Text -- Leviticus 22:1-29 (NET)

Regulations for the Eating of Priestly Stipends

22:1 The Lord spoke to Moses: 22:2 “Tell Aaron and his sons that they must deal respectfully with the holy offerings of the Israelites, which they consecrate to me, so that they do not profane my holy name. I am the Lord. 22:3 Say to them, ‘Throughout your generations, if any man from all your descendants approaches the holy offerings which the Israelites consecrate to the Lord while he is impure, that person must be cut off from before me. I am the Lord. 22:4 No man from the descendants of Aaron who is diseased or has a discharge may eat the holy offerings until he becomes clean. The one who touches anything made unclean by contact with a dead person, or a man who has a seminal emission, 22:5 or a man who touches a swarming thing by which he becomes unclean, or touches a person by which he becomes unclean, whatever that person’s impurity– 22:6 the person who touches any of these will be unclean until evening and must not eat from the holy offerings unless he has bathed his body in water. 22:7 When the sun goes down he will be clean, and afterward he may eat from the holy offerings, because they are his food. 22:8 He must not eat an animal that has died of natural causes or an animal torn by beasts and thus become unclean by it. I am the Lord. 22:9 They must keep my charge so that they do not incur sin on account of it and therefore die because they profane it. I am the Lord who sanctifies them. 22:10 “‘No lay person may eat anything holy. Neither a priest’s lodger nor a hired laborer may eat anything holy, 22:11 but if a priest buys a person with his own money, that person may eat the holy offerings, and those born in the priest’s own house may eat his food. 22:12 If a priest’s daughter marries a lay person, she may not eat the holy contribution offerings, 22:13 but if a priest’s daughter is a widow or divorced, and she has no children so that she returns to live in her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat from her father’s food, but no lay person may eat it. 22:14 “‘If a man eats a holy offering by mistake, he must add one fifth to it and give the holy offering to the priest. 22:15 They must not profane the holy offerings which the Israelites contribute to the Lord, 22:16 and so cause them to incur a penalty for guilt when they eat their holy offerings, for I am the Lord who sanctifies them.’”

Regulations for Offering Votive and Freewill Offerings

22:17 The Lord spoke to Moses: 22:18 “Speak to Aaron, his sons, and all the Israelites and tell them, ‘When any man from the house of Israel or from the foreigners in Israel presents his offering for any of the votive or freewill offerings which they present to the Lord as a burnt offering, 22:19 if it is to be acceptable for your benefit it must be a flawless male from the cattle, sheep, or goats. 22:20 You must not present anything that has a flaw, because it will not be acceptable for your benefit. 22:21 If a man presents a peace offering sacrifice to the Lord for a special votive offering or for a freewill offering from the herd or the flock, it must be flawless to be acceptable; it must have no flaw. 22:22 “‘You must not present to the Lord something blind, or with a broken bone, or mutilated, or with a running sore, or with a festering eruption, or with a feverish rash. You must not give any of these as a gift on the altar to the Lord. 22:23 As for an ox or a sheep with a limb too long or stunted, you may present it as a freewill offering, but it will not be acceptable for a votive offering. 22:24 You must not present to the Lord something with testicles that are bruised, crushed, torn, or cut off; you must not do this in your land. 22:25 Even from a foreigner you must not present the food of your God from such animals as these, for they are ruined and flawed; they will not be acceptable for your benefit.’” 22:26 The Lord spoke to Moses: 22:27 “When an ox, lamb, or goat is born, it must be under the care of its mother seven days, but from the eighth day onward it will be acceptable as an offering gift to the Lord. 22:28 You must not slaughter an ox or a sheep and its young on the same day. 22:29 When you sacrifice a thanksgiving offering to the Lord, you must sacrifice it so that it is acceptable for your benefit.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Lev 22:2

When any uncleanness is upon them, as appears from Lev 22:3-4.

Wesley: Lev 22:2

From eating of those parts of the offerings, which belong to them. Only of the tithes they might eat.

Wesley: Lev 22:2

The children of Israel. And it ill became the priests to profane or pollute what the people did hallow.

Wesley: Lev 22:3

To eat them, or to touch them; for if the touch of one of the people having his uncleanness upon him defiled the thing he touched, much more was it so in the priest.

Wesley: Lev 22:3

From my ordinances by excommunication: He shall be excluded both from the administration, and from the participation of them.

Wesley: Lev 22:7

His portion, the means of his subsistence. This may be added, to signify why there was no greater nor longer a penalty put upon the priests than upon the people in the same case, because his necessity craved some mitigation: tho' otherwise the priests being more sacred persons, deserved a greater punishment.

Wesley: Lev 22:9

Incur guilt and punishment.

Wesley: Lev 22:9

For the neglect or violation of it.

Wesley: Lev 22:10

Of a strange family, who is not a priest; but there is an exception to this rule, Lev 22:11.

Wesley: Lev 22:10

One that comes to his house and abides there for a season, and eats at his table.

Wesley: Lev 22:12

To one of another family, who is no priest. Yet the priest's wife, though of another family, might eat. The reason of which difference is, because the wife passeth into the name, state and privileges of her husband, from whom the family is denominated.

Wesley: Lev 22:14

Over and above the principle, and besides the ram to be offered to God, Lev 5:15.

Wesley: Lev 22:14

That is, the worth of it, which the priest was either to take to himself or to offer to God, as the nature of the thing was.

Wesley: Lev 22:15

The people shall not profane them, by eating them: or the priests shall not profane them, that is, suffer the people to profane them, without censure and punishment.

Wesley: Lev 22:16

That is, the priests, shall not (the negative particle being understood out of the foregoing clause) suffer them - That is, the people, to bear the iniquity of trespass - That is, the punishment of their sin, which they might expect from God, and for the prevention whereof the priest was to see restitution made.

Wesley: Lev 22:18

Such as were proselytes.

Wesley: Lev 22:19

For a burnt-offering, which was always of that kind: but the females were accepted in peace-offerings, and sin-offerings.

Wesley: Lev 22:25

From proselytes: even from those, such should not be accepted, much less from the Israelites.

Wesley: Lev 22:25

That is, the sacrifices.

Wesley: Lev 22:28

Because it favoured of cruelty.

JFB: Lev 22:2

"To separate" means, in the language of the Mosaic ritual, "to abstain"; and therefore the import of this injunction is that the priests should abstain from eating that part of the sacrifices which, though belonging to their order, was to be partaken of only by such of them as were free from legal impurities.

JFB: Lev 22:2

That is, let them not, by their want of due reverence, give occasion to profane my holy name. A careless or irreverent use of things consecrated to God tends to dishonor the name and bring disrespect on the worship of God.

JFB: Lev 22:3

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.

JFB: Lev 22:4-6

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.

JFB: Lev 22:8

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.

JFB: Lev 22:10-13

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.

JFB: Lev 22:13

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.

JFB: Lev 22:14

A common Israelite might unconsciously partake of what had been offered as tithes, first-fruits, &c., and on discovering his unintentional error, he was not only to restore as much as he had used, but be fined in a fifth part more for the priests to carry into the sanctuary.

JFB: Lev 22:15-16

There is some difficulty felt in determining to whom "they" refers. The subject of the preceding context being occupied about the priests, it is supposed by some that this relates to them also; and the meaning then is that the whole people would incur guilt through the fault of the priests, if they should defile the sacred offerings, which they would have done had they presented them while under any defilement [CALVIN]. According to others, "the children of Israel" is the nominative in the sentence; which thus signifies, the children of Israel shall not profane or defile their offerings, by touching them or reserving any part of them, lest they incur the guilt of eating what is divinely appointed to the priests alone [CALMET].

JFB: Lev 22:19

Rather, to your being accepted.

JFB: Lev 22:19

This law (Lev 1:3) is founded on a sense of natural propriety, which required the greatest care to be taken in the selection of animals for sacrifice. The reason for this extreme caution is found in the fact that sacrifices are either an expression of praise to God for His goodness, or else they are the designed means of conciliating or retaining His favor. No victim that was not perfect in its kind could be deemed a fitting instrument for such purposes if we assume that the significance of sacrifices is derived entirely from their relation to Jehovah. Sacrifices may be likened to gifts made to a king by his subjects, and hence the reasonableness of God's strong remonstrance with the worldly-minded Jews (Mal 1:8). If the tabernacle, and subsequently the temple, were considered the palace of the great King, then the sacrifices would answer to presents as offered to a monarch on various occasions by his subjects; and in this light they would be the appropriate expressions of their feelings towards their sovereign. When a subject wished to do honor to his sovereign, to acknowledge allegiance, to appease his anger, to supplicate forgiveness, or to intercede for another, he brought a present; and all the ideas involved in sacrifices correspond to these sentiments--those of gratitude, of worship, of prayer, of confession and atonement [BIB. SAC.].

