "blind or lame."’ He might be "a dwarf." Any of these things would have interfered, very materially, with his enjoyment of the privileges, and his discharge of the functions pertaining to his relationship, as we read, "No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish: he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and the holy; only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them." (Lev. 21: 21-23) But none of these things could possibly touch the fact of a relationship founded upon the established principles of human nature. Though a son of Aaron were a dwarf, that dwarf was a son of Aaron. True, he was, as a dwarf, shorn of many precious privileges and lofty dignities pertaining to the priesthood; but he was a son of Aaron all the while. He could neither enjoy the same measure or character of communion, nor yet discharge the same elevated functions of priestly Service, as one who had reached to manhood’s appointed stature; but he was a member of the priestly house, and, as such, permitted to "eat the bread of his God." The relationship was genuine, though the development was so defective.
The spiritual application of all this is as simple as it is practical. To be a child of God, is one thing; to be in the enjoyment of priestly communion and priestly worship, is quite another. The latter is, alas! interfered with by many things. Circumstances and associations are allowed to act upon us by their defiling influence. We are not to suppose that all Christians enjoy the same elevation of walk, the same intimacy of fellowship, the same felt nearness to Christ. Alas! alas! they do not. Many of us have to mourn over our spiritual defects. There is lameness of walk, defective vision, stunted growth; or we show ourselves to be defiled by contact with evil, and to be weakened and hindered by unhallowed associations. In a word, as the sons of Aaron, though being priests by birth, were, nevertheless, deprived of many privileges through ceremonial defilement and physical defects; so we, though being priests unto God, by spiritual birth, are deprived of many of the high and holy privileges of our position, by moral defilement and spiritual defects. We are shorn of many of our dignities through defective spiritual development. We lack; singleness of eye, spiritual vigour, whole-hearted devotedness. Saved we are, through the free grace of God, on the ground of Christ’s perfect sacrifice. "We are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus;" but, then, salvation is one thing; communion is quite another. Sonship is one thing; obedience is quite another.
These things should be carefully distinguished. The section before us illustrates the distinction with great force and clearness. If one of the sons of Aaron happened to be "broken-footed, or broken-handed," was he deprived of his sonship? Assuredly not. Was he deprived of his priestly position? By no means. It was distinctly declared, "He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy." What, then, did he lose by his physical blemish? He was forbidden to tread some of the higher walks of priestly service and worship. "Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar." These were very serious privations; and though it may be objected that a man could not help many of these physical defects, that did not alter the matter. Jehovah could not have a blemished priest at His altar, or a blemished sacrifice thereon. Both the priest and the sacrifice should be perfect. "No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire." (Lev. 21: 22) "But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer; for it shall not be acceptable for you." (Lev. 22: 20)
Now, we have both the perfect priest, and the perfect sacrifice, in the Person of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. He, having "offered himself without spot to God," passed into the heavens, as our great High Priest, where He ever liveth to make intercession for us. The Epistle to the Hebrews dwells elaborately upon these two points. It throws into vivid contrast the sacrifice and priesthood of the Mosaic system and the Sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ. In Him we have divine perfectness, whether as the Victim or as the Priest. We have all that God could require, and all that man could need. His precious blood has put away all our sins; and His all-prevailing intercession ever maintains us in all the perfectness of the place into which His blood has introduced us. "We are complete in him;" (Col. 2); and yet, so feeble and so faltering are we in ourselves; so full of failure and infirmity; so prone to err and stumble in our onward way, that we could not stand for a moment, were it not that "He ever lives to make intercession for us." These things have been dwelt upon in the earlier chapters of this volume; and it is, therefore, needless to enter further upon them here. Those who have anything like correct apprehensions of the grand foundation truths of Christianity, and any measure of experience in the Christian life, will be able to understand how it is that, though "complete in him who is the head of all principality and power, they, nevertheless, need, while down here amid the infirmities, conflicts, and buffetings of earth, the powerful advocacy of their adorable and divine High Priest. The believer is "washed, sanctified, and justified. (1 Cor. 6) He is "accepted in the beloved." (Eph. 1. 6) He can never come into judgement, as regards his person. (See John 5: 24, where the word is krisin and not katakrisin) Death and judgement are behind him, because he is united to Christ who has passed through them both, on his behalf and in his stead. All these things are divinely true of the very weakest, most unlettered, and inexperienced member of the family of God; but yet, inasmuch as he caries about with him a nature so incorrigibly bad, and so irremediably ruined, that no discipline can correct it, and no medicine cure it, inasmuch as he is the tenant of a body of sin and death - as he is surrounded, on all sides, by hostile influences - as he is called to cope, perpetually, with the combined forces of the world, the flesh, and the devil - he could never keep his ground, much less make progress, were he not upheld by the all-prevailing intercession of his great High Priest, who bears the names of His people upon His breast and upon His shoulder.
Some, I am aware, have found great difficulty in reconciling the idea of the believer’s perfect standing in Christ with the need of priesthood. "If," it is argued, "he is perfect, what need has he of a priest?" The two things are as distinctly taught in the word as they are compatible one with another, and understood in the experience of every rightly-instructed Christian. It is of the very last importance to apprehend, with clearness and accuracy, the perfect harmony between these two points. The believer is perfect in Christ; but, in himself, he is a poor feeble creature, ever liable to fall. Hence, the unspeakable blessedness of having One who can manage all his affairs for him, at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens - One who upholds him continually by the right hand of His righteousness - One who will never let him go - One who is able to save to the uttermost - One who is "the same yesterday, today, and for ever" - One who will bear him triumphantly through all the difficulties and dangers which surround him; and, finally, "present him faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy." Blessed for ever be the grace that has made such ample provision for all our need in the blood of a Spotless Victim and the intercession of a divine High Priest!
Dear christian reader, let it be our care so to walk, so to "keep ourselves unspotted from the world," so to stand apart from all unhallowed associations, that we may enjoy the highest privileges and discharge the most elevated functions of our position as members of the priestly house of which Christ is the Head. We have "boldness to enter into the holiest, through the blood of Jesus" - "we have a great High Priest over the house of God." (Heb. 10) Nothing can ever rob us of these privileges. But, then, our communion may be marred - our worship may be hindered - our holy functions may remain undischarged. Those ceremonial matters against which the sons of Aaron were warned, in the section before us, have their antitypes in the Christian economy. Had they to be warned against unholy contact? So have we. Had they to be warned against unholy alliance? So have we. Had they to be warned against all manner of ceremonial uncleanness? So have we to be warned against "all filthiness of the flesh and spirit." (1 Cor. 7) Were they shorn of many of their loftiest priestly privileges by bodily blemish and imperfect natural growth! So are we, by moral blemish, and imperfect spiritual growth.
