Leviticus 21:16–22:13

The priesthood being confined to one particular family, and entailed upon all the male issue of that family throughout their generations, it was very likely that some or other in after-ages that were born to the priesthood would have natural blemishes and deformities: the honour of the priesthood would not secure them from any of those calamities which are common to men. Divers blemishes are here specified; some that were ordinarily for life, as blindness; others that might be for a time, as a scurf or scab, and, when they were gone, the disability ceased. Now, I. The law concerning priests that had blemishes was, 1. That they might live upon the altar (Lev 21:22): He shall eat of the sacrifices with the other priests, even the most holy things, such as the show-bread and the sin-offerings, as well as the holy things, such as the tithes and first-fruits, and the priests' share of the peace-offerings. The blemishes were such as they could not help, and therefore, though they might not work, they must not starve. Note, None must be abused for their natural infirmities. Even the deformed child in the family must have its child's part. 2. Yet they must not serve at the altar, at either of the altars, nor be admitted to attend or assist the other priests in offering sacrifice or burning incense, Lev 21:17, Lev 21:21, Lev 21:23. Great men choose to have such servants about them as are sightly, and it was fit that the great God should have such in his house then, when he was pleased to manifest his glory in external indications of it. But it was especially requisite that comely men should be chosen to minister about holy things, for the sake of the people, who were apt to judge according to outward appearance, and to think meanly of the service, how honourable soever it was made by the divine institution, of those that performed it looked despicably or went about it awkwardly. This provision God made for the preserving of the reputation of his altar, that it might not at any time fall under contempt. It was for the credit of the sanctuary that none should appear there who were any way disfigured, either by nature or accident. II. Under the gospel, 1. Those that labour under any such blemishes as these have reason to thank God that they are not thereby excluded from offering spiritual sacrifices to God; nor, if otherwise qualified for it, from the office of the ministry. There is many a healthful beautiful soul lodged in a crazy deformed body. Yet, 2. We ought to infer hence how incapable those are to serve God acceptably whose minds are blemished and deformed by any reigning vice. Those are unworthy to be called Christians, and unfit to be employed as minsters, that are spiritually blind, and lame, and crooked, whose sins render them scandalous and deformed, so as that the offerings of the Lord are abhorred for their sakes. The deformities of Hophni and Phinehas were worse than any of the blemishes here mentioned. Let such therefore as are openly vicious be put out of the priesthood as polluted persons; and let all that are made to our God spiritual priests be before him holy and without blemish, and comfort themselves with this, that, though in this imperfect state they have spots that are the spots of God's children, yet they shall shortly appear before the throne of God without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.

Leviticus 21:16-24 16. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 16. Loquutus est Jehova ad Mosen, dicendo: 17. Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. 17. Loquere ad Aharon, dicendo, Vir e semine tuo per aetates suas, in quo fuerit macula, non accedet ut offerat panem Dei sui. 18. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 18. Quippe nullus vir in quo fuerit macula, aecedet: vir crocus, vel claudus, aut diminutus, aut superfluus: 19. Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, 19. Aut vir in quo fuerit fractura pedis, vel fractura manus: 20. Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; 20. Aut gibbosus, aut lippus, aut qui habebit maeulam in oculo suo, aut cui fuerit scabies vel impetigo, aut qui contritus fuerit testiculo. 2l. 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. 21. Omnis vir in quo fuerit macula, e semine Aharon sacerdotis, non accedet ad offerendum oblationes ignitas Jehovae: in quo fuertit macula, non accedet ad offerendum panem Dei sui. 22. He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. 22. Panem quidem Dei sui e sanctitatibus sanctitatum et e sanctis comedet. 23. Only he shall not go in unto thevail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them. 23. Atqui intra velum non ingredietur, et ad altare non aceedet: quia macula est in eo, ne polluat sanctuaria mea: quoniam ego Jehova qui sanctifico vos. 24. And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel. 24. Loquutus est itaque Moses ad Aharon et filios ejus, et ad omnes filios Israel. 17. Speak unto Aaron, saying. Priests in whom there was any notable bodily defect are here forbidden from approaching the altar. I will not curiously inquire into the defects which Moses enumerates, since the same rule is here laid down, which is afterwards applied to the sacrifices, whereof none but perfect ones were to be offered. For God rejected whatever was defective or mutilated, in order that the Israelites might know that no victim would suffice for the expiation of sin, except such as possessed complete perfection; and this is justly required in a priest, who cannot be a mediator between God and men unless he is free from every spot. But the analogy must be kept in view between the external figures and the spiritual perfection which existed only in Christ. God could bear no defect in the priests; it follows, then, that a man of angelic purity was to be expected, who should reconcile God to the world. The bodily imperfections, then, which were here enumerated, must be transferred to the soul. The offering of bread comprehends by synecdoche the other offerings, and the whole legal service, which the priests were wont to perform in their course; and this the words of Moses immediately afterwards confirm, wherein he mentions all "the offerings made by fire," besides the bread. We have seen elsewhere that any of the people wounded in the testicles were prohibited from entering the sanctuary; that they were, not even to set foot in the court; but there was a special reason for this as regarded the priests, lest they should pollute the sanctuary by their defects. Hence it appears how needful for us is the intercession of Christ; for, if his perfect cleanness did not wash away our impurity, no oblation could proceed from us except what would be foul and unsavory. Moreover, it is worthy of observation that the sanctuary of God is polluted by any defect or imperfection; and, consequently, that whatever of their own men obtrude upon God, is condemned as profane, so far are they from conciliating God's favor by any merit. 22. He shall eat the bread of his God. He permits them indeed to eat of the sacrifices, because no uncleanness on account of their natural defects could prevent them from partaking of the sacred meals; [192] they are only forbidden to appear in God's presence as mediators to propitiate Him. And here the imperfection of the legal service betrays itself; for nothing could be found among men which could fully represent the truth. Since then the defects of men rendered it necessary to separate the two connected things, viz., the honor and the burden, hence the Israelites were admonished that another priest was promised them, in whom nothing would be wanting for the consummation of all virtues and perfection. Finally, Moses relates that he delivered God's commands not only to Aaron and his sons, but to all the people likewise; so that the humblest of them might be the censor of the priests [193] if in anything they fell short. Footnotes: [192] "La nouristure assignee aux enfans d'Aaron." -- Fr. [193] "Peust contreroler, par maniere de dire, les Sacrificateurs:" might, so to say, control the priests. -- Fr.