JFB: Lev 22:23

The passage should be rendered thus: "if thou offer it either for a freewill offering, or for a vow, it shall not be accepted." This sacrifice being required to be "without blemish" [Lev 22:19], symbolically implied that the people of God were to dedicate themselves wholly with sincere purposes of heart, and its being required to be "perfect to be accepted" [Lev 22:21], led them typically to Him without whom no sacrifice could be offered acceptable to God.

JFB: Lev 22:27-28

Animals were not considered perfect nor good for food till the eighth day. As sacrifices are called the bread or food of God (Lev 22:25), to offer them immediately after birth, when they were unfit to be eaten, would have indicated a contempt of religion; and besides, this prohibition, as well as that contained in Lev 22:28, inculcated a lesson of humanity or tenderness to the dam, as well as secured the sacrifices from all appearance of unfeeling cruelty.

Clarke: Lev 22:2

Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves - The same subject is continued in this chapter as in the preceding, with this addition, that besides the perfection of the priests, it was indispensably necessary that the sacrifices also should be perfect. In the service of God, according to the law, neither an imperfect offering nor an imperfect offerer could be admitted. What need then of a mediator between a holy God and sinful men! And can we expect that any of our services, however sincere and well-intentioned, can be accepted, unless offered on that living Altar that sanctifies the gift?

Clarke: Lev 22:4

Is a leper, or hath a running issue - See the case of the leper treated at large in the notes on Leviticus 13 (note) and Leviticus 14 (note); and for other uncleannesses, see the notes on Leviticus 15 (note).

Clarke: Lev 22:10

There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing - For the meaning of the word stranger, see the note on Exo 12:43. The Jews suppose that stranger here means one who has had his ear pierced, (see the note on Exo 21:6), and that sojourner means a servant who is to go free on the Sabbatical year. Neither of these was permitted to eat of the holy things, because they were not properly members of the priest’ s family, and might go out and defile themselves even with the abominations of the heathen; but the servant or slave that was bought with money, Lev 22:11, might eat of these things, because he was the property of the master for ever. We see that it was lawful, under the Mosaic economy, to have slaves under certain restrictions; but these were taken from among the heathen, and instructed in the true religion: hence we find, as in the above case, that they were reckoned as a part of the priest’ s own family, and treated as such. They certainly had privileges which did not extend either to sojourners or to hired servants; therefore their situation was incomparably better than the situation of the slaves under different European governments, of whose souls their pitiless possessors in general take no care, while they themselves venture to profess the Christian religion, and quote the Mosaic law in vindication of their system of slavery. How preposterous is such conduct! and how intolerable!

Clarke: Lev 22:13

But if the priest’ s daughter be a widow - and is returned unto her father’ s house - A widow in Bengal not infrequently returns to her father’ s house on the death of her husband: the union betwixt her and her own family is never so dissolved as among European nations. Thousands of widows in Bengal, whose husbands die before the consummation of marriage, never leave their parents - Ward.

Clarke: Lev 22:14

Then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it - The holy thing of which he has unknowingly eaten shall be fairly valued, and to this value he shall add one fifth more, and give the whole to the priest.

Clarke: Lev 22:20

Whatsoever hath a blemish - The same perfection is required in the sacrifice that was required in the priest; see on Lev 22:2 (note), and the notes on Leviticus 21 (note).

Clarke: Lev 22:23

That hath anything superfluous or lacking - The term שרוע sarua signifies any thing extended beyond the usual size, and the term קלוט kalut signifies any thing unusually contracted; and both mean any monstrosity, whether in redundance or defect. Such things, it seems, might be offered for a freewill-offering, because that was not prescribed by the law; God left it to a man’ s piety and gratitude to offer such additional gifts as he could: what the law required was indispensably necessary, because it pointed out the Gospel economy; but he that made a vow to offer such a sacrifice as the law had not required, could of course bring an imperfect offering. Some contend that the last clause of this verse should be thus read: If thou offer it either for a freewill-offering, or for a vow, it shall not be accepted. It was the opinion of the Jews, and it appears to be correct, that none of these imperfect animals were ever offered on the altar; but the person who made the freewill-offering of such things as he had, sold the animal, and gave its price for the support of the sanctuary.

Clarke: Lev 22:24

Bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut - That is, no bullock or lamb that is injured in any of the above ways, shall be offered unto the Lord.

Clarke: Lev 22:25

Their corruption is in them - Viz., they are bruised, crushed, broken, etc.

Clarke: Lev 22:27

When a bullock - is brought forth - This is a most unfortunate as well as absurd translation. The creature called an ox is a bull castrated; surely then a bullock was never yet brought forth! The original word שור shor signifies a bull, a bullock, or indeed any thing of the neat kind: here, even common sense required that it should be translated calf; and did I not hold myself sacredly bound to print the text of the common version with scrupulous exactness, I should translate the former clause of this verse thus, and so enter it into the text: When a Calf, or a Lamb, or a Kid is brought forth, instead of, When a bullock, a sheep, or a goat is brought forth, the absurdity of which is glaring

Clarke: Lev 22:27

Seven days under the dam - In vindication of the propriety of this precept it may be justly asserted, that the flesh of very young animals is comparatively innutritive, and that animal food is not sufficiently nourishing and wholesome till the animal has arrived at a certain growth, or acquired the perfection of its nature. There is something brutish in eating the young of beast or fowl before the hair and hoofs are perfect in the one, and the feathers and claws in the other. Before this period their flesh is not good for food. See the note on Lev 9:1.

Clarke: Lev 22:28

Ye shall not kill it and her young in one day - This precept was certainly intended to inculcate mercy and tenderness of heart; and so the Jews understood it. When it is necessary to take away the lives of innocent animals for the support of our own, we should do it in such a way as not to blunt our moral feelings; and deplore the necessity, while we feel an express gratitude to God for permission, to do it.

Calvin: Lev 22:1

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 (Lev 22:9 :) 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.

Calvin: Lev 22:14

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.

Calvin: Lev 22:17

Lev 22:17.And the Lord spake He now more clearly teaches and more copiously inculcates what he has frequently adverted to heretofore, that it is sinful to offer to God a maimed, or weak, or otherwise imperfect animal. Now this external soundness admonished the ancient people that God is served amiss when He is served by halves, since He abominates a double heart. ²⁹² (Pro 11:20.) At the same time, in this symbol was shewn forth the perfect purity of that victim by which God was at length to be reconciled. We know in how great liberties the world indulges itself in the service of God; for whilst it lightly and contemptuously obtrudes mere trifling upon Him as if He were a child, it still fancies that its duty is properly discharged. Hence it is that it claims reward for any rubbish ( sordibus,) and exults in mere mockeries of God, as if it were laying Him under obligation. A notable example of this stupid security is seen now-a-days in the Papacy, when they mock God with no less audacity than as if they were dealing with a block of wood. To omit innumerable other cases, what can be more monstrous than this arrogance of theirs, when, as they mutter their prayers, their minds wander not only into frivolous but even into unholy imaginations, and yet they pretend that the final intention, as they call it, is meritorious and approved by God? ²⁹³ Suppose a priest ( sacrificus ) shall have proposed to recite the godly prayers of his breviary, and, when scarcely three words have been said, his mind shall be occupied with dishes, shall run away now to his cups, now to dicing, or other pastimes, still, as if his task were performed, he will boast that he has offered worship to God. In order, therefore, to obviate this fault, God commands that sacrifices free from all blemish should be presented to Him. Hence that sharp expostulation of His in Mal 1:7, because the Jews polluted His altar and thought His table contemptible, when they said that their blind, and lame, and sick victims were not evil. “Offer it now (he says) to thy governor, will he — accept thy person?” not because God cared for the fatness or the juiciness of the animals, but because it thus was made plain that true piety was neglected, nay, altogether despised. We perceive, then, that all defective sacrifices were rejected, that the Israelites might learn sincerely and seriously to consecrate themselves entirely to God, and not to play childishly with Him, as is often the case. Elsewhere we have seen indeed that all uncleanness is repudiated by God; but we must remember that two things are required for legitimate worship; first, that he who approaches God should be purged from every stain, and secondly, that he should offer nothing except what is pure and free from all imperfection. What Solomon says, that “the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord,” (Pro 15:8,) is true, although it be fat and splendid. But in order that the things which are offered by the good should be pleasing to God, another point must also be attended to, viz., that the offering should not be poor, and stingy, and deficient; and again, by this symbol, as I have already said, they were directed to Christ, besides whom no integrity will anywhere be found which will satisfy God.