Will any one venture to call in question the practical importance of such principles as these? Is it not obvious that the more highly we estimate the blessings which attach to that priestly house of which we have been constituted members, in virtue of our spiritual birth, the more carefully shall we guard against everything which might tend in any wise, to rob us of their enjoyment? Undoubtedly. And this it is which renders the close study of our section so pre-eminently practical. May we feel its power, through the application of God the Holy Ghost! Then shall we enjoy our priestly place. Then shall we faithfully discharge our priestly functions. We shall be able "to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God." (Rom. 12: 1) We shall be able to "offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name." (Heb. 13: 15) We shall be able, as members of the "spiritual house" and the "holy priesthood," to "offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2: 5) We shall be able, in some small degree, to anticipate that blissful time when, from a redeemed creation, the hallelujahs of intelligent and fervent praise shall ascend to the throne of God and the Lamb throughout the everlasting ages.
C. H. Mackintosh, Notes on the Pentateuch — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain This chapter, which is a continuation of chapter 21,
This chapter, which is a continuation of chapter 21,
(1) commands that the ceremonially defiled priest shall not officiate or partake of the sacrificial offerings;
Read full note →
(2) declares who may and who may not partake of the priests" portions of the sacrifices;
(3) orders that every sacrificial victim be unblemished.
Vers. 1-9. In the previous chapter, the priests have been commanded to avoid occasions of ceremonial defilement, but there are times in which they must be unclean. At these times they are here instructed that they must abstain from their priestly functions, and not even eat of the priests" portions until they have been cleansed. The command to Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, in verse 2, must be read in the light of the following verses, and understood to mean that they are to separate themselves from the holy things when they are unclean. The different forms of uncleanness which are to produce this effect are enumerated in verses 4-6. In most cases the uncleanness would not last beyond sunset on the day on which it was incurred, but occasionally, as when a priest became a leper, a permanent disqualification would be caused, or one that lasted for a considerable length of time. The law with respect to abstaining from holy things while unclean is to be of permanent obligation. Whoever disobeys it is to be cut off from God"s presence; that is, he is to be excluded from the sanctuary by being deprived of his priestly office. Verse 8 repeats the prohibition of eating flesh containing blood.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD Vers. 1-33. Holiness of priests and sacrifices.
While much that appertained only to a temporary dispensation, still great principles included in the formal regulations, as
I RELIGION SANCTIFIES, preserves, and perfects the whole humanity of man.
1. It preserves the true order God first, the creature subject to the Creator.
2. It utilizes the central power of human nature, the moral and spiritual The mind is the man, and the mind is not mere intellect, but moral consciousness and aspiration after God.
3. It puts the individual and the social in their true relation to that which supports both the positive and public worship of God. The temple at Jerusalem represented the center of the nation, Jehovah"s throne. Humanity can be, will be, developed into a true family of nations only round the house of God. All non-religious influences arc disintegrating to the nation and the world.
II THE LIFE OF MAN IS THE SANCTIFICATION OF ALL OTHER LIFE ON THE EARTH. The lower natures depend on the higher. God has taught us by his Law not only to use them, but to reverence them and to hallow their instincts and the laws of nature as exhibited in them. Science may discover secrets, but it will not protect the weak. The reverence for that which is below us is even more a yielding up of our nature to the Spirit of God than the mere bowing prostrate before that which is above us. The selfishness and tyranny of the stronger over the weaker can only be cast out by religion.
III ALL LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH FREE AGENCY. "At your own will." The true service of God is that which the heart renders. We blend our will with God"s will in the acceptable life. At your will, but by the regulations of the Law. The mere capricious individualism of the present day is no true liberty, but becomes the most degrading bondage. The covenant relation of Jehovah with his people lay at the foundation of their obedience: "I hallow you," therefore hallow my commandments and my Name. In that loving bond of sanctification all believers find their strength. They are not their own, they are bought with a price. Paul rejoiced to be a "slave of Jesus Christ." The Jews made their Law unto death, not life, because they departed from its simplicity and forgot its spirituality, and "made the Word of God of none effect by their traditions," forging their own fetters. The key-note of the Law is redemption. "I am the Lord which brought you out of Egypt," etc. The key-note of redemption is love. R.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR Chapter 22Priestly disqualifications.
Cf. Mat_25:31-46. We saw that inherited infirmity, such as is mentioned in verses 18-21 of last chapter, while it excludes from office, does not exclude from sustenance. We now come across a disqualification sufficient to exclude from both office and support, and this is contracted defilement. Any priest venturing before God with uncleanness upon him will be cut off from his presence. We are taught hereby
I THAT IT IS CONTRACTED, NOT TRANSMITTED, DEFILEMENT WHICH NECESSITATES COMPLETE EXILE FROM JEHOVAH. The priest"s child providentially scarred or maimed, whose blemish has been from the womb, and in which he had no voluntary share, which excluded properly from office, is not excluded from sustenance from the altar; while, on the other hand, he who has through negligence or waywardness contracted defilement is, while it lasts, excluded altogether from the privileges of the priesthood.
The bearing of such an arrangement upon the question of original sin is plain on the least thought. The fact of original sin will not be questioned by any one who studies intelligently the question of heredity. Moreover, "representative responsibility," as a principle of providence, shows how we are held responsible for acts of others in which we have had no conscious share. At the same time, it is consolatory to think that transmitted evil will not of itself condemn its possessor to perpetual exile from God. When an infant dies, who has never been sufficiently advanced to contract any conscious defilement, who has never added to original sin any actual transgression, it is comforting to think that the righteous Governor will not exclude any such from the privilege of approaching him, but will purge away their inheritance of evil, and fit them for his everlasting fellowship. We believe in the salvation of the great multitude who die before coming to the years of discretion.
II CASUAL, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM PERMANENT, CONNECTION WITH THE PRIESTHOOD DISQUALIFIES A PERSON FROM PARTAKING OF THE THINGS OF THE ALTAR. No mere casual guest, or even a hired servant of a priest"s, was to eat of the holy things. If a servant had been purchased, and so became personally incorporated with the priestly family, he might eat of them. There is a corresponding casual and a corresponding permanent association with the Lord"s work. Only those who enter on it with whole hearts, who dedicate themselves to it, body, soul, and spirit, need expect to participate in its privileges; while the mere casual associate will find himself excluded in the end.