Whosoever he be . . . hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God--As visible things exert a strong influence on the minds of men, any physical infirmity or malformation of body in the ministers of religion, which disturbs the associations or excites ridicule, tends to detract from the weight and authority of the sacred office. Priests laboring under any personal defect were not allowed to officiate in the public service; they might be employed in some inferior duties about the sanctuary but could not perform any sacred office. In all these regulations for preserving the unsullied purity of the sacred character and office, there was a typical reference to the priesthood of Christ (Heb 7:26). Next: Leviticus Chapter 22

And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... After he had spoken to him of the holiness of the priests, that they should not defile themselves, neither with the dead nor with impure marriages, he proceeded to add some things concerning blemishes in their bodies, which rendered them unfit for the service: saying; as follows.

Speak unto Aaron, saying,.... Who being the high priest, it was incumbent on him, at least at this time, to see that the laws and rules relating to the priesthood were observed; and particularly to examine carefully who were and who were not to be admitted to serve in it: whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations; or, "a man of thy seed" (w), for this only respected his male seed, females of his seed had no concern in the following laws; but his sons, in all successive ages and generations, to the coming of the Messiah, had, whether high priests or common priests: that hath any blemish; in any part of his body, particularly such as are after mentioned: let him not approach to offer the bread of his God; neither go into the holy place, to set the shewbread in order there, nor to offer any sacrifice upon the altar; so Josephus (x) explains this law; that a priest should be perfect, and if he laboured under any defect, should not ascend the altar, nor enter into the temple: this was imitated by the Heathens: Romulus ordered that such as were weak and feeble in any part of the body should not be made priests (y): the Jewish priests were types of Christ, who is holy, harmless, without spot and blemish; and through whose blood and righteousness all who are made priests by him are unblamable, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; and a Gospel minister, bishop, or pastor, ought to be unblemished in his life and conversation, Titus 1:6; and there are some who think that the blemishes of the mind and of the life are rather here meant than those of the body. (w) "vir de semine tuo", Pagninus, Montanus, &c. (x) Antiqu. l. 3. c. 12. sect. 2.((y) Pompon. Laet. de Sacerdot. c. 6. de Vestalibus.

For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish,.... Let him be otherwise ever so well qualified for his office, as with respect to his parentage, against which no objection lies; or, as to his character and abilities, being a man of knowledge and of good manners; and whether these blemishes be, as the Jews (z) call them, fixed, settled ones, which have attended them ever since they were born, and are likely to attend them as long as they live; or are transient ones, only for the present, and perhaps, in a short time, wilt be removed; yet it matters not, while these blemishes are on them: he shall not approach; to the altar to offer sacrifice, or do any part of the priestly office, for this phrase is expressive of a sacerdotal act: the particular blemishes unfitting a man for such service follow: a blind man, or a lame; that is blind of one eye, or of both; and is lame of one leg, or of both: or he that hath a flat nose; which Jarchi explains, whose nose is sunk between his two eyes, whose nose is short, and crooked, or mutilated: or anything superfluous; more members than usual, as six fingers on an hand, or two gristles in an ear, as Ben Gersom; or whose members are not proportionate, as one eye large and the other small, or one thigh or leg longer than the other, so Jarchi; the Targum of Jonathan is,"whose thigh (or thigh bone) is out of joint;''and so a man draws his foot after him, which is the sense of the Rabbins, as observed by Kimchi (a), and Ben Melech from him; and so such are not fit to be called the priests of the Lord, and much less ministers of his word, who are blind as to the knowledge of divine and spiritual things, and walk not as becomes the Gospel of Christ; or halt between two opinions, or savour not the things of God, and lay not aside all superfluity of naughtiness. (z) Misn. Zebachim, c. 12. sect 1. & Becorot, c. 7. sect. 1.((a) Sepher Shorash. rad.

Or a man that is brokenfooted or brokenhanded. That has any of the bones or joints in his hands and feet broke, or when they are distorted, and he is clubfooted, or his fingers crooked and clustered together; and such a man could not be fit to ascend the altar, and lay the sacrifice in order upon it; and may be an emblem of such as are awkward or disorderly in their walk and conservation, and to every good work and action unfit, and so unfit for their master's use.