Calvin: Lev 22:22

22.Either a bullock, or a lamb, that hath anything superfluous An exception is here stated as to free-will-offerings; for in them God does not refuse a diminutive animal, or one which has a member either contracted, or of excessive size. And doubtless a greater license ought to be given, when a person is not under the obligation either of a vow or any other necessity. Still we must remember that no victim is acceptable to God, which labors under any notable defect.

Calvin: Lev 22:25

25.Neither from a stranger’s hand God here forbids that victims of this sort should be offered to Him, although they might be purchased from foreigners. The Hebrews, however, has invented a different meaning, viz., that not even from foreigners were such sacrifices to be received, as it was unlawful for the children of the Church themselves to offer. But inasmuch as the Law altogether prohibited the unclean nations from making sacred oblations, another solution of this difficulty was still to be discovered. ²⁹⁵ They suppose, therefore, that those are called “strangers,” who observe the precepts of the children of Noah, i.e., who honor God, and do not pollute themselves by incest, abstain from the effusion of human blood, and from theft, and who do not worship idols. But the context does not accord with this, for Moses adds at the end that this kind of sacrifice would not be accepted by God from the Jews themselves, which will not agree with their being offered by the Gentiles. This, then, seems to me to be a confirmation of the previous injunction, introduced by way of precaution; for it might have seemed that the offering would have been permissible, if they had purchased the animal, even though it were defective; whereas God declares that what they were not allowed to present from their own stalls, was no more approved of by Him, if it had been purchased, because defectiveness is always displeasing to Him. Nor do I restrict this, as they do, to the foregoing clause, as if it only referred to castrated animals, and such as were wounded in the testicles, but I include with it also warts and eruptions, and other blemishes. In order that the prohibition may have more weight, he again calls the sacrifices “ the bread of God,” not because God, who is the fountain of life, has need of food, or eats of corruptible meat, since He is the eternal Spirit; but that men may more diligently take care duly to perform their sacred rites, wherein they familiarly draw nigh to God. Now, if no one would dare to present stale or corrupted food to an earthly prince, much less tolerable is it to contaminate God’s table with anything blemished.

Calvin: Lev 22:28

28.And whether it be a cow or ewe Though cruelty was indeed condemned in this precept, still I make no doubt but that Moses speaks primarily of the sacrifices. I confess the word שחט , shachat, which he uses, is a general one; but since throughout the chapter he is professedly treating of the sacrifices, and in connection with these words adds the conclusion respecting the hallowing of His holy name, Lev 22:32, the context requires that we should consider it to be an inculcation of purity in God’s service. If any prefer to extend it further, I will not contest the point; and thus this sentence will be a supplement to the Sixth Commandment. I have, however, followed what appears most probable, and the reader of sound judgment will, I hope, agree with me. Meanwhile, I confess that all barbarity and cruelty was thus prohibited in the sacrifices, and in them the rule was laid down, that men should not be cruel in reference to their daily food. It is a sight by no means pleasant to gentle minds to see the dam killed together with her young; and, if it were a common custom, men would easily grow callous as to blood-shedding in general. God would therefore not have the exercises of religion disconnected from the duties of humanity; and the tendency of the precept is, that God’s altar should not be a Cyclopean slaughter-house.

TSK: Lev 22:2

Lev 22:3-6, Lev 15:31; Num 6:3-8

that they profane not : This is the very ground of the prohibition, that they might preserve in their minds a holy reverence for the Divine Majesty. Hence when they approached unto him, they must be free from every legal impurity. If great men are to be approached with respect, how much more must Jehovah be approached with holy reverence! Lev 22:32, Lev 18:21, Lev 19:12, Lev 20:3, Lev 21:6

hallow : Exo 13:12, Exo 28:38; Num 18:32; Deu 15:19

TSK: Lev 22:3

having his uncleanness upon him : That is, in other words, ""when he is unclean.""Lev 7:20, Lev 7:21

that soul : That is, according to some, thrust out of the priest’ s office, or from officiating at the altar; or, according to others, cut off by some immediate stroke of divine justice, like Nadab and Abihu.

from my : Exo 33:14, Exo 33:15; Psa 16:11, Psa 51:11; Mat 25:41; 2Th 1:9

TSK: Lev 22:4

the seed : These words include the daughters as well as the sons of Aaron.

a leper : Lev 13:2, Lev 13:3, Lev 13:44-46

running issue : Heb. running of the reins, Lev 15:2, Lev 15:3

holy things : Lev 2:3, Lev 2:10, Lev 6:25-29, Lev 21:22; Num 18:9, Num 18:19

until : Lev. 14:2-32, Lev 15:13-15

unclean : Lev 21:1; Num 19:11-16

whose : Lev 15:16

TSK: Lev 22:5

whosoever : Lev 11:24, Lev 11:43, Lev 11:44

or a man : Lev 15:7, Lev 15:19

TSK: Lev 22:6

Lev 11:24, Lev 11:25, Lev 15:5, Lev 16:24-28; Num 19:7-10; Hag 2:13; 1Co 6:11; Heb 10:22

TSK: Lev 22:7

Lev 21:22; Num 18:11-19; Deu 18:3, Deu 18:4; 1Co 9:4, 1Co 9:13, 1Co 9:14

TSK: Lev 22:8

Lev 17:15; Exo 22:31; Deu 14:21; Eze 44:31

TSK: Lev 22:9

bear sin for it : That is, be punished if he break it. Lev 10:1, Lev 10:2, Lev 16:2; Exo 28:43; Num 18:22, Num 18:32

TSK: Lev 22:10

The word zar , a stranger, does not mean one of another nation, a foreigner, which is expressed by hechar , but one who is not of the seed of Aaron, or does not belong to his family. 1Sa 21:6; Mat 12:4

TSK: Lev 22:11

his money : Heb. the purchase of his money, Gen 17:13; Num 18:11-13

TSK: Lev 22:12

a stranger : Heb. a man

a stranger : Lev 21:3; Isa 40:13 *marg.

TSK: Lev 22:13

returned unto her father’ s house : A widow in Bengal not unfrequently returns to her father’ s house on the death of her husbandcaps1 . tcaps0 he union between her and her own family is never so dissolved as among European nations. Gen 38:11

as in her : Lev 10:14; Num 18:11-19

TSK: Lev 22:14

Lev 5:15-19, Lev 27:13, Lev 27:15

TSK: Lev 22:15

Lev 22:9, Lev 19:8; Num 18:32; Eze 22:26

TSK: Lev 22:16

suffer them to bear the iniquity of the trespass, or, lade themselves with the iniquity of trespass in their eating, bear. Lev 7:18; Psa 38:4; Isa 53:11, Isa 53:12; 1Pe 2:24

for I : Lev 22:9, Lev 20:8

TSK: Lev 22:18

Whatsoever : Lev 1:2, Lev 1:10, Lev 17:10, Lev 17:13

of the strangers : Num 15:14-16

vows : Lev 7:16, Lev 23:38; Num 15:3; Deu 12:6; Psa 22:25, Psa 56:12, Psa 61:5, Psa 61:8, Psa 65:1, Psa 66:13; Psa 116:14, Psa 116:18; Ecc 5:4; Jon 1:16, Jon 2:9; Nah 1:15; Act 18:18

freewill : Num 15:3; Deu 12:6, Deu 12:17, Deu 16:10

TSK: Lev 22:19

Lev 1:3, Lev 1:10, Lev 4:32; Exo 12:5; Mat 27:4, Mat 27:19, Mat 27:24, Mat 27:54; Luk 23:14, Luk 23:41, Luk 23:47; Joh 19:4; 2Co 5:21; Eph 5:27; Heb 9:14; 1Pe 1:19, 1Pe 2:22-24, 1Pe 3:18

TSK: Lev 22:20

Lev 22:25; Deu 15:21, Deu 17:1; Mal 1:8, Mal 1:13, Mal 1:14

TSK: Lev 22:21

peace : Lev 3:1, Lev 3:6, 7:11-38

to accomplish : Gen 28:20, Gen 35:1-3; Num 15:3, Num 15:8; Deu 23:21-23; Psa 50:14; Pro 7:14; Ecc 5:4, Ecc 5:5

sheep : or, goats

it shall be perfect : This law is so founded on the nature of the thing itself, that it has been in force among all nations that sacrificed victims to their deities.