III THE SACRIFICES WERE TO BE AS UNBLEMISHED AS THE OFFICIATING PRIESTS; ANY PHYSICAL DEFECT DISQUALIFIED THEM FROM ACCEPTANCE. The unblemished character of the sacrifices teaches the same truth which we have already considered. As the sacrifices were practically substitutions, their perfection was to teach man not only that his Substitute must be perfect if God would accept him, but that he himself must be perfected, if he is to serve God in the great hereafter in a priestly spirit. At the same time, man is encouraged in the present state to offer what he can, even though it be not perfect. God does not insist on the absolute perfection of the work of his people. If it is willing (verse 23) if it is really a "freewill offering then God will accept it in the spirit in which it is given. The perfection is to be kept steadily in view as the ideal to which we must always be struggling; meanwhile, we are to be doing all we can with willing minds, even though our work is often poor at best.
IV INHUMAN ACTS DISQUALIFY SACRIFICES OTHERWISE ACCEPTABLE. Thus a bullock, sheep, or goat, would not be acceptable till after the eighth day. It would have been inhuman to have denied it its week with its dam. Moreover, may not the seven days with the dam, like the seven days before the man-child"s circumcision, represent a perfect period spent under parental care, and thus become an emblem of the providential use of the family institution?
Again, the dam and the young were not to be put to death on the same day. It has an inhuman appearance about it, like the seething of a kid in its mother"s milk; and God arranged that the terms of the fifth commandment should be illustrated by, and not transgressed, even among the lower animals.
While, therefore, sacrificial worship entailed much suffering on the part of the innocent victims, there was a humane element to run through the service of the priests, and inhumanity would disqualify them from sacrificially serving God. R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD Vers. 1-16. The eating of the holy things.
We have seen, in the preceding chapter, that blemishes which precluded a priest from ministering at the altar did not hinder him from eating of the holy things. The ordinary Israelite, therefore, would not, by similar blemishes, be debarred from the privileges of his religion. There are, however, other things which would disqualify. These are now brought under our notice, together with the provisions by which they might be removed. Consider
I DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR EATING OF THE HOLY THINGS.
1. With respect to priests.
(1) A priest would be disqualified by any uncleanness in his flesh; thus, if he were a leper. The reason is that leprosy was a notable emblem of sin. Or if he had any running issue. Such things are in themselves loathsome, and evince a corrupt state of the body, and therefore fittingly represent moral corruption. This, under every dispensation, excludes men from that fellowship with God which was shadowed in the eating of the holy things.
(2) He would be disqualified by contact with a human corpse, or with the carcase of any unclean animal. The moral lesson here is that "evil communications corrupt good manners," that the "friendship of the world is enmity against God.
2. With respect to the families of priests.
(1) The stranger that sojourneth in Israel must become regularly proselyted to entitle him to the privileges of the Law. So those who would enjoy the corresponding spiritual privileges of the gospel must first become disciples of Jesus.
(2) The hired servant in the family of a priest is not sufficiently incorporated in the family to entitle him to eat of the holy things. And there are servants of the gospel persons who take a commendable interest in its outward prosperity who yet are not of the "household of faith," and have no experience of its spiritual mysteries.
(3) The daughter of a priest, by marrying a stranger, forfeits her right to eat of the holy things. If now in her father"s house, she is simply a visitor, and has to be provided with common food. By yoking with the ungodly, the children of God forfeit his favour, and are only tolerated in the Church as visitors.
3. These laws may not be invaded with impunity.
(1) If by accident they were transgressed, there was mercy for the offender when he made reparation. This was the original value, with a fifth part added (verse 14). Paul obtained mercy for his sin against the gospel of Christ, "because he did it ignorantly in unbelief.
(2) For the wilful presumptuous transgression of the Law there was no mercy in its provisions. "That soul shall be cut off from my presence" (ver. 3). "They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it" (verse 9). There is a law of extremity also under the gospel. (Mat_12:31, 32 Act_5:1-11 Heb_6:4-6 Heb_10:26-29 1Jn_5:16)
II HOW THESE DISQUALIFICATIONS MAY BE REMOVED.
1. In some cases by statute.
(1) Thus the servant of the high priest, bought with his money, though formerly an alien, is now so incorporated into his family that he may freely eat of the holy things. Being purchased, he is permanently under the power of the priest, and has no option to leave his service. So we, being redeemed by the blood of Christ and by a thorough repentance and conversion, renouncing all freedom to act against his will, may claim the privileges of his service.
(2) Those born in the house of the priest, viz. to his slaves or permanent servants, are also reckoned as belonging to his family, and privileged to fare as his own children. This birth into the household expresses more than mere natural descent from a godly ancestry. The children of the covenant made with Abraham were not those naturally descended from him, but those who were also the children of his faith. Natural birth in a godly family now gives the initiation to goodness, but the privileges of the gospel can only be enjoyed by those who follow up their advantages.
(3) The daughter of a priest, as we have seen, by marrying a stranger, forfeited her right to eat of the holy things. She was the figure of a backslider. But if there were no issue of the marriage, and her husband were dead, and she return to the house of her father as in her youth, she may again partake of the holy things. This teaches us God"s mercy to the wanderer from Christ who returns to him with a true conversion. (see Luk_15:11)
2. In some cases by ordinance.
a. If a man contract pollution by contact, he "shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash his flesh with water" (verses 4-6). As the baptism of water was necessary to qualify the ceremonially impure to eat of the holy things which were typical, so is the baptism of the Holy Ghost required to remove moral impurity, and give us the privilege of real fellowship with God. (Heb_10:22)
b. After this washing, "and when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things" (verse 7). The natural or civil day began at sunrise; the holy day at sunset, viz. when nature is involved in the shadow of death. So it is in the turning from nature to grace that we enter into the privileges of fellowship with God. J.A.M.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain Priestly Privileges Forfeited by Uncleanness
Priestly Privileges Forfeited by Uncleanness
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Read full note →
Lev_22:1.—Profane not My holy name in those things which they hallow unto Me. Holy things must not be touched with unclean hands. What God hallows should be revered. To treat heedlessly any sacred thing profanes that Name with which it has become associated. If this applied to the altar offerings of the ancient tabernacle, surely it applies to our holy things—the Scriptures, the Sanctuary, the Lord’s Day; for the Divine Name is linked to them, they are hallowed unto Him, and must not be profaned. More forcibly this requirement applies to lives hallowed in consecration to Christ; they must not be profaned by fellowship with evil, lest it lead to “that holy name by which they are called being blasphemed.”