Or crookbackt,.... That has a protuberance, or bunch upon his back, one that we commonly call "hunchbacked"; the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem paraphrase it,"whose eyebrows lying cover his eyes;''and so Jarchi, interprets it, the hair of whose eyebrows is long and lying; and so other Jewish writers understand it of some deformity about the eyes, the hair of the eyebrows being thick and heavy over them, and so hinder the sight, at least it makes the person not so sightly and graceful; it is said (b), he that hath no eyebrows, or but one eyebrow, is the "Gibben" (the word here used) spoken of in the law, Leviticus 21:20, or a dwarf; one of a small stature, as Aben Ezra, as generally hunchbacked persons are, and so unfit to attend the altar, being scarce able to reach up to it, and do the business of it, as well as must make a very mean appearance; but the above Targums understand this also of some blemish about the eyes, paraphrasing it"or he that has no hair on his eyebrows,''just the reverse of the former; Jarchi seems to understand it of a thin small film upon the eye; though something of that kind seems to be intended in the next clause: or that hath a blemish in his eye; a mixture, a confusion, or rather a suffusion in it, as the above Targum; in which, as one of them says, the white is mixed with the black, and with which agrees what is said in the Misnah (c), where it is asked, what is the confusion or suffusion? the white which spreads in the his, and enters into the black of the eye; it seems to be a white speck in the pupil of the eye, and so Jarchi, Kimchi (d), and others interpret it: or be scurvy or scabbed; both these were kinds of ulcers, according to the Jewish writers, particularly Jarchi, who says of the first, that it is a dry scab within and without; and of the other, that it is the Egyptian scab, which is moist without and dry with it; and so the Targum of Jonathan: or hath his stones broken; this is differently interpreted in the Misnah (e), and by other Jewish writers; some say it signifies one that has no testicles, or only one; so the Septuagint and the Jerusalem Targum: others, whose testicles are broken or bruised, so Jarchi: or are inflated, so Akiba, Aben Ezra, and the Targum of Jonathan; some understand it of an "hernia" or rupture, when a man is burstened: all which may in a moral and mystical sense signify either some defect in the understanding, or vices in the heart or life, which render unfit for public service in the sanctuary. (b) Becorot, c. 7. sect. 2.((c) Ib. c. 6. sect. 2.((d) Ut supra, (Sepher Shorash.) rad. (e) Becorot, c. 7. sect. 5.

No man that hath a blemish, of the seed of Aaron the priest,.... Whether an high priest or a common priest that lies on him anyone of the above blemishes; and which the Jewish writers (f) make to amount to the number of one hundred and forty, and which they reckon, so many in one part of the booty and so many in another, till they make up the said number; and whoever had any might not come nigh to offer up the sacrifices of the Lord made by fire; the burnt offerings on the altar, to which he might not approach, and the meat offerings, and the fat, and the incense: he hath a blemish; in one part of him or another; and though but one: he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God: this is repeated for the confirmation of it, and to show how determined the Lord was in this matter; and how much he should resent it in any that should be found guilty of the breach of those rules, and so it is designed to deter from attempting: it. (f) Maimon. Biath Hamikdash, c. 8. sect. 17.

He shall eat the bread of his God,.... That part of the sacrifices which was appropriated by the Lord to the priests, for the maintenance of them and their families; for though their natural infirmities disqualified them for service, yet they did not become hereby impure, either in a moral nor ceremonial sense, and might eat of the sacrifices, which impure persons might not; and so the tradition is, blemished persons, whether their blemishes are fixed or transient, may divide and eat, but not offer (g); these being priests, and having no inheritance, nor any way of getting their livelihood, provision is made for them that they might not perish through their defects in nature, which were not voluntary and brought upon them by themselves, but by the providence of God; and such were allowed to eat both of the most holy and of the holy; there were things the priests eat of, which were most holy, as what remained of the meat offerings, and of the sin offerings, and of the trespass offerings, which only the males of the priest's family might eat of, and that only in the holy place; and there were others less holy, the lighter holy things, as the Jews call them, as the wave breast, and heave shoulder, and the tithes and firstfruits, which were eaten of by all in their families, their daughters as well as their sons, and in their own houses; now of each of these might the blemished priests eat; see Numbers 18:9, &c. (g) Misn. Zebachim, c. 12. sect. 1.

Only he shall not go in unto the vail,.... So far as to the vail, which divided between the holy and the holy of holies; that is, he shall not go into the holy place which was before the vail; not to set the shewbread upon the table there, nor to light and him the lamps in the candlestick, nor to offer incense on the altar of incense, which stood in it: some render it "within the vail" (h), where only the high priest might enter once a year; but if he had any blemish on him he might not, nor might such an one be an high priest; Aben Ezra seems to have some respect to this in his note,"to the vail he shall not come, that he may be an high priest:" nor come nigh unto the altar; as not to the altar of incense in the holy place, so neither to the altar of burnt offering in the court of the tabernacle, that is, so as to officiate there: but though they might not be employed in such sacred service, the Jews in later times have found business for them to employ them in, and that was worming the wood, or searching the wood for worms, which was used in the burning of the sacrifices; for we are told (i), that at the northeast corner (of the court of the women) was the wood room, where the priests that had blemishes wormed the wood; and whatsoever wood in which a worm was found, was rejected from being laid upon the altar: the reason why he might not go into either place before mentioned is repeated: because he hath a blemish; either fixed or transient; one of those particularly expressed, or any other; for the Jews suppose there are others implied besides those expressed, which disqualified for service: that he profane not my sanctuaries; if an high priest, the holy of holies, if a common priest, the holy place, and the court of the tabernacle: for I the Lord do sanctify them; the vail, to which blemished priests might not go: and the altar, to which they might not come nigh: or rather, the sanctuaries or holy places, where they might not officiate, which God had separated and devoted for sacred uses, and were not to be defiled by any; though Ben Gersom observes, that this has no respect to the sanctuary, for if it had it would have been said, "I am the Lord, that sanctify it"; but since a plural word is used before, I see not but that with great propriety it is expressed, and with reference thereunto, "sanctify them"; which he would have understood of holy things, but what he means is not easy to say, unless the holy things such persons might eat of, Leviticus 21:22, which is fetched. (h) "intra velum", V. L. (i) Misn. Middot, c. 2. sect. 5.