TSK: Lev 22:22

Blind : Lev 22:20, Lev 21:18-21; Mal 1:8

an offering : Lev 1:9, Lev 1:13, Lev 3:3, Lev 3:5

TSK: Lev 22:23

lamb : or, kid

superfluous : Lev 21:18

TSK: Lev 22:24

broken : or, cut, Lev 22:20; Deu 23:1

TSK: Lev 22:25

a stranger’ s : Num 15:14-16, Num 16:40; Ezr 6:8-10

the bread : Lev 21:6, Lev 21:8, Lev 21:21, Lev 21:22; Mal 1:7, Mal 1:8, Mal 1:12-14

because : Eph 2:12; 1Jo 5:18

TSK: Lev 22:27

seven days : It was necessary for the mother’ s health that the young one should suck so long; and prior to this time, the process of nutrition in a young animal can scarcely be considered as completely formed. Besides this, it may justly be asserted, that the flesh of very young animals is comparatively innutritive. There is something brutish in eating the young of beast or fowl, before the hair and hoofs are perfect in the one, and feathers and claws in the other; and before this period, their flesh is not good for food, consequently they were not fit for sacrifice, which is termed the bread or food of God (Lev 22:25). Lev 22:25, Lev 12:2, Lev 12:3, Lev 19:23, Lev 19:24; Exo 22:30

TSK: Lev 22:28

ewe : or, she goat

ye shall not kill it : This law was certainly intended to inculcate mercy and tenderness of heart; and so the Jews have understood it. Exo 23:19, Exo 34:26; Deu 14:21, Deu 22:6, Deu 22:7

TSK: Lev 22:29

Lev 7:12-15; Psa 107:22, Psa 116:17; Hos 14:2; Amo 4:5; Heb 13:15; 1Pe 2:5

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Lev 22:2

"Speak ... that they so abstain from touching the holy things (i. e. the sacrificial food of all kinds) of the children of Israel which they consecrate unto me, that they profane not my holy name."This law related to the daily life and the ordinary food of the priests.

Barnes: Lev 22:3

Cut off from my presence - i. e. excluded from the sanctuary. See Lev 20:17.

Barnes: Lev 22:4

See Lev 15:13-16.

Barnes: Lev 22:5

Creeping things - i. e. dead vermin. Compare Lev 11:29.

Barnes: Lev 22:6

The soul - Rather, the person. Compare the use of the word "body"in the Prayer Book version of Psa 53:1, and in the compounds "somebody, nobody".

Barnes: Lev 22:8

The pollution in the priests would be an aggravated one, inasmuch as they would have to forego their sacred functions. Compare Eze 4:14; Eze 44:31. The general prohibition occurs in Lev 11:39; Lev 17:15; Exo 22:31.

Barnes: Lev 22:10

Stranger - One of another family. See Exo 29:33 note.

Barnes: Lev 22:11

This shows how completely a purchased bondsman was incorporated into the household. See Exo 21:2, note; Exo 21:20-21, note.

Barnes: Lev 22:12

A stranger - One of another family.

Barnes: Lev 22:14

Unwittingly - Inadvertently, or "through ignorance."Compare Lev 4:2 note.

Barnes: Lev 22:15-16

These verses are rather difficult. Their meaning appears to be: "The holy things of the children of Israel which are heaved before Yahweh"(see Lev 7:30) "shall not be profaned; and they shall incur a sin of trespass who eat of their holy things (so as to profane them)."

Barnes: Lev 22:19

Ye shall offer at your own will a male - Rather, That it may be accepted (so Lev 22:29) for you it shall be a male. See Lev 1:3. It is the same phrase as in Lev 22:20-21, Lev 22:27.

Barnes: Lev 22:22-23

Compare Lev 21:19; Deu 15:21.

Barnes: Lev 22:24

The literal meaning of the passage in italics is, and this shall ye not do in your land. It appears to have been understood by the Jews as a prohibition of the mutilation of animals.

Barnes: Lev 22:25

A stranger’ s hand - The word here rendered "stranger", is not the same as that in Lev 22:10, Lev 22:18 : it means literally, "the son of the unknown", and probably refers to one dwelling in another land who desired to show respect to the God of Israel. See 1Ki 8:41.

Barnes: Lev 22:27

No victim was to be offered in sacrifice until it was a week old. The meaning of this law appears to be that the animal should realise a distinct existence in becoming less dependent on its mother, and able to provide for its own wants.

Barnes: Lev 22:28

A law intended to remind the Israelites of the sacredness of the relation between the parent and its offspring. Compare Exo 23:19 note.

Poole: Lev 22:2

That they separate themselves to wit, when any uncleanness is upon them, as it appears from Lev 22:3,4 . From the holy things, i.e. from eating of those parts of the offerings which belong to them. Only of the tithes they might eat in that case.

Which they hallow either the children of Israel, or the priests; for both of them did in their kinds hallow, consecrate, or offer them to God. But the former seems more probable, both because they were mentioned here and Lev 22:3 , where they are said to hallow, &c., and because this makes the argument stronger, it ill became the priests to profane or pollute what the people did hallow.

Poole: Lev 22:3

Unto the holy things to eat them or to touch them; for if the touch of one of the people having his uncleanness upon him defiled the thing he touched, much more was it so in the priest.

From my presence either from the place of my presence and from my ordinances by excommunication: he shall be excluded both from the administration and from the participation of them. Or, from the people, among whom I am present, which commonly is expressed by

cutting off from his people Or, from the land of the living.

Poole: Lev 22:4

What man soever i.e. or woman, of Aaron’ s seed; for they were under the same law.

Poole: Lev 22:7

i.e. His portion, the means of his subsistence. This may be added to signify why there was no greater nor longer a penalty put upon the priests than upon the people in the same case, Le 11 Le 15 , because his necessity craved some mitigation; though otherwise the priests being more sacred persons, and obliged to greater care and exemplariness, deserved a greater punishment.

Poole: Lev 22:9

Mine ordinance either this ordinance here treated of concerning abstaining from holy things when they are unclean; or more generally, that great ordinance whereby I have made them the guardians of holy places and things, to keep them from all defilement by themselves or others. Heb. my watch , i.e. the watch or guard which I have commanded them to keep.

Lest they bear sin i.e. incur guilt and punishment. For it , i.e. for the neglect or violation of it.

If they profane it i.e. their charge, or God’ s ordinance about it.

Poole: Lev 22:10

No stranger i.e. of a strange family, who is not a priest, as Lev 22:12 : compare Mat 12:4 . But there is an exception to this rule, Lev 22:11 .

A sojourner one that comes to his house and abides there for a season, and eats at his table.

Of the holy things of those parts of the offerings which fell to the priest’ s share, as the breast and shoulder.

Poole: Lev 22:11

Because they were wholly his, and as such they were circumcised, Ge 17 Ex 12 .

Poole: Lev 22:12

Unto a stranger i.e. to one of another family, who is no priest. Yet the priest’ s wife, though of another family, might eat. The reason of which difference is, because the with passeth into the name, state, and privileges of her husband, from whom the family is denominated and esteemed.

Poole: Lev 22:14

The fifth part over and above the principal, and besides the ram to be offered to God, Lev 5:15 .

Shall give it unto the priest with the holy thing or, and shall give unto the priest the holy thing ; i.e. the worth of it, which the priest was either to take to himself or offer to God, as the nature of the thing was.

Poole: Lev 22:15

Either,

1. The people shall not profane them, by eating them. Or,

2. The priests shall not profane them, i.e. suffer the people to profane them, without censure and punishment. Both come to the same thing; the people shall not do it, nor the priests suffer it.

Poole: Lev 22:16

i.e. They , i.e. the priests shall not (the negative particle being understood out of the foregoing clause, as Psa 1:5 9:18 suffer them , i.e. the people, to bear the iniquity of trespass, i.e. the punishment of their sin, which they might expect from God, and for the prevention whereof the priest was to see restitution made, &c. The words may be rendered thus, But (so the Hebrew vau is oft translated) they, i.e. the priests, shall make them , i.e. the people, to bear the iniquity, or punishment, of their trespass or sin , i.e. they shall require from them reparations in manner here expressed.

Poole: Lev 22:18

Or of the strangers such as were proselytes.

For all his vows See on Lev 7:16 .

Poole: Lev 22:19

A male for a burnt-offering, which was always of that kind; but the females were accepted in peace-offerings, Lev 3:1 , and sin-offerings, Lev 4:32 5:6 .

Poole: Lev 22:21

To wit, none of the blemishes mentioned Lev 22:22,24 ; for some blemishes did not hinder the acceptance of a free will offering, but only of a vow, Lev 22:23 .

Poole: Lev 22:23

That mayest thou offer either,

1. To the priest, who might, according to the rules given by God, either convert it to his own use, or sell it, and lay out the price of it upon the temple or sacrifices. But in this sense any of the other kinds, as blind, or broken, &c., might be offered, which yet are forbidden to be offered Lev 22:22 . Or rather,

2. To the Lord, as is expressed Lev 22:22,24 , this being put down by way of opposition to those defects, Lev 22:22 , and by way of exception from the general rule, Lev 22:21 .