Lev_22:2.—That soul shall be cut off from My presence. Did not the devouring fire consume Nadab and Abihu? Infliction of such severe penalties was a measure necessary in that age for the enforcement of duty, for inculcating correct ideas of Jehovah’s sanctity and authority. Priests, by their privileged access to His “presence,” might lapse into incaution; and as their favours were special, so their warnings were emphatic. If we dwell “in the light,” how appalling the possibility of being thrust into outer darkness! Having preached to others, how fearful to think of becoming a castaway! Such possibilities should arouse privileged souls to “take heed lest they fall.”
Lev_22:10.—There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing. Hospitality is everywhere in Scripture commended; we should be “careful to entertain strangers. But guests in our homes do not, on that account, become qualified to share the covenant privileges of religion, which are reserved to those who are Christ’s. Relation to God as a priest is a personal matter; and as a spiritual priest each believer is entitled to sit at the sacred table—yes, to feast in the very banqueting house of sovereign love—but we have no authority to extend these divine favours to others who have no priestly relationship to God, even though they have domestic or friendly relationship to us. Courtesy or magnanimity may not obliterate the spiritual distinctions with which God separates men.
Lev_22:11.—But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat. So that when a soul becomes a priest’s possession, he shares the priest’s privileges. Its counterpart is in those we win to Christ—not by “money,” but by the energies of Christian persuasion and influence; bound to us in the obligations of love. Our converts enter into our sacred enjoyments: “Ye are all partakers of my grace” (Php_1:7).
Lev_22:14.—If a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly. Intruding where he ought not; taking advantages for which he had no qualification; enjoying sacred food for which he had done no sacred service. This is “trespass” (Lev_22:16). Yet all assumption of religion without being in heart religious, all church offices and emoluments held by unchristian men for the sake more of “gain than godliness”—this is profanation, and these “bear the iniquity of trespass.”
Lev_22:17-24.—Physical perfectness required in animals sacrificed. For they were suggestive of the perfect Christ, and must therefore have no defect; and they betokened the perfect life which believers are called to devote to God: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.”
Lev_22:25.—Neither from a stranger’s hand, etc. Offerings must be faultless, and the offerer must be qualified. Precious gifts from unhallowed hands God cannot accept. Leave the gift on the altar, and enter first into sacred relationship with God through Christ. Our standing “in Him” is of supreme importance; until we are thus “made nigh,” we cannot acceptably “draw nigh.”
Lev_22:32.—I will be hallowed … I am the Lord which hallow you. It is for that sublime end we are sanctified. Men seek their own salvation, God seeks their sanctity; because salvation is a selfish goal, while sanctity is testimony for God to men and angels. The work of divine grace in us is nor, merely for our gain, but to “adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour,” to snow the holy character of God to those who “take knowledge of us,” and thus help to fulfilment the prayer, “Hallowed be thy name.”
HOMILIES ON CHAPTER 22
Topic: A SOLEMN REGARD FOR HALLOWED THINGS
“That they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me” (Lev_22:2).
Religion is a sacred inward life. It consists not in outward things, such as symbols and ceremonies, which it uses and calls to its aid, but in the soul’s acceptance with God, in its homage of Him, and in its glad resignation to Him and service for Him.
Yet religion has its outward expression in material things which it “hallows.” It does this by their consecration to God’s service and honour. What in itself may be common and worldly becomes sacred when dedicated to religious purposes. And in this act of hallowing worldly things, religious men show their difference from the ungodly, who merely keep all earthly things for worldly and human ends, devoting none to God. But the children of God will have “things which they hallow unto me.”
I. MAN’S ABILITY TO RENDER THINGS HALLOWED.
1. Places: As sanctuaries devoted to God’s worship. Homes consecrated by piety and prayer. Select scenes of retirement, as some secret glen where a devout soul goes apart for meditation, etc., like Isaac at the well Lahai-roi. A lowly room or shed, used for gathering two or three in Christ’s name for reading and exhortation.
2. Seasons: As the “Lord’s day”; or appointed days, as “holy days”; or a fixed hour for bending the knee with some distant friend; or times in which to commemorate God’s work in history.
3. Possessions: As wealth set apart for Christ; or time deliberately determined to be spent in Christian work; or some particular object we dedicate to the Master’s use—as Peter’s boat, which he lent to Christ from which to preach to the multitudes on the shore.
4. Persons: Our own lives with all their talents and affections, “they gave themselves unto the Lord”; or a child, as Hannah dedicated Samuel; or a band of Christian workers sent forth on a specific mission.
II. MAN’S TENDENCY TO PROFANE THINGS HALLOWED.
1. As when regard for the sanctity of holy scenes ceases; the sanctuary fails to be in thought “none other but the house of God and the gate of heaven”; or home piety and prayer are discouraged by neglect.
2. Regard for the solemnity of sacred seasons declines; the Sabbath is not cherished as “a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable”; prayer times are let slip disregarded.
3. Regard for the divine claim on our possessions abates; we “keep back some part of the price”; we recall from its dedicated purpose some consecrated object.
4. Regard for true spirituality in ourselves and others wanes; the “first love” waxes cold; the eagerness for our child or families to become Christian abates in the presence of their worldly interests and prospects.
III. MAN’S RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPECT THINGS HALLOWED.
1. They are no longer ours, either to recall from consecration or to divert to ourselves. Money was not Ananias’s after he had professedly given it to Christ. And “Ye are not your own.” Vowed to the Lord, our appropriation of it, or diversion from its sacred purpose, is profanation.
2. God’s name becomes identified with “things hallowed unto Him.” What a dishonour and derision to God and religion if, e.g, a church should be debased and turned into a tavern or a theatre: if a Christian home be degraded into a habitation of libertines and revilers: if a sanctified life returns again to the vileness of iniquity. Scoffers then will “blaspheme that holy name by which we are called.”