And Moses told it to Aaron, and to his sons,.... What God had said to him concerning the priests defiling themselves for the dead, both common priests and high priest, and concerning their marriages and their blemishes; that they might be careful not to transgress the laws and rules given them concerning those things: and to all the children of Israel; to the heads of the tribes and elders of the people, and by them to the whole, that they might know who were fit, and who not, to put their sacrifice into their hands, to offer for them: Jarchi thinks this was to warn the sanhedrim concerning the priests, whose business it was to examine and judge who were fit for service and who not; for so we are told (k), that in the chamber Gazith, or of hewn stone, the great sanhedrim of Israel sat and judged the priests, and rejected some and received others. (k) Misn. Middot, c. 5. sect. 3.

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. 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.

Leviticus 22:1-16 1. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 1. Loquutus est insuper Jehova ad Mosen, dicendo: 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. 2. Loquere ad Aharon, et filios ejus ut separent sese a sanctificationibus filiorum Israel et ne polluant nomen sanctitatis mese in his quae ipsi sanctificant mihi: ego Jehova. 3. Say 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. 3. Dic illis, in generationibus vestris omnis vir qui accesserit ex omni semine vestro ad sanctificationes quae sanctificaverint filii Israel Jehovae, et immunditia sua fuerit super ipsum, excidetur anima ipsius a facie mea: ego Jehova. 4. What man soever of the seed of Aaron 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; 4. Quicunque e semine Aharon fuerit leprosus, vel seminifluus, de sanctificationibus non comedet donec mundet se: et qui tedgerit immundum super morticinio, ant virex quo egreditur effusio seminis, 5. Or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing, whereby he may be made unclean, or a man of whom he may take uncleanness, whatsoever uncleanness he hath; 5. Ant vir qui tetigerit quodcunque reptile per quod immundus erit, ant hominem propter quem immundus erit, secundum omnem immunditiam eius: 6. The soul which hath touched any such shall be unclean until even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash his flesh with water. 6. Anima inquam quae tetigerit illum, immunda erit usque ad vesperam: et non comedet de sanctificationibus nisi laverit carnem suam aqua. 7. And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food. 7. Quum autem occubuerit sol, turn erit mundus, et postea comedet de sanctificationibus: quia cibus ejus est. 8. That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith: I am the LORD. 8. Cadaver et rapture non comedet, et polluat se in eo: ego Jehova. 9. They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it: I the LORD do sanctify them. 9. Et custodiant custodiam meam, et ne portent peccatum propter illud, et moriantur propter illud, quum polluerint illam: ego Jehova sanctificans eos. 10. There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing. 10. Omnis autem alienigena non comedet sanctificationem: inquilinus sacerdotis, et mercenarius non comedet sanctificationem. 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. 11. Quod si sacerdos emerit hominem emptione argenti sui: ipsc comedet ex ea, et vernaculus ejus: illi comedent de cibo ejus. 12. If the priest's daughter also be married unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things. 12. Filia autem sacerdotis quum fuerit viro alieno: ipsa de oblatione sanctificationum non comedet. 13. But if the priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof. 13. Filia vero sacerdotis quum fuerit vidua, ant repudiata, et semen non erit el, et reversa fuerit ad domran parris sui, sicut in pueritia sua, de eibo patris eomedet: onmis autem alienigena non comedet ex co. 14. And if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly, then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it, and shall give it unto the priest with the holy thing. 14. Quod si aliquis comederit sanctificationem per imprudentiam, addet quintam partem ejus, et dabit sacerdoti eum sanctificatione. 15. And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer unto the LORD; 15. Et non contaminabunt sanctificationes filiorum Israel, quas obtulerint Jehovae. 16. Or suffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass, when they eat their holy things: for I the LORD do sanctify them. 16. Neque portare facient cos iniquitatem delicti, dum comederint sanctificationes eorum: ego enim Jehova sanctificans eos. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses. Moses here treats of the accidents whereby pollution is contracted, although a man may be by nature pure and sound. If any labored under natural defects, Moses prohibited them from exercising the sacerdotal office; now, if any extrinsic pollution may have affected a priest, he commands him to abstain from his duties until he shall have been purified. He had already commanded that any unclean person should be separated from the people lest their contagion should infect others; it may therefore seem superfluous to prescribe to the priests what had been universally enjoined. But since men placed in any position of honor are apt to abuse God's favor as a pretext for sin, lest the sacerdotal dignity might be used as a covering for the indulgence or excuse of scandals, it was necessary to enact an express law, that the priests should not plead their privilege to eat in their uncleanness of the sacrifices which none but the clean might offer. And that their sacrilege might be the more detestable, he denounces death against any who should intrude their pollutions into the sacrifices; for it was necessary to arouse by the fear of punishment, and as it were to drive by violence to their duty those who would not have been otherwise restrained by any religious feeling from making God's service contemptible. He then enumerates the particular kinds of pollution of which we have before spoken. Whence it appears, that the priests were brought into discipline by this law, lest they should think themselves more free than the rest of the people, thus might indulge themselves in security; and this is afterwards more clearly expressed where God admonishes them to "keep his ordinance," [194] (ver. 9:) i.e., diligently to observe whatever He commanded; and the greater dignity He had honored them with, that the greater should be their study to persevere in the exercises of piety; for he shews them that so far from their sacerdotal rights conducing to the alleviation of their sin, they were more strongly bound by them to keep the Law. 10 There shall no stranger. It was also necessary to add this, that the majesty of sacred things might not be impaired; for if it had been promiscuously permitted to all to eat of the sacred bread and the other oblations, the people would have straightway inferred that they differed not from ordinary food. And unless the avarice of the priests had been thus anticipated, [195] an unworthy trade would have prevailed; for banquets would have been see up for sale, and the priest's house would have been a kind of provision-market. The prohibition, therefore, that the meats offered in sacrifice should be eaten by strangers, was not made so much with reference to them as to the priests, who would have else driven a profitable trade with the offerings, or, by gratifying their guests, would not have hesitated to bring disrepute on the whole service of God. The Law consequently prohibits that either a sojourner, or a hired servant, should eat of them; and only gives this permission to their slaves, and those who were incorporated into their families. Moreover, He counts the priests' daughters who had married into another tribe as aliens. The sum has this tendency, that whatsoever depends on the service of God should obtain its due reverence; nor could this be the case, if what was offered in the temple were not distinguished from common food. Inasmuch as they were human beings, they were allowed to subsist in the ordinary manner; yet was this distinction necessary, which might savor of the sanctity of Christ. This was the cleanness of the priests as regarded food. 14. And if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly. A question may here arise, why God would have satisfaction made to the priests, if any one should have eaten of the offerings; for they deserved punishment rather than reward, if they had suffered sacred things to be brought into contempt by their promiscuous use. But the error of those is here dealt with, who had not reserved for the priests their lawful share. A portion, as we shall see, was assigned by God, which they were to set aside before they tasted any part of the victim; those, therefore, who had sinned by inadvertency, are commanded by Him to expiate their fault, to restore so much to the priest, and to add a fifth part. And this was done with the object of which we have spoken, lest, if the things offered to God were exposed to common use, religion should be brought into contempt. What follows afterwards, "and they shall not profane the holy things," I interpret as addressed to the priests themselves; for this sentence is connected with the previous one, in which the injunctions were directed to the priests alone; and this is further confirmed by the next verse, which declares that the whole people would be accomplices in the sin of the priests if they should have polluted the sacred oblations. For thus I take the words, "that they should not suffer the people to bear the iniquity," or the punishment of the transgression, if the unclean should have touched things offered to God. For as the priest is the mediator of reconciliation to propitiate God towards men, so his impiety is a common iniquity, which brings guilt upon all. The translation which some give, "that they should not lade themselves," [196] is further from the sense, and altogether wrested. Finally, God again declares that in proportion to the greatness of the honor which He had put upon them, would be the heaviness and inexcusableness of the crime, if they acted unworthily of their calling. Footnotes: [194] Lat., "Custodiant custodiam meam." Ainsworth, "Keep my charge." [195] "Ils eussent ttenu foire et marche des viandes, qui leurs fussent demeurees de residu, ce qui n'eust pas este sans grand opprobre:" they would have kept fair and market of the meats which remained over to them, which could not have taken place without much scandal. -- Fr. [196] As in margin of A. V.