Poole: Lev 22:25

Neither from a stranger’ s hand to wit, from proselytes, from whom less might seem to be expected, and in whom God might bear with some things which he would not bear with in his own people; yet even from those such should not be accepted, much less from the Israelites.

The bread i.e. the sacrifices. See on Lev 21:8 . Of any of these , i.e. corrupted or defective; which clause limits the sense and kinds of offerings, and cuts off another more general interpretation received by many, to wit, that he forbids the receiving of any offering, whether blemished or perfect, from the hands of a stranger remaining in heathenism.

Their corruption is in them i.e. they are corrupt, vicious, and unlawful sacrifices. For you , or, from you , O priests, to whom it belongs to offer. You shall bear the blame of it, for the strangers might do so through ignorance of God’ s law.

Poole: Lev 22:27

From the eighth day See on Exo 23:30 23:19 .

Poole: Lev 22:28

Because it savoured of cruelty. See Poole Deu 22:6.

Poole: Lev 22:29

i.e. What and when you please, so the rules be observed: or, for your acceptance , as Lev 1:3 , i.e. in such manner that God may accept it, i.e. regularly, cheerfully, &c.

Haydock: Lev 22:1

Ear....cut. Hebrew saruang, which is translated a crooked nose, chap. xxi. 18. The Septuagint and Syriac agree here with the Vulgate: but the moderns generally adopt the interpretation of the Rabbins, who say the word is applied to those animals whose double members, feet, ears, &c., are disproportionately long; as kolut, means too short. (Bochart) (Calmet) ---

Voluntarily, for the use of the priests, but not for any sacrifice, ver. 21. (Du Hamel)

Haydock: Lev 22:2

Offer. He does not speak of such things as fell to the share of the priests; (Menochius) but orders them to behave with great reverence when they perform their sacred offices, lest others should take occasion to treat the name of God and holy things with disrespect. Hebrew and Septuagint, "let them not profane my holy name, which they are bound to sanctify; or in what they consecrate to me." Such things must not be used for ordinary purposes. (St. Basil, ser. de Bapt. ii. 2, and 3.)

Haydock: Lev 22:3

Approacheth, &c. This is to give us to understand, with what purity of soul we are to approach to the blessed sacrament, of which these meats that had been offered in sacrifice were a figure. (Challoner) ---

Such as were unclean either fasted till the evening, or ate unconsecrated meats till they were purified. ---

Perish. The Rabbins say, by the hands of the other priests. The judges could only condemn him to be whipped. If his crime were secret, the punishment was left to God. (Selden, syn. ii. 1.)

Haydock: Lev 22:4

And he, &c. Hence it is plain, even the Jewish priests were bound to observe continence during the time of their ministry. (Calmet) ---

For the same reason, the priests of the new law, who may be called at any time to perform their more sacred functions, engage voluntarily in the state of perpetual celibacy. (Haydock)

Haydock: Lev 22:5

Or any. Hebrew, "or a man who may contaminate," as lepers, &c. (Menochius)

Haydock: Lev 22:8

That. See chap. xvii. 15.

Haydock: Lev 22:9

In the sanctuary, is not found in Hebrew which is difficult to explain. "They shall observe my precepts, ( or "watches," entering upon the ministry at 17; Josephus; Menochius) and not bear sin for it, and die in it, because they have profaned it;" which it, may be understood either of the consecrated food, (ver. 7,) or of the sanctuary. (Calmet)

Haydock: Lev 22:10

Sojourner. "Guest," or friend, Syriac. None but priests could taste this meat, except they were going to remain in the family for ever. Hence servants and slaves of the Jewish nation, who would one day regain their liberty, are excluded.

Haydock: Lev 22:13

Children. If she had any, she remained with them. (Philo, Monar. 2.)

Haydock: Lev 22:14

He. A layman, who, through mistake, eat of any of the tithes, &c., was obliged to give the capital, and a fifth part besides, with a sacrifice, mentioned [in] chap. v. 15. ---

Sanctuary. Hebrew and Septuagint, "He shall give to the priest the holy thing." But if he ate it on purpose, he was to be slain, Numbers xv. 30.

Haydock: Lev 22:15

They; the common people shall not profane, by touching them afterwards, or by retaining any part. (Calmet) ---

The priests shall answer for the profanation, if it be committed through their neglect. (Haydock)

Haydock: Lev 22:18

Strangers: proselytes of justice, or converts of the Jewish religion. See ver. 25.

Haydock: Lev 22:19

Without blemish. To teach us to aim at perfection in all our offerings and performances.

Haydock: Lev 22:22

Scar. Septuagint, "If its tongue be cut out, or slit." which was a blemish among the heathens. (Servius in Æn. vi.; lectas de more bidentes. They also required the victims to be perfect. The Egyptians had officers called Sealers, who were directed by many books how to choose the proper victims. The Hebrew priests had to examine such as were offered to them, with the utmost nicety. See the Misna of Babylon. The idea of God's perfection, has taught all nations to present to Him nothing but what is perfect, particularly when they offer victims.

Haydock: Lev 22:24

Bruised. Hebrew does not specify what part, no more than the Syriac or Arabic versions; but the Septuagint, Chaldean, Rabbins, and most commentators agree with us. ---

Do any, &c. ( faciatis. ) You shall not sacrifice (Syriac) any thing that is rendered unfit to propagate its kind: neither shall you reduce either man or beast to that condition. (Josephus, contra Apion ii.; Rabbins)

Haydock: Lev 22:25

Bread, which always accompanies the sacrifices for sin. Holocausts might be offered by the Gentiles. (2 Machabees iii. 3.; 1 Esdras vi. 9.; Josephus, Antiquities xviii. 7.; Selden, Jur. 3, 4, 7.) ---

Them. To reconcile this with ver. 18, we must understand because in the sense of in as much as; they are all corrupted, when contrary to these regulations. The strangers shall not be allowed to offer any blemished victim. Hebrew, "Neither from the hand of a stranger shall you offer the bread (or victims) of your God of any of these; because....blemishes are in them: they shall not be accepted (by God) for you (or them)." The Chaldean and other versions explain it in the same sense. Presents of gold, &c., were accepted, and kept in the temple. The family of Augustus shewed their generosity in this respect. (Philo, Legat.) (Calmet) ---

Strangers, or pagans, could not offer victims, but they might give money to purchase them. (Tirinus)

Haydock: Lev 22:27

Lord. In this and the following verses, we are taught a lesson of humanity. (Tertullian) ---

The Romans did not offer sheep or goats till they were eight days old: though the Jews were at liberty to sacrifice them after that term, they generally waited till they were thirty days old. (Calmet)

Gill: Lev 22:1

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.

Gill: Lev 22:2

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 Lev 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.

Gill: Lev 22:3

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.

Gill: Lev 22:4

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 Lev 13:2,

or hath a running issue; a gonorrhoea, whether man or woman, Lev 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 Lev 15:16.

Gill: Lev 22:5

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 Lev 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.

Gill: Lev 22:6

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 Lev 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.

Gill: Lev 22:7

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.

Gill: Lev 22:8

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 Eze 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 Lev 17:15,

I am the Lord; who enjoin this, and expect to be obeyed.

Gill: Lev 22:9

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, Lev 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.

Gill: Lev 22:10

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, Eph 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.

Gill: Lev 22:11

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.

Gill: Lev 22:12

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.

Gill: Lev 22:13

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 Deu 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 Lev 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.

Gill: Lev 22:14

And if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly,.... Either not knowing that it is an holy thing, or the heave offering, or any thing of that kind; or else is ignorant of the punishment of such an action, as Gersom observes; and this is to be understood of any man that was not a priest, or was not of the priest's family, even any common Israelite; so the Targum of Jonathan, a man of Israel, or an Israelite, one of the common people:

then he shall put a fifth part thereof unto it; a fifth part of the value of what he has eaten, to an equivalent for the whole, that is, he shall pay the full value for what he has eaten, and a fifth part besides:

and shall give it to the priest with the holy thing; the meaning is, that he shall give the fifth part to the priest, with the equivalent for what he has eaten; for he could not give the holy thing itself, but a compensation for it; according to Gersom, he was to give the principal to the priest, whose the holy thing was he ate of, and the fifth part he might give to what priest he would. The Jewish canon, concerning this matter, runs thus; he that ignorantly eats the heave offering pays the principal, and the fifth part; and the same, either he that eats, or drinks, or anoints; and whether the heave offering be clean or unclean, he pays the fifth, and the fifth of the fifth; and he does not pay the heave offering but of common things, rightly ordered, and they become an heave offering, and the compensation of it; and if the priest would forgive, he may not ^p.