3.When anything is “hallowed” it is a witness amid ungodliness for religion and the unseen. The tendency of man is to grow absorbed in material things, to attend merely to his physical and earthly interests. “Things hallowed” to God speak to men of what is divine, spiritual, eternal, and they cannot be removed from amongst us without danger of men sinking lower into dark materialism, and so forfeiting all the benefits which Christianity has brought into our national, social, and individual life.
(a) The Bible deserves to be cherished as a hallowed book, yet how many neglect it: how many deride it: how many read it only to disobey it.
(b) The cross is a symbol of a most pathetic, solemn, yet precious fact—the death of Jesus. Yet to how many Protestants has it become a mere trinket for adornment: while to many Romanists it has become an object of idolatrous superstition.
(c) The bread and wine are tokens of a finished redemption and our fellowship with Christ by faith. Yet they may be “eaten and drank unworthily, not discerning the Lord’s body,” as if they had no solemn meaning: or they may be travestied on the “altar” of Ritualists, and in the Papal “mass.”
“Then beware,
And make thyself all reverence and fear.”
“Speak, that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me.”
Topic: DEFILING HOLY THINGS
“Whosoever goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the Lord” (Lev_22:3).
Caryl says, “The very heathen had this notion, they would not admit any to their religious services unless they were prepared: therefore one cried out to the people when they came to sacrifice, ‘All you that are unclean and profane go far away from these sacrifices.’ Not only the word of God but the very light of nature taught them not to meddle with holy things till they were themselves sanctified.”
In proof of this stands that saying of Æneas to his father when he came from the war, “In genitor,” etc. “Father, do you meddle with the sacrifices: but as for me it is a sinful thing to touch them till I have washed myself at the fountain.”
Cicero teaches a noble reverence for things hallowed: Res sacros non modo manibus attingi, se ne cogitatione quidem violari fas fuit. “Things sacred should not only not be touched with the hands, but not violated even in thought.”
Yet there have been priests of our holy religion—yes, ministers of the gospel of Christ—and men in sacred eminence, who have defamed Christianity by their levity and sacrilege, until verily—
Religion, blushing, veils her sacred fires.—POPE.
ADMONITORY INCIDENTS:
Belshazzar converted the consecrated vessels of the temple into instruments of luxury and intemperance, touching holy things while himself unclean; but the hand of indignant judgment wrote in flaming letters upon his banqueting hall his sentence of doom.
Herod polluted the sepulchres of the saints with a sacreligious search for treasures supposed to be hidden there, when God made fire rise from the earth to devour the infamous men who touched holy things with their uncleanness upon them.
Antiochus ransacked the very temple of God; Heliodorus emptied the treasures of their consecrated moneys; Pompey defiled the Sabbath and the sanctuary; Crassus despoiled the house of God of ten thousand talents; but their careers all tell the story of scathing judgment for defiling holy things, that ruin is ever the avenger of sacrilege.
Judas dared to touch with foul hands the sacred person of Christ, and sell Him for money; but the curse fell upon him, and he perished in his iniquity.
“That soul shall be cut off from my presence; I am the Lord.”
Topic: IRREVERENCE AMID SANCTITIES (Lev_22:1-16)
The heathen hierarchy practised and exemplified the debasing vices of the idols they represented and professed to propitiate. Jehovah declared holiness indispensable to acceptable service in His presence. The Hebrews were taught by symbol, by ceremonies which appealed to their senses—truths concerning holiness which, under the gospel, are more fully enforced by the teachings of the Holy Ghost. In order that undue familiarity with holy things might be prevented—
I. A LINE OF DEMARCATION WAS TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN SACRED AND SECULAR THINGS.
For the performance of sacred duties there were fixed places and set times; no priest was to officiate when physically, ceremonially, or morally impure. “Speak unto Aaron and his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel.” Why such strictness? (a) Because sacred things enshrined the name of the Lord. “That they profane not my holy name.” (b) Because sacred things honoured the nam f the Lord. “These things which they hallow unto me.” Still required that those who bear the vessels of the Lord shall be holy, and make a difference between sacred and secular things.
II. A LINE OF DEMARCATION WAS TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN PURITY AND IMPURITY FOCHARACTER.
No priest was to officiate at the altar in a state of unfitness, under penalty of excommunication. “That soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the Lord.” This declares the priest to be fallible and frail; need for constant watchfulness lest the altar become polluted. Under the new dispensation a fountain full and free is open for sin and uncleanness. As kings and priests unto God, believers are expected to exhibit in their lives the fruits of the Spirit. Christianity has not relaxed the demands of the law for holiness of character, the standard is even higher, for “If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”—F.W.B.
Topic: THE BEST FOR THE HIGHEST (Lev_22:17-30)
The sacrifice—not the officiating priest—was the centre of the Levitical economy. He existed for the altar, not it for him. If absolutely necessary that priests should be holy, equally so that the offerings should be perfect, especially when regarded in the light of the epistle to the Hebrews as of typical import, as shadows of good things to come. Every offering was to be presented—
I. WITH A WILLING MIND. “Freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt offering.” The authoritative commands of Jehovah did not interfere with free agency; the judgment and moral sense of offerers were appealed to, they were to choose what God had chosen. Unless voluntarily, there could have been no moral quality in the services they rendered. No virtue, where no possibility of vice, at least in a probationary state. At the erection of the Temple the same willingness was required. In the service of Christ we are to present ourselves willing, as well as living sacrifices.
II. WITH PERFECT OBEDIENCE. “Whatsoever hath a blemish shall he not offer.” No unwholesome or unsightly thing was to be laid on the altar. The Highest deserved, as He demanded, the best. Obedience in the offerer thus required to be complete; no withholding, or withdrawing. (a) That the holy harmony of the economy might not be broken. (b) That the spotless antitype might be clearly foreshadowed.
God still demands the best we can offer, the vigour and vivacity of youth; the most wakeful and valuable portions of our time; the choicest and richest fruits of our substance.
III. WITH A GRATEFUL HEART. “Neither from a stranger’s hand shall ye offer the bread of your God.” Offerings were to be presented by those who knew the Lord and would be actuated by devoted love. Acquaintance with God, reconciliation with Him, must precede offerings on His altar. The character of the giver, more than the nature of the gift, determines the divine estimate of offerings.