Whosoever he be . . . that goeth unto the holy things--The multitude of minute restrictions to which the priests, from accidental defilement, were subjected, by keeping them constantly on their guard lest they should be unfit for the sacred service, tended to preserve in full exercise the feeling of awe and submission to the authority of God. The ideas of sin and duty were awakened in their breasts by every case to which either an interdict or an injunction was applied. But why enact an express statute for priests disqualified by the leprosy or polluting touch of a carcass [Lev 22:4], when a general law was already in force which excluded from society all persons in that condition? Because priests might be apt, from familiarity, to trifle with religion, and in committing irregularities or sins, to shelter themselves under the cloak of the sacred office. This law, therefore, was passed, specifying the chief forms of temporary defilement which excluded from the sanctuary, that priests might not deem themselves entitled to greater license than the rest of the people; and that so far from being in any degree exempted from the sanctions of the law, they were under greater obligations, by their priestly station, to observe it in its strict letter and its smallest enactments.

wash his flesh with water--Any Israelite who had contracted a defilement of such a nature as debarred him from the enjoyment of his wonted privileges, and had been legally cleansed from the disqualifying impurity, was bound to indicate his state of recovery by the immersion of his whole person in water. Although all ceremonial impurity formed a ground of exclusion, there were degrees of impurity which entailed a longer or shorter period of excommunication, and for the removal of which different rites required to be observed according to the trivial or the malignant nature of the case. A person who came inadvertently into contact with an unclean animal was rendered unclean for a specified period; and then, at the expiry of that term, he washed, in token of his recovered purity. But a leper was unclean so long as he remained subject to that disease, and on his convalescence, he also washed, not to cleanse himself, for the water was ineffectual for that purpose, but to signify that he was clean. Not a single case is recorded of a leper being restored to communion by the use of water; it served only as an outward and visible sign that such a restoration was to be made. The Book of Leviticus abounds with examples which show that in all the ceremonial washings, as uncleanness meant loss of privileges, so baptism with water indicated a restoration to those privileges. There was no exemption; for as the unclean Israelite was exiled from the congregation, so the unclean priest was disqualified from executing his sacred functions in the sanctuary; and in the case of both, the same observance was required--a formal intimation of their being readmitted to forfeited privileges was intimated by the appointed rite of baptism. If any one neglected or refused to perform the washing, he disobeyed a positive precept, and he remained in his uncleanness; he forbore to avail himself of this privilege, and was therefore said to be "cut off" from the presence of the Lord.

dieth of itself--The feelings of nature revolt against such food. It might have been left to the discretion of the Hebrews, who it may be supposed (like the people of all civilized nations) would have abstained from the use of it without any positive interdict. But an express precept was necessary to show them that whatever died naturally or from disease, was prohibited to them by the operation of that law which forbade them the use of any meat with its blood.

WHO OF THE PRIESTS' HOUSE MAY EAT OF THEM. (Lev 22:10-16) There shall no stranger eat the holy thing--The portion of the sacrifices assigned for the support of the officiating priests was restricted to the exclusive use of his own family. A temporary guest or a hired servant was not at liberty to eat of them; but an exception was made in favor of a bought or homeborn slave, because such was a stated member of his household. On the same principle, his own daughter, who married a husband not a priest, could not eat of them. However, if a widow and childless, she was reinstated in the privileges of her father's house as before her marriage. But if she had become a mother, as her children had no right to the privileges of the priesthood, she was under a necessity of finding support for them elsewhere than under her father's roof.

there shall no stranger eat thereof--The interdict recorded (Lev 22:10) is repeated to show its stringency. All the Hebrews, even the nearest neighbors of the priest, the members of his family excepted, were considered strangers in this respect, so that they had no right to eat of things offered at the altar.

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.

Speak unto Aaron and to his sons,.... The priests; the children of Israel or the common people are not mentioned, as having no concern in the following laws about eating holy things: that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel; both from offering their lawful sacrifices, which was the business of their office when pure, and chiefly from eating that part of them which was their due, and was allowed them; neither of these they were to do, particularly the latter, when they were in any uncleanness, as the following words show: and that, they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me; which the children of Israel set apart and devoted to his service; which they would do, by eating their part of them when unclean, and thereby show little reverence to that holy name to which they were devoted; or which the priests themselves sanctified, by offering them to him; for Jarchi says, this takes in the holiness of the priests themselves; but the former seems best, and is confirmed in Leviticus 22:3, I am the Lord; who is holy himself, and whose holy things these are, and will be sanctified by those that draw nigh unto him.

Say unto them, whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations,.... Whether male or female, in all succeeding ages, as long as the ceremonial law lasted; for females as well as males of the families of the priests ate of the holy things, provided they had no uncleanness on them, but if they had, they might not: that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the Lord: that approaches to any of the sacrifices which the children of Israel have devoted to the Lord, either to offer them, or even to touch them, and particularly to eat of them; and so Jarchi and Ben Gersom observe, that this going or drawing near is no other than eating; for touching only, a man was not guilty of cutting off: having his uncleanness upon him; through a leprosy, or running issue, or touching any unclean person or thing, as the following words explain it: that soul shall be cut off from my presence; excluded from the sanctuary, and the service of it, where the presence of God was; or be removed out of the world by death, either by the civil magistrate, or by the hand of God, by an immediate death, by the pestilence, as the Targum of Jonathan: I am the Lord; that will avenge the breach of such a law, able to inflict such punishment, and faithful to accomplish every word of his, whether in a way of threatening or promise.

What man soever of the seed of Aaron is a leper,.... A young, or an old man, as the Targum of Jonathan, and indeed man or woman; for the wives and daughters of the priests, if in this, and other circumstances following, might not eat of the holy things until cleansed, who otherwise might, see Leviticus 13:2, or hath a running issue; a gonorrhoea, whether man or woman, Leviticus 15:2, he shall not eat of the holy things until he be clean; he might eat of the tithes, but not of the wave breast, or heave shoulder: and whoso toucheth any that is unclean by the dead; not only that touched the dead, which made unclean, but that touched any person or thing that was made unclean by it: or a man whose seed goeth from him; involuntarily when asleep, in a dream, and through a lustful imagination; see Leviticus 15:16.

Or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing, whereby he may be made unclean,.... Jarchi thinks this respects the measure or quantity of what is touched, as if but the quantity of a lentil or small pea, see Leviticus 11:31, or a man of whom he may take uncleanness, whatsoever uncleanness he hath; as of a leper, a profluvious, or a dead man; Jarchi interprets it of the latter, and of the quantity which defiles, which is that of an olive; who also observes, that the phrase, "whatsoever uncleanness", includes touching a profluvious man or woman, a menstruous woman, and a new mother.

The soul which hath touched any such shall be unclean until even,.... Which is the time fixed by the several laws for such uncleannesses, see Leviticus 11:31, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash his flesh with water; in forty seahs of water, as the Targum of Jonathan; yea, when the evening is come, he may not eat of the heave or wave offerings, until he has dipped himself all over in water; nor should any eat of the Lord's supper under the New Testament, but such as are first baptized in water.