Gill: Lev 22:15

And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer unto the Lord. By causing or suffering strangers to eat of them; so Jarchi, referring the words to the priests, who should be careful that strangers ate not of sacred things; or by the strangers themselves eating them, whereby they were profaned and used as common things.

Gill: Lev 22:16

Or suffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass,.... The punishment of sin: either the strangers:

when they eat their holy things; the holy things belonging to the priests, which they permitting them to do, suffer them to be liable to the punishment incurred thereby, or else the priests themselves; so the Septuagint version renders the word "themselves"; and in like manner Jarchi interprets it; and then the sense may be, according to the Targums of Jonathan and Onkelos, that the priests shall bear the punishment of their sins,"when they shall eat the holy things in uncleanness,''which is what is forbidden them in the former part of the chapter; but this seems to be too remote; rather the former sense is best:

for I the Lord do sanctify them; both the priests, to whom the holy things belong, and the holy things for their use, and the use of their families, and them only.

Gill: Lev 22:17

And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... At the same time; for having said many things concerning the holiness of priests, whose business it was to offer sacrifices, he adds various things concerning the nature, condition, and circumstances of the sacrifices they were to offer:

saying, as follows.

Gill: Lev 22:18

Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons,.... The priests, whose work it was to offer sacrifices, and therefore it behoved them to know what kind and sort were to be offered by them, when brought to them:

and unto all the children of Israel: who were to bring the sacrifices, and for whom they were to be offered, and therefore should be acquainted with the nature and kind of what would be acceptable to God, and what not:

and say unto them, whatsoever he be of the house of Israel; this phrase includes women and servants, and even Gentiles, as say the Jewish writers ^q, who may vow vows, and make voluntary gifts, as well as the Israelites:

or of the strangers in Israel: those of other nations that dwelt there, either proselytes of the gate, or proselytes of righteousness, so Ben Gersom; and Aben Ezra observes, that the text speaks of the stranger, because there is some reason in the vows and freewill offerings of an Israelite and stranger, as follows:

that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt offering; the wise men, as Aben Ezra observes, distinguish between a vow and a freewill offering; every vow is a freewill offering, but every freewill offering is not a vow; and though these were both of them sorts of peace offerings, yet they were not received from Gentiles under that notion, but as burnt offerings, because they were offered in devotion to God, and not to be eaten by Israelites; so Maimonides ^r says, they do not receive from Gentiles but burnt offerings only, as it is said Lev 22:25, "neither from a stranger's hand", &c. even burnt offerings of fowls they receive from a Gentile, though he be an idolater; but they do not receive of them peace offerings, nor meat offerings, nor sin offerings, nor trespass offerings; and so burnt offerings, which do not come by way of a vow, or a freewill offering, they do not receive from Gentiles, as the burnt offering of a new mother and the like unto it; a Gentile that brings peace offerings, they offer them as burnt offerings, because the heart of the Gentile is towards heaven.

Gill: Lev 22:19

Ye shall offer at your own will,.... For vows and freewill offerings were at their own option, and depended on their own will and pleasure, and when offered should be with a willing mind, and from their whole heart: or "for good will to you"; as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan; or for gracious, acceptation, that is, that they might be well pleasing to God, and acceptable in his sight, so Jarchi; in order to which the following direction was strictly to be observed:

a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, and of the goats; bullocks, sheep, and goats, were the only sorts of beasts, out of which sacrifices were taken, and those that were for burnt offerings were always to be males, and unblemished, see Lev 1:3; but for other offerings, as peace offerings and sin offerings, females might be used, see Lev 3:1. Fowls are not mentioned, though burnt offerings were of them, because it was not required in them, only of beasts, that they should be males, and without blemish; for, as Jarchi observes, these were not rejected on account of a blemish, only for want of a member.

Gill: Lev 22:20

For whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer,.... Which is the general rule, the particulars of which are after given, and which has been imitated by the Heathens. The Egyptians, as they only sacrificed the males of beeves, so they were very curious in examining them, that they might be entirely pure and perfect ^s; and it was a custom among the Romans, that such sheep should be chosen for sacrifice, in which there was nothing wanting ^t; and so, among the Grecians, Homer ^u speaks of perfect goats offered in sacrifice to appease the gods:

for it shall not be acceptable for you; be grateful to God, and accepted by him on their account, if blemished; see Mal 1:13.

Gill: Lev 22:21

And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offering unto the Lord,.... This, as Ben Gersom observes, is distinguished from a burnt offering; for though it was to be perfect, and without blemish, yet not obliged to be a male as that, Lev 3:1. This was either by way of thanksgiving for mercies received, Lev 7:12, or

to accomplish his vow; made in any distress, that if God would deliver him, then he would offer such a sacrifice:

or a freewill offering; either on account of favours received, or in order to obtain them: which sacrifice, whether

in beeves or sheep; whether in bullocks or sheep, under which are comprehended goats, both being of the flock, Lev 22:19,

it shall be perfect to be accepted; perfect in all its parts, not only in those that are without and obvious to view, but in those that are within: wherefore the Jewish writers say ^w, if it had but one kidney, or the spleen was consumed, it was unfit for the altar; wherefore, in order to be an acceptable sacrifice to God, it was to be complete in all respects:

there shall be no blemish therein; which is repeated for the confirmation of it, and that it might be observed. Such sacrifices were typical of Christ, the immaculate Lamb of God, who offered himself without spot to him, 1Pe 1:19; and shows that no sacrifice of man's can be so acceptable to God as to atone for him, since none of theirs are perfect, and without blemish.

Gill: Lev 22:22

Blind, or broken, or maimed,.... Which is "blind" of one eye, or both: and so the Egyptians, as they would not sacrifice any of their oxen that had any blemishes on them, and were of a different colour, or changed in their form, so likewise such that were deprived of either of their eyes ^x. Some, as Aben Ezra observes, restrain that which is "broken" to its being broken in the head; but others interpret it of any fracture of the foot, as well as the head, and even of the tail, side, or rib; though others think, that such fractures as were not open and visible are excepted, as that of the rib; so Gersom; and with the Heathens, as Pliny ^y would have remarked, as they were not used to sacrifice calves, brought on men's shoulders, so neither anything that halted: that which is maimed some understand of that whose foot is broken, as Aben Ezra also remarks; but the word is by the Septuagint rendered, "cut in the tongue"; and the Targum of Jonathan, "whose eyebrows are smitten"; and Jarchi seems to take in both, interpreting it the eyebrow which is cut or broken, and so the lip, which is cut or broken: but it is rather to be understood more generally of its being maimed or mutilated in any part of it; so with the Heathens, as Porphyry ^z affirms, beasts that were mutilated were not to be sacrificed; and in the Comedian ^a, a sacrifice is objected to, because it had no tail; upon which the Scholiast observes, that whatever was mutilated was not offered in sacred services, nor was any thing imperfect or unsound sacrificed to the gods; and particularly Servius ^b remarks, if their tongues were cut or slit; which illustrates the Septuagint version, which is observed by Grotius:

or having a wen: or full of warts, as others; the Targum of Jonathan is, whose eyes are smitten with a mixture of white and black; and so Gersom interprets it of a like defect in the eye, in the white of the eye; for he says, if it was in the black or pupil of the eye, the eye would be blind:

or scurvy or scabbed: the same of those in men; See Gill on Lev 21:20,

ye shall not offer these unto the Lord; any creatures defective in any of these instances; three times this is said, as Jarchi observes, to make them careful concerning the sanctification of them, and concerning the slaying of them, and concerning the sprinkling of their blood:

nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the Lord; a burnt offering on the altar of burnt offering, or burn the fat of them upon it.

Gill: Lev 22:23

Either a bullock, or a lamb that hath anything superfluous,

or lacking in its parts,.... That has either more members than it should have, as five feet, or two gristles in an ear, as Gersom says, or has fewer than it should have; or, as Jarchi, that has one member longer or shorter than another, as the leg or thigh; according to the Targum of Jonathan, that is redundant in its testicles, or deficient therein; the Septuagint version is, that hath its ear or its tail cut; and so the Vulgate Latin version:

that mayest thou offer for a freewill offering: for the repair of the sanctuary or temple, as Jarchi and Gersom; money, or the value of the sacrifices, might be given to the priests for that use, but according to them might not be offered upon the altar: but it rather seems to be an exception to the above law, and allows of the sacrifice of them for freewill offering, though not for a vow, as it follows

but for a vow it shall not be accepted; because the other was according to a man's will and pleasure, and he might bring what he would on that account; but when he made a vow that he would offer such a sacrifice, it must be of creatures that were perfect, and without blemish.