IV. WITH A LOYAL SPIRIT. The constant reiteration of the declaration, “I am the Lord,” rendered obvious that all ought to be done with the profoundest reverence for the divine majesty. The Hebrews were to acknowledge Jehovah as their sovereign king. Time has not altered these conditions of acceptable offering. Energy, time, means, etc., all to be cheerfully surrendered to Him who is our Prophet, Priest and King. We owe Him the best of everything; He sacrificed the best—His life—for us; how irresistible the words of the apostle, “For ye are not your own,” etc.—F. W.B.
Topic: BLEMISHES IN OUR SACRIFICES
“Whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer; for it shall not be acceptable for you” (Lev_22:20).
Reference is to sacrifices. All religious service is of the nature of sacrifice.
“Whatsoever, etc.” (Text).
J. Read this requirement of perfect sacrifices, and by it let us test our regard for the SABBATH SERVICES.
God has once, at least, read us a very solemn lesson of the manner in which He regards lost Sabbaths. Seventy Sabbatical years the Jews allowed to drop out of their calendar. Seventy years were spent by them in captivity. A fearful presage to us of what might be the national judgment, if, as a church and people, we went on to blot out from amongst us our day of rest. And yet, is that fear groundless? Are we not already gone far towards such a state of things? Is not the Sunday, to a fearful extent, an omitted day? The fourth commandment an omitted commandment? Such as the Sunday is, so is the week. It is the keystone of the arch of our secular life. The folly and sin of most men is, they begin by making the Sunday a blank day. And as a blank becomes intolerable, therefore the day proves to them listless, weary, worldly, profane. A taste for spiritual things needs to be cultivated and prayed for. A vague mind, a dull feeling, the sense of its being a long day each time the Sunday comes round—these afford proof that to us heaven is still very far off, that the bright and beautiful world is not “our own place.” To pass a little more into detail, ordinarily everyone will agree that if the Sabbath be obligatory, then it is assuredly obligatory thus far—
1. That there be regular attendance upon public service.
2. Of the other hours of the day, that a part be spent in private devotional exercises, a part in religious reading; that a higher and more sacred tone of conversation be maintained; that some work of piety and love be performed.
These are but some of the most obvious and necessary Sunday duties and Sunday enjoyments. How do many of us acquit ourselves in this matter? Has the sacrifice of the seventh portion of our time, which we profess to offer week by week, any “blemish”? An unoccupied day must prove an unpleasant day. We omit duty, therefore God omits blessing. Need we look further than our Sundays, idle, &c., for many a disappointment and discontent and bitterness of life?
II. By this test let us judge our SANCTUARY WORSHIP.
Examine ourselves in the house of God. Difficulty of keeping the mind collected and devout results from want of due preparation.
1. Something may be said respecting the posture of body we assume in the sanctuary. Position of body re-acts upon the mind. Indolence is associated with, and leads to, irreverence. Kneeling is required equally by the dignity of God and the weakness of our nature.
2. So with the voice. Difficult to over-estimate how much is lost (a) To the beauty of our services; (b) To the glory of God; (c) To our own souls, by the silence so many of us maintain, both in the responses and in the service of song. But there are more as “blemishes” in our sanctuary sacrifices than these. Where is—
(1) The constant mental effort essential to true worship, and proper in the presence of God?
(2) The self-distrust due from such sinful creatures as we?
(4) The self-discipline to bring ourselves into responsiveness to God’s Spirit?
(3) The inward up-looking for divine light and grace?
(5) The frequent reminding ourselves of what we are and what God is
(6) The simple spirit of self-application?
(7) The faith to give wings to prayer?
Well might St. James say “Ye have not because ye ask not, or ask amiss. “Blemish on sacrifice” drives the flame down again.
III. By this test let us examine our observance of THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER.
A word in solemn affection to some. You never attend the sacrament to celebrate the Lord’s death at all. Others, if at all, so irregularly as almost to turn the attendance into a mockery. Do you consider that that with which you so deal is none other than the dying command of the Lord and Saviour: the highest and best of all the means of grace? And yet you habitually pass it by. Can there be any limit to the evil which such an omission may be entailing upon your soul? Your religion is barren of joy if your soul fails to realise peace; if your prayers work no effect; if your faith seems to rest on no reality; if you gain no sense of forgiveness. Well, there is a chain of cause and consequences here; we must divide its links. The soul’s losses all fasten themselves into the soul’s omissions. Note:
1. Happy for us that we can turn from all our poor “blemished” sacrifices to that pure and perfect sacrifice of Christ, which has been offered “without blemish and without spot” for us.
2. Only let us never forget that he who would safely trust in the power of that “Sacrifice” for his salvation, must take the spotlessness of that Sacrifice for his daily pattern.—Anon.
Topic: UNQUESTIONING OBEDIENCE PEREMPTORILY ENFORCED (Lev_22:31-33).
The pilgrimage of Israel through the wildernes was of a probationary character, affording a suggestive emblem of all human life. The natural tendency of the human will to rebellion required imperative commands to subdue and bend it to the obedience of the just. The minute and exacting requirements of the Mosaic ritual would train the people to humble obedience. Such peremptory statutes were based upon:
I. WHAT JEHOVAH WAS IN ISRAEL. “I am the Lord.” The Lord had perfect right to enjoin what obedience He chose upon His subjects. In the midst of Israel Jehovah was King, His word went forth with power. Let all the inhabitants of the earth stand in awe of Him, and obey His voice, for it is still universally true, “The Lord reigneth.”
II. WHAT JFHOVAH WAS TO ISRAEL. “Your God.” To carry out His wise and benevolent designs towards the race, God saw fit to make Israel His chosen people, custodians of His written word, channels of blessing to the whole world. Israel was under the most solemn obligations to obey divine statutes, to conform to the divine will. Under the new dispensation no stronger motive can prompt to Christian consecration and obedience than the declaration of the apostle to the Gentiles, “Whose I am, and whom I serve.”
III. WHAT JEHOVAH HAD DONE FOR ISRAEL. “That brought you out of the land of Egypt.” The Exodus had exhibited the goodness of the Lord. Wonders had been performed, unexpected channels of deliverance had been opened, abundant supplies had been vouchsafed to them. Obligations to obedience were many and weighty. The goodness of God calleth us to repentance. Redemption from the slavery of Satan and sin should constrain to obedience. Translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son, this the becoming question of the soul, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?”