And when the sun is down he shall be clean,.... Having washed himself in water, otherwise not, though the sun may be set: and shall afterwards eat of the holy things; the families of the priests lived upon: because it is his food: his common food, his ordinary diet, that by which he subsists, having nothing else to live upon; this being the ordination of God, that he which ministered about holy things should live on them; and these being his only substance, in compassion to him they were detained from him no longer than the evening; and this was done, to make him careful how he defiled himself, since thereby he was debarred of his ordinary meals.

That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts,.... Whether fowls or beasts, and even clean ones, which, had they been killed in a proper manner, were fit to cut, but dying of themselves, or torn to pieces by other birds or beasts of prey, might not, see Ezekiel 44:31, he shall not eat, to defile himself therewith; being impure food, at least in a ceremonial sense, and not fit to be eaten; these things were forbid a common Israelite, and much less might a priest eat of them, see Leviticus 17:15, I am the Lord; who enjoin this, and expect to be obeyed.

They shall therefore keep mine ordinance,.... The observance of my word, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, of his word of command; either respecting the not eating of such creatures that died of themselves, or were torn by beasts; or else the not eating holy things in uncleanness, so Jarchi and Gersom; but Aben Ezra thinks the sanctuary is referred to, which was to be kept by the priests, and which seems to agree with what follows: lest they bear sin for it: the sanctuary, by neglecting it, and so be charged with the guilt of sin, and be obliged to bear the punishment of it: and die therefore if they profane it; by going into it in their uncleanness, and eating of the most holy things there when in such circumstances, and die by the hand of God, as Jarchi and Ben Gersom interpret it, as Nadab and Abihu did, and even in like manner, by fire, Leviticus 10:1; and so the Targum of Jonathan,"lest they die by flaming fire:" I the Lord do sanctify them; the priests, who were separated from others, and devoted to his service, and therefore ought to be holy; or the holy things separated for the use of the priests, but not to be eaten in their uncleanness; the Arabic version renders it, "do sanctify that", the sanctuary, and therefore it should not be profaned, but be kept pure and holy.

There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing,.... Any one of the holy things, as the heave shoulder, wave breast, &c. by a "stranger" is not meant one of another nation; though indeed all such were called strangers, and might not eat of these things, Ephesians 2:12; but one that was not of the family of a priest, though he might be an Israelite, and even a Levite; anyone that was not of the seed of Aaron, as Aben Ezra; any common man or laic, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, excepting those after mentioned: a sojourner of the priests, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing: by the former is not intended an Heathen, a proselyte of the gate, one that has renounced idolatry, and so permitted to live among the Israelites, of it uncircumcised, who is often understood by one that sojourneth in the gate, but here an Israelitish sojourner; and so the Targum of Jonathan expressly has it,"a son of an Israelite, who is a sojourner of the priests;''not that is a guest for a short time, or a boarder with him; for if he may not eat of the holy things, what must he live on while with him? but one that dwells in some part of his house: and by the latter is meant anyone that is hired by the day, or week, or year, and when the time is expired is at his liberty; though the Jewish writers commonly, and particularly Jarchi, interpret the sojourner of the servant that has his ear bored, and is bought with money, until the year of jubilee, and serves for ever; and the hireling of one that is purchased for years, and goes out in the sixth year; but the above objection will lie against these.

But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it,.... Whether any of his own nation, who sometimes, when become poor, were obliged to sell themselves; or a stranger, as the Targum of Jonathan; one of another nation, a Canaanitish servant, as Jarchi. Now these being his own purchase, and always to abide with him, became part of his family, and so might eat of the provisions of it; and it is from hence the Jews gather, as Jarchi and Gersom, that his wife might eat of the holy things, because bought with his money; but there is a better reason to be given for that, for of whatever family she was before, whether of the priests or not, by marriage she became a part, yea, a principal of his family, being one flesh with him, bearing the same name, and entitled to all the privileges of his house. This is extended by some Jewish writers (l) to cattle, for by any soul they understood also the soul of a beast, which being bought by the priest's money, might eat of the offerings of the tithes: and he that is born in his house; they shall eat of his meat; whether male or female, as Aben Ezra; these are children of handmaids, as Jarchi, that were bought with his money; and these children being born of them, became his property, and part of his family, and so had a right to the provisions of his house. All this may teach us, that the holy ordinances of the Gospel are not to be administered to strangers, persons destitute of the grace of God, nor to such as are not of the family or church of God, but to such as are bought and redeemed with the blood of Christ, the high priest, and are born again of his Spirit and grace. (l) Misn. Trumot, c. 11. sect. 9. & Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. Hilchot Trumot, c. 6. sect. 1.

If the priest's daughter also be married to a stranger,.... Not to an Heathen, but to any Israelite, that is, a common man, or a layman, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, one that is not a priest; but is married either to a Levite, or an Israelite, as Jarchi: she may not eat of an offering of the holy things; the heave shoulder or wave breast, &c. being removed into another family by marriage, she is not reckoned of her father's family, and so had no more a right to eat of the holy things.