Gill: Lev 22:24

Ye shall not offer unto the Lord that which bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut,.... The Targum of Jonathan is, whose testicles are pressed and bruised, and whose nerves are corrupted and bruised, and so most Jewish writers interpret it:

neither shall you make any offering thereof in your land; any offering of any sort, either burnt offering or peace offering, or any other; or ye shall not do, that is, any such thing as here suggested, not bruise, or crush, or break, or cut the testicles of any creature; so the above writers.

Gill: Lev 22:25

Neither from a stranger's hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these,.... That is, from a Gentile, a proselyte of the gate, who had renounced idolatry, and was willing to offer sacrifice to the true God; but what had such defects and blemishes in them as before described the priest might not take of his hands, and offer on the altar of God; and this is the rather observed, because on the one hand the Gentile might think such sacrifices would be acceptable, since he might have been used to offer such to idols; and on the other hand, the priest might think such would do well enough for Gentiles, though not for Israelites:

because their corruption is in them; or they are corrupt through being bruised, crushed, broken, or cut:

and blemishes be in them; which seems to be added to explain the former, and may have respect to all the blemishes before named, and whatsoever is included in them; for though there are but here mentioned, the Jews reckon no less than fifty ^c:

they shall not be accepted for you; to make atonement for you; Jarchi says, or "from you", the priests; they shall not be accepted of the Lord from their hands, and so be of no avail to the offerers, nor to those for whom they are offered.

Gill: Lev 22:26

And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... At the same time, as before, in a continued discourse, the subject being of the same kind, relating to sacrifices:

saying, as follows.

Gill: Lev 22:27

When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth,.... Those three are only mentioned, because they were only made use of in sacrifice, to which this law refers:

then it shall be seven days under the dam; whether a calf, or a lamb, or a kid of the goats; it was not to be taken from its dam and killed, either for food or sacrifice, before it was seven days old: Fagius says, the Hebrews give two reasons why a creature might not be offered before the eighth day; one is, that a sabbath might pass over it, nothing being perfect and consistent without it, that giving, as they say ^d perfection and consistence to all the things of the world; and the other, as the heavens and the earth being perfected in seven days, a creature which lives so long seems to be, as it were, perfect; but he observes, if we inquire after the mystical sense of it, a better reason is to be given, namely, that Christ, the type of all the sacrifices, was not to be offered, or suffer death in his infancy, which Herod contrived, but at man's estate; and to show that no man is fit to be a propitiatory sacrifice, through weakness and inability, being unable to stand before the justice of God, only Christ, in whom is perfection of strength:

and from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord; become an acceptable burnt offering to God; so Pliny ^e says, that the young of sheep are fit for sacrifice on the eighth day, and of an ox on the thirtieth day; see Exo 22:30.

Gill: Lev 22:28

And whether it be cow or ewe,.... Or "an ox or sheep" ^f, for this law, as Aben Ezra says, respects both male and female, and neither the one nor the other with their young might be slain; though Jarchi says, the custom is concerning the female, for it is forbidden to slay the dam and its son, or daughter; but it is not the custom concerning males, wherefore it is lawful to slay the father and the son:

ye shall not kill it and her young both in one day; or, "it and its son" ^g, the young, whether of a cow or ewe, and whether it be male or female; though Gersom observes, that this law takes place only in the dam and its female young, and not in the father and the son; for it is not manifest, in many animals, who is their father, wherefore he is not guilty of stripes, if the father and his son are slain in one day, even though it is known it is its father: the reason of the law seems to be, to encourage mercy and pity, and to discourage cruelty: hence the Targum of Jonathan is,"and my people, the children of Israel, as our Father is merciful in heaven, so be ye merciful on earth: a cow, or a sheep, &c.''

Gill: Lev 22:29

And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the Lord,.... Which was a sort of peace offering, distinct from freewill offerings and vows before spoken of:

offer it at your own will; just what they pleased, whether a bullock, a sheep, or a goat, and whether a male or female; these were left to their own option, or for acceptation to you, as the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi; that is, it was right in them, and they ought to be careful to offer it in such manner, that it might be acceptable to God, by observing the rules given concerning it, particularly what follows.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Lev 22:2

¹ tn Heb “holy things,” which means the “holy offerings” in this context, as the following verses show. The referent has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Heb “from the holy things of the sons of Israel, and they shall not profane my holy name, which they are consecrating to me.” The latter (relative) clause applies to the “the holy things of the sons of Israel” (the first clause), not the Lord’s name (i.e., the immediately preceding clause). The clause order in the translation has been rearranged to indicate this.

NET Notes: Lev 22:3

¹ tn Heb “To your generations.”

² tn The Piel (v. 2) and Hiphil (v. 3) forms of the verb קָדַשׁ (qadash) appear to be interchangeable in this context. Both mean “to consecrate” (Heb “make holy [or “sacred”]”).

³ tn Heb “and his impurity [is] on him”; NIV “is ceremonially unclean”; NAB, NRSV “while he is in a state of uncleanness.”

⁴ sn Regarding the “cut off” penalty, see the note on Lev 7:20. Cf. the interpretive translation of TEV “he can never again serve at the altar.”

NET Notes: Lev 22:4

¹ tn Heb “Man man.” The reduplication is a way of saying “any man” (cf. Lev 15:2; 17:3, etc.), but with a negative command it means “No man” (see B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 147).

² sn The diseases and discharges mentioned here are those described in Lev 13-15.

³ tn Heb “And the one.”

⁴ tn Heb “in all unclean of a person/soul”; for the Hebrew term נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) meaning “a [dead] person,” see the note on Lev 19:28.

⁵ tn Heb “or a man who goes out from him a lying of seed.”

NET Notes: Lev 22:5

¹ tn Heb “which there shall be uncleanness to him.”

² tn The Hebrew term for “person” here is אָדָם (adam, “human being”), which could either a male or a female person.

³ tn Heb “to all his impurity.” The phrase refers to the impurity of the person whom the man touches to become unclean (see the previous clause). To clarify this, the translation uses “that person’s” rather than “his.”

NET Notes: Lev 22:6

¹ sn The phrase “any of these” refers back to the unclean things touched in vv. 4b-5.

NET Notes: Lev 22:8

¹ tn Heb “a carcass,” referring to the carcass of an animal that has died on its own, not the carcass of an animal slaughtered for sacrifice or killed by wild beasts. This has been clarified in the translation by supplying the phrase “of natural causes”; cf. NAB “that has died of itself”; TEV “that has died a natural death.”

NET Notes: Lev 22:9

¹ tn Heb “and they will not lift up on it sin.” The pronoun “it” (masculine) apparently refers to any item of food that belongs to the category of “holy offerings” (see above).

² tn Heb “and die in it.”

NET Notes: Lev 22:10

¹ tn Heb “No stranger” (so KJV, ASV), which refers here to anyone other than the Aaronic priests. Some English versions reverse the negation and state positively: NIV “No one outside a priest’s family”; NRSV “Only a member of a priestly family”; CEV “Only you priests and your families.”

² tn Heb “A resident [תּוֹשָׁב (toshav) from יָשַׁב (yashav, “to dwell, to reside”)] of a priest.” The meaning of the term is uncertain. It could refer to a “guest” (NIV) or perhaps “bound servant” (NRSV; see B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 149). In the translation “lodger” was used instead of “boarder” precisely because a boarder would be provided meals with his lodging, the very issue at stake here.

NET Notes: Lev 22:11

¹ tn Heb “and a priest, if he buys a person, the property of his silver.”

² tn Heb “he”; the referent (the person whom the priest has purchased) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ tn Heb “eat it”; the referent (the holy offerings) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁴ tn Heb “his”; the referent (the priest) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁵ tn Heb “and the [slave] born of his house, they shall eat in his food.” The LXX, Syriac, Tg. Onq., Tg. Ps.-J., and some mss of Smr have plural “ones born,” which matches the following plural “they” pronoun and the plural form of the verb.

NET Notes: Lev 22:12

¹ tn Heb “And a daughter of a priest, if she is to a man, a stranger” (cf. the note on v. 10 above).

² tn Heb “she in the contribution of the holy offerings shall not eat.” For “contribution [offering]” see the note on Lev 7:14 and the literature cited there. Cf. NCV “the holy offerings”; TEV, NLT “the sacred offerings.”

NET Notes: Lev 22:13

¹ tn Heb “to”; the words “live in” have been supplied in the translation for clarity.

² tn Heb “and seed there is not to her and she returns to the house of her father as her youth.” The mention of having “no children” appears to imply that her children, if she had any, should support her; this is made explicit by NLT’s “and has no children to support her.”

NET Notes: Lev 22:14

¹ tn Heb “And a man, if he eats a holy thing in error” (see the Lev 4:2 not on “straying,” which is the term rendered “by mistake” here).