IV. WHAT JEHOVAH WOULD DO WITH ISRAEL. “I am the Lord which hallow you.” The Lord’s purpose in selecting Israel as His peculiar people, was not only that His name might be hallowed among them, but that their hearts might become sanctified by His presence. Holiness was the supreme end of the Mosaic ritual. Ceremonially and symbolically priests and people were made holy by (a) the rites they observed; (b) the sacrifices they offered; (c) the manifested presence of the Lord.—F.W.B.
OUTLINES ON VERSES OF CHAPTER 22
Lev_22:1-2.—Theme: THE JEALOUSY OF JEHOVAH.
Human nature inherently prone to presumption and irreverence. Upon the priests was enjoined the most scrupulous care, lest in any way they disgraced themselves and dishonoured Jehovah. Small gifts were not excluded from the altar of the Lord, but all blemished offerings were, to teach Israel (a) The supremacy of the divine will. What He required, not what they might feel disposed to offer, must be presented. (b) The necessity of unquestioning obedience. “I am the Lord.” Enough for Israel to know that the Lord required it at their hands. The jealousy of Jehovah for His name and glory would inculcate the need of—
I. CONSTANT CIRCUMSPECTION. Sacerdotal duties so intricate and various, the priests would require to exercise unrelaxing vigilance.
II. CAREFUL DISCRIMINATION. Offerings to be unmixed; in strict accordance with minutely prescribed directions.
III. COMPLETE CONSECRATION. Everything to be done to the full; no reserve, shortcoming, or withdrawal. No imperfection in servant or service tolerated in the tabernacle worship.
Inherited and unavoidable disabilities for public service form no barrier in the way of divine favour. A willing heart is accepted when the acomplishment of its sincere purpose is impossible. Willingness and ability characterise the service of the Upper Temple. Scrupulous care still to be exercised, that there be no profanation of God’s Name, Day, Book, House, Ordinances.—F.W.B.
Lev_22:10—Theme: HOLT FEASTS FORBIDDEN TO STRANGERS.
“There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing”
Salvation is common, open to all; but privileges are special, reserved to consecrated souls. [See “Suggestive Readings” on the verse.]
These “strangers “in the priest’s house represent persons near the Kingdom of Grace but not within it.
I. FRIENDSHIP with the godly does not confer qualification for religious privileges. Not though we be guests in the home of a minister of Christ’s sanctuary; not though we enjoy Christian intimacy and affection, do we on that account become qualified to share the covenant blessings of religion.
Personal alliances and family intimacies with God’s people do not render us partakers of their grace.
II. Enjoyment of RELIGIOUS INTERCOURSE does not create qualification for sacred privileges.
Within the priest’s home there would be much religious converse, and acquaintance with the meaning of religious truths and duties; but knowledge of divine things, and the advantage of holy conversation, do not necessarily lead to spiritual life.
“Having all knowledge and understanding all mysteries profit nothing” if there be not inward life and personal love.
III. Residence in HOLY DWELLINGS does not confer qualifications for saintly privileges.
Though resident in the priest’s home, “strangers” might not partake of the priest’s food.
Attendance on the sanctuary; frequenting holy places; being continually near God’s servant in sacred scenes; all this may be without personal piety.
Being a doorkeeper in the house of God; a persistent attendant at sacred services; maintaining a constant connexion with the sanctuary; these do not ensure and guarantee a state of grace, a qualification for the privilege of sanctified souls.
Apply:—
1.Better be “strangers”, near though not in the kingdom, than aliens far off from all the allurements and opportunities of religion.
2.Though “strangers,” the way is possible in the gospel for such to become partakers of the feasts of redemption and of grace. “At that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers,” etc. (Eph_2:12).
Nearness to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, and spiritually “priests unto God,” should help forward a religious life until those once “strangers,” yet guests, become welcomed to the feasts of sacred love. [See outline on Lev_22:25, Holy Ministries refused from Strangers.]
Lev_22:20.—Theme: UNBLEMISHED SACRIFICES.
“But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer; for it shall not be acceptable for you.”
Everything laid on the altar to be free from (a) bodily disease, (b) national deformity, (c) acquired defects. These defects, emblems of moral blemishes, which disqualify for service under the gospel—depraved passions, crookea conduct, deflection from duty, indulgence in any kind of sin—will render the most costly offering obnoxious to the divine mind.
Men present blemished sacrifices to the Lord—
I. WHEN THEIR GIFTS ARE NOT PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR MEANS. Many profess to give to the utmost of their ability, when they only give a pitiable fraction from the abundance with which God has prospered them. Such blemished sacrifices God rejects.
II. WHEN THEIR GIFTS ARE NOT THE SYMBOLS OF SELF-SACRIFICE. No offering is accepted except presented in a willing and devout spirit; God expects living sacrifices, the wealth of human love—all the heart mind, soul, strength; then other gifts as evidences of complete self-consecration.
III. WHEN THEIR GIFTS ARE PRESENTED TO PROCURE SALVATION. Sensuous worship, ritualistic observances are valueless; only the merits of the one all-atoning sacrifice of Christ can render the most perfect gifts acceptable.
Let but the heart be wholly given to the Lord, then not the deceased or decayed, the refuse or leavings, the chaff or dregs, but the best, costliest, and brightest will be consecrated to the Lord.
These things read in the light of the New Testament teach—(a) How completely the spotlessness of Christ fulfilled the rigid requirements for perfection in Jewish sacrifices. (b) How the material offerings of the tabernacle were adapted to prepare the way for the proclamation of what they foreshadowed. (c) How the constant demand for holiness in offerings and offerers reiterated the abiding facts, that Jehovah is spotlessly holy; and that “without holiness no man can see the Lord.”—F.W.B.
Lev_22:25.—Theme: HOLY MINISTRIES REFUSED FROM STRANGERS.
If “strangers” might not eat the feast reserved for priestly souls (comp. on Lev_22:10) so neither would God allow them to minister at the altar of His sanctuary,
This interdict demands—
I. That MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL be themselves true-born sons of God.
II. That WORKERS IN THE CHURCH be chosen exclusively from those in spiritual fellowship with God’s people.
III. That SACRED OFFERINGS, gifts laid on the altar of religion, are only acceptable as the giver is a sincere Christian.
IV. That A SPIRITUAL STATE is the supremely precious thing in God’s esteem; not what we bring, but what we are ourselves who bring the offering.