But if the priest's daughter be a widow or divorced,.... If her husband be dead, or if living, and she is put away by him, whether a Levite, or an Israelite: and have no child: by him, as the Targum of Jonathan and Jarchi add, nor is with child by him: and is returned to her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's meat; not of all, or any part, only of some, of the heave offering, but not of the shoulder or breast, which is the tradition of the wise men, as Maimonides (m) relates. There are two cases in this affair excepted by them, which they suppose are implied in this clause; the one is, if she is detained and reserved for her husband's brother, according to the law in Deuteronomy 25:5; she being without children; and so the Targum of Jonathan adds,"and is not kept or reserved for her husband's brother,''which is implied by her being returned to her father's house; and the other is, if she is with child; for though she had no children by her husband, yet if she is pregnant, that made her unlawful to eat of the holy things; for then she is not as in her youth (n). The Jewish canon concerning such a person runs thus (o); the daughter of a priest, married to an Israelite, may not eat of the heave offering; if he dies, and she has a son by him, she may not eat of the heave offering; if she is married to a Levite, she may eat of the tithes: if he dies, and she has a son by him, she may eat of the tithes: if she is married to a priest, she may eat of the heave offering; if he dies, and she has a son by him, she may eat of the heave offering; if her son by the priest dies, she may not eat of the heave offering; if her son by the Levite dies, she may not eat of the tithes; if her son by an Israelite, she may return to her father's house, as it is said Leviticus 22:13, but there shall no stranger eat thereof; as not anyone of another nation, so not anyone of another family beside the priest's, no, not the son of a priest's daughter by an Israelite, which some think is principally intended; and so Aben Ezra remarks this is said of a son, if she had any, and upon whose account she herself might not eat. (m) In Misn. Yebamot, c. 9. sect. 6. (n) Misn Yebamot, c. 7. sect. 4. & Bartenora in ib. (o) Misn. Yebamot, c. 9. sect. 6.

The holy things were to be eaten by the priests and their families. Now, I. Here is a law that no stranger should eat of them, that is, no person whatsoever but the priests only, and those that pertained to them, Lev 22:10. The priests are charged with this care, not to profane the holy things by permitting the strangers to eat of them (Lev 22:15) or suffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass (Lev 22:16); that is, suffer them to bring guilt upon themselves, by meddling with that which they have no right to. Thus it is commonly understood. Note, We must not only be careful that we do not bear iniquity ourselves, but we must do what we can to prevent others bearing it. We must not only not suffer sin to lie upon our brother, but, if we can help it, we must not suffer it to come upon him. But perhaps there is another meaning of those words: the priests' eating the sin-offerings is said to signify their bearing the iniquity of the congregation, to make an atonement for them, Lev 10:17. Let not a stranger therefore eat of that holy thing particularly, and so pretend to bear the iniquity of trespass; for it is daring presumption for any to do that, but such as are appointed to do it. Those that set up other mediators besides Christ our priest, to bear the iniquity of trespass, sacrilegiously rob Christ of his honour, and invade his rights. When we warn people not to trust to their own righteousness, nor dare to appear before God in it, but to rely on Christ's righteousness only for peace and pardon, it is because we dare not suffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass, for we know it is too heavy for them. II. Here is an explanation of the law, showing who were to be looked upon as belonging to the priest's family, and who not. 1. Sojourners and hired servants abode not in the house for ever; they were in the family, but not of it; and therefore they might not eat of the holy things (Lev 22:10): but the servant that was born in the house or bought with money, being a heirloom to the family, though a servant, yet might eat of the holy things, Lev 22:11. Note, Those only are entitled to the comforts of God's house who make it their rest for ever, and resolve to dwell in it all the days of their life. As for those who for a time only believe, to serve a present turn. They are looked upon but as sojourners and mercenaries, and have no part nor lot in the matter. 2. As to the children of the family, concerning the sons there could be no dispute, they were themselves priests, but concerning the daughters there was a distinction. While they continued in their father's house they might eat of the holy things; but, if they married such as were not priests, they lost their right (Lev 22:12), for now they were cut off from the family of the priests. Yet if a priest's daughter became a widow, and had no children in whom she might preserve a distinct family, and returned to her father's house again, being neither wife nor mother, she should again be looked upon as a daughter, and might eat of the holy things. If those whom Providence has made sorrowful widows, and who are dislodged from the rest they had in the house of a husband, yet find it again in a father's house, they have reason to be thankful to the widows' God, who does not leave them comfortless. 3. Here is a demand of restitution to be made by him that had no right to the holy things, and yet should eat of them unwittingly, Lev 22:14. If he did it presumptuously, and in contempt of the divine institution, he was liable to be cut off by the hand of God, and to be beaten by the magistrate; but, if he did it through weakness in inconsideration, he was to restore the value, adding a fifth part to it, besides which he was to bring an offering to atone for the trespass; see Lev 5:15, Lev 5:16. III. This law might be dispensed with in a case of necessity, as it was when David and his men ate of the show-bread, Sa1 21:6. And our Saviour justifies them, and gives a reason for it, which furnishes us with a lasting rule in all such cases, that God will have mercy and not sacrifice, Mat 12:3, Mat 12:4, Mat 12:7. Rituals must give way to morals. IV. It is an instruction to gospel ministers, who are stewards of the mysteries of God, not to admit all, without distinction, to eat of the holy things, but to take out the precious from the vile. Those that are scandalously ignorant or profane are strangers and aliens to the family of the Lord's priests; and it is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it to such. Holy things are for holy persons, for those who are holy, at least, in profession, Mat 7:6.