NOTES:—
1. God abhors hallowed services by unhallowed souls. “They shall be not accepted for you.”
2. A gracious relationship to God in Christ must precede all attempts to please Him by service or gifts.
3. From saintly souls every offering, however lowly, is a “sacrifice well pleasing unto God,” as a token of sonship and love.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain Laws relating to the Priesthood and Sacrifice (continued)
Laws relating to the Priesthood and Sacrifice (continued)
1-6. The holy things may not be eaten by priests otherwise qualified, but ceremonially unclean, nor by any persons outside the priestly family.
Read full note →
10. Stranger] i.e. one not a priest, nor a member of a priest's family, even though he be an Israelite: see Exo_29:33. A slave purchased outright is considered to be a member of the family (Lev_22:11).
14. Unwittingly] not knowing, perhaps, that it was a holy tiling: see on Lev_4:2; Lev_5:14; With the holy thing] this must mean its equivalent.
17-25. Sacrifices also must be without blemish. It was a frequent complaint that this law was not strictly observed, and that God was dishonoured with offerings that were mean and imperfect: cp. e.g. Mal_1:8, Mal_1:13-14, and see for an example of a better spirit 2Sa_24:24.
19. At your own will] RV 'that ye may be accepted.'
27. See on Exo_22:30.
28. This prohibition probably rests on humanitarian grounds. The Mosaic Law enjoins kindness to animals.
29. See on Lev_22:19.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain 1. Care to be exercised in holy things (Lev…
CHAPTER 22
1. Care to be exercised in holy things (Lev 22:1-16)
Read full note →
2. Care in the enforcement of the law of offerings (Lev 22:17-33)
Uncleanness such as mentioned in the first part of the chapter prohibited the partaking of holy things. Strangers who did not belong to the priestly house and even the married daughter of the priest, not living in the priestly household, were not permitted to eat of the offering of the holy things. Holy things have to be used in a reverent and holy way. The same principle holds good in the New Testament. We may well think here of the Lord’s table. Read 1Co 11:23-31. Coming to the Lord’s table to remember Him requires self-judgment.
The instruction concerning sacrifices, their unblemished character and what constitutes an acceptable offering are all of great interest with many spiritual lessons. But space forbids our enlarging upon them.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain Warning Against Profanation of Hallowed Things
Warning Against Profanation of Hallowed Things
v. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
Read full note →
v. 2. Speak unto Aaron and to his sons that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not My holy name in those things which they hallow unto Me. I am the Lord. The priests were not to profane the holy gifts of the people by approaching them at a time when they themselves were in a condition of uncleanness, which made their priestly services unlawful. In these gifts were also included those parts of the sacrifices which the Lord had set aside for maintenance of the priests.
v. 3. Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, of any descendant of Aaron entrusted with priestly functions, that goeth unto the holy things which the children of Israel hallow unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, any form of Levitical defilement, such as were discussed in chaps. 13 to 15, that soul shall be cut off from My presence, deprived of his priestly office, and perhaps punished in a more severe manner. I am the Lord.
v. 4. What man soever of the seed of Aaron is a leper, or hath a running issue, Lev 15:2, he shall not eat of the holy things until he be clean. And whoso toucheth anything that is unclean by the dead, because of contact with a dead body, or a man whose seed goeth from him;
v. 5. or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing, whereby he may be made unclean, any one of the lower forms of animal life whose contact defiled a man, or a man of whom he may take uncleanness, whatsoever uncleanness he hath;
v. 6. the soul which hath touched any such shall be unclean until even, according to the general rule, which thus applied to the priests also, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash his flesh with water.
v. 7. And when the sun is down, at the end of the day and at the beginning of the new day, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things, because it is his food; he was dependent upon the priests’ share of the offerings for his daily bread and should no longer be deprived of this, after having fasted all day. The divine legislation always shows this considerate character.
v. 8. That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith, for that was forbidden to all the children of Israel, Exo 22:31. I am the Lord.
v. 9. They shall therefore keep Mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it and die there for, if they profane it. I, the Lord, do sanctify them. Death was the general penalty of a priest’s neglect to follow the precepts of the Lord with regard to purity of service in his Sanctuary. Having now stated in what condition a priest was not to eat of things sanctified, the Lord excludes from their share of the sacrifices all those that were not members of the priestly family.
v. 10. There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing; a sojourner of the priest, any visitor not belonging to his family, to the tribe of Levi, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
v. 11. But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house; they shall eat of his meat. In either case the slave was a member of the priest’s family and dependent upon the food which he received for his own maintenance.
v. 12. If the priest’s daughter also be married unto a stranger, to a man not belonging to the priestly family, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things.
v. 13. But if the priest’s daughter be a widow or divorced, spurned by her husband, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s meat, of the food which her father was entitled to as a part of his emoluments as priest; but there shall no stranger eat thereof. If the priest’s daughter should have children, she formed with her children a household of her own, even if she was widowed or divorced.
v. 14. And if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly, without intention, without being aware of the fact at the time, then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it, that is, the equivalent of the food which was profaned together with a penalty, and shall give it unto the priest with the holy thing, thereby making restitution for the fault.
v. 15. And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which they offer unto the Lord,
v. 16. or suffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass, load themselves with the crime of the guilt in permitting such a profanation on the part of unauthorized people, when they eat their holy things; for I, the Lord, do sanctify them. So the priests were charged with the supervision of these matters, in order to keep the sanctified things from profanation, just as the pastors of the Christian Church should carry out the function of watchmen in warning the people entrusted to them by the Lord of the Church against all transgressions of God’s holy Law.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 tell them to keep away from the holy things
tell them to keep away from the holy things
"tell them when they should keep away from the holy things." Yahweh is about to describe situations where a priest is unclean and not allowed to touch holy things.
Read full note →
profane my holy name
The word "profane" here means to dishonor. The word "name" represents Yahweh's character. AT: "dishonor my reputation" or "dishonor me" (See: Metonymy)
throughout your generations
"from now on"
while he is unclean
A person who is not acceptable for God's purposes is spoken of as if the person were physically unclean. (See: Metaphor)
that person must be cut off from before me
A priest no longer being able to serve Yahweh is spoken of as if that person had been cut off from Yahweh's presence, as one would cut a piece of cloth or cut a branch from a tree. This can be translated in active form. AT: "that person will no longer be able to serve as a priest" (See: Metaphor and Active or Passive)
translationWords
Yahweh
Moses
Aaron
son
holy
people group
Israel
set apart
profane
name
descend
generation
clean
cut off
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.