² sn When a person trespassed in regard to something sacred to the Lord, reparation was to be made for the trespass, involving restitution of that which was violated plus one fifth of its value as a fine. It is possible that the restoration of the offering and the additional one fifth of its value were made as a monetary payment (see, e.g., B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 150). See the regulations for the “guilt offering” in Lev 5:16; 6:5 [5:24 HT] and the notes there.

NET Notes: Lev 22:15

¹ tn Contextually, “They” could refer either to the people (v. 14a; cf. NRSV “No one”) or the priests (v. 14b; cf. NIV “The priests”), but the latter seems more likely (see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 356, and B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 150). The priests were responsible to see that the portions of the offerings that were to be consumed by the priests as prebends did not become accessible to the people. Mistakes in this matter (cf. v. 14) would bring “guilt” on the people, requiring punishment (v. 16).

² tn The Hebrew verb הֵרִים (herim, rendered “contribute” here) is commonly used for setting aside portions of an offering (see, e.g., Lev 4:8-10 and R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTE 4:335-36).

³ tn Heb “the holy offerings of the sons of Israel which they contribute to the Lord.” The subject “they” here refers to the Israelites (“the sons of Israel”) which is the most immediate antecedent. To make this clear, the present translation has “the holy offerings which the Israelites contribute to the Lord.”

NET Notes: Lev 22:16

¹ tn Heb “iniquity of guilt”; NASB “cause them to bear punishment for guilt.” The Hebrew word עָוֹן (’avon, “iniquity”) can designate either acts of iniquity or the penalty (i.e., punishment) for such acts.

² sn That is, when the lay people eat portions of offerings that should have been eaten only by priests and those who belonged to priestly households.

NET Notes: Lev 22:18

¹ tn Heb “Man, man.” The reduplication is a way of saying “any man” (cf. Lev 15:2; 17:3, etc.; see the distributive repetition of the noun in GKC 395-96 §123.c).

² tn Heb “and from the foreigner [singular] in Israel.” Some medieval Hebrew mss, Smr, LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate add “who resides” after “foreigner”: “the foreigner who resides in Israel” (cf., e.g., Lev 20:2 above).

NET Notes: Lev 22:19

¹ tn Heb “for your acceptance.” See Lev 1:3-4 above and the notes there.

NET Notes: Lev 22:20

¹ tn Heb “all which in it [is] a flaw.” Note that the same term is used for physical flaws of people in Lev 21:17-24. Cf. KJV, ASV, NRSV “blemish”; NASB, NIV, TEV “defect”; NLT “with physical defects.”

² tn Heb “not for acceptance shall it be for you”; NIV “it will not be accepted on your behalf” (NRSV and NLT both similar).

NET Notes: Lev 22:21

¹ tn The meaning of the expression לְפַלֵּא־נֶדֶר (lÿfalle’-neder) rendered here “for a special votive offering” is much debated. Some take it as an expression for fulfilling a vow, “to fulfill a vow” (e.g., HALOT 927-28 s.v. פלא piel and NASB; cf. NAB, NRSV “in fulfillment of a vow”) or, alternatively, “to make a vow” or “for making a vow” (HALOT 928 s.v. פלא piel [II פלא]). Perhaps it refers to the making a special vow, from the verb פָלַא (pala’, “to be wonderful, to be remarkable”); cf. J. Milgrom, Numbers (JPSTC), 44. B. A. Levine, Leviticus (JPSTC), 151 and 193, suggests that this is a special term for “setting aside a votive offering” (related to פָלָה [palah, “to set aside”]). In general, the point of the expression seems to be that this sacrifice arises as a special gift to God out of special circumstances in the life of the worshiper.

² tn Heb “for acceptance”; NAB “if it is to find acceptance.”

³ tn Heb “all/any flaw shall not be in it.”

NET Notes: Lev 22:22

¹ tn Or perhaps “a wart” (cf. NIV; HALOT 383 s.v. יַבֶּלֶת, but see the remarks in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 358).

² sn See the note on Lev 21:20 above.

³ sn This term for offering “gift” is explained in the note on Lev 1:9.

NET Notes: Lev 22:23

¹ tn Heb “And an ox.”

² tn Heb “and stunted” (see HALOT 1102 s.v. I קלט).

³ sn The freewill offering was voluntary, so the regulations regarding it were more relaxed. Once a vow was made, the paying of it was not voluntary (see B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 151-52, for very helpful remarks on this verse).

NET Notes: Lev 22:24

¹ sn Compare Lev 21:20b.

NET Notes: Lev 22:25

¹ tn Heb “And from the hand of a son of a foreigner.”

² tn Heb “for their being ruined [is] in them, flaw is in them”; NRSV “are mutilated, with a blemish in them”; NIV “are deformed and have defects.” The MT term מָשְׁחָתָם (moshkhatam, “their being ruined”) is a Muqtal form (= Hophal participle) from שָׁחַת (shakhat, “to ruin”). Smr has plural בהם משׁחתים (“deformities in them”; cf. the LXX translation). The Qumran Leviticus scroll (11QpaleoLev) has תימ הם[…], in which case the restored participle would appear to be the same as Smr, but there is no בְּ (bet) preposition before the pronoun, yielding “they are deformed” (see D. N. Freedman and K. A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll, 41 and the remarks in J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 358).

NET Notes: Lev 22:27

¹ tn The words “the care of” are not in the Hebrew text, but are implied. Although many modern English versions render “with its mother” (e.g., NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT), the literal phrase “under its mother” refers to the young animal nursing from its mother. Cf. KJV, ASV “it shall be seven days under the dam,” which would probably be misunderstood.

² tn Heb “for an offering of a gift.”

NET Notes: Lev 22:28

¹ tn Heb “And an ox or a sheep, it and its son, you shall not slaughter.”

² tn Heb “in one day.”

NET Notes: Lev 22:29

¹ tn Heb “for your acceptance” (see the notes on Lev 1:3-4 and 22:19 above).

Geneva Bible: Lev 22:2

Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they ^{( a )} 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.

^{( a )} Meaning, that the priests abstain from eating, as long as they are polluted.

Geneva Bible: Lev 22:3

Say unto them, Whosoever [he be] of all your seed among your generations, that ^{( b )} 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.

^{( b )} To eat of it.

Geneva Bible: Lev 22:4

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] ^{( c )} unclean [by] the dead, or a man whose seed goeth from him;

^{( c )} By touching any dead thing, or being at burial of the dead.

Geneva Bible: Lev 22:10

There shall no ^{( d )} stranger eat [of] the holy thing: a ^{( e )} sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat [of] the holy thing.

^{( d )} Which is not of the tribe of Levi.

^{( e )} Some read, the servant who had his ear bored, and would not go free, (Exo 21:6).

Geneva Bible: Lev 22:12

If the priest's daughter also be [married] unto a ^{( f )} stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things.

^{( f )} Who is not of the priests kindred.

Geneva Bible: Lev 22:14

And if a man eat [of] the holy thing unwittingly, then he shall put the ^{( g )} fifth [part] thereof unto it, and shall give [it] unto the priest with the holy thing.

^{( g )} He shall give that and a fifth part over.

Geneva Bible: Lev 22:16

Or suffer them to bear the iniquity of ^{( h )} trespass, when they eat their holy things: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

^{( h )} For if they did not offer sacrifice for their error, the people by their example might commit the same offence.

Geneva Bible: Lev 22:25

Neither ^{( i )} from a stranger's 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.

^{( i )} You shall not receive any imperfect thing from a stranger, to make it the Lord's offering: which he calls the bread of the Lord.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Lev 22:1-33

1 The priests in their uncleanness must abstain from the holy things.

6 How they shall be cleansed.

10 Who of the priest's house may eat of the holy things.

17 The sacrifices must be without blemish.

26 The age of the sacrifice.

29 The law of eating the sacrifice of thanksgiving.

MHCC: Lev 22:1-33

In this chapter we have divers laws concerning the priests and sacrifices, all for preserving the honour of the sanctuary. Let us recollect with gratitude that our great High Priest cannot be hindered by any thing from the discharge of his office. Let us also remember, that the Lord requires us to reverence his name, his truths, his ordinances, and commandments. Let us beware of hypocrisy, and examine ourselves concerning our sinful defilements, seeking to be purified from them in the blood of Christ, and by his sanctifying Spirit. Whoever attempts to expiate his own sin, or draws near in the pride of self-righteousness, puts as great an affront on Christ, as he who comes to the Lord's table from the gratification of sinful lusts. Nor can the minister who loves the souls of the people, suffer them to continue in this dangerous delusion. He must call upon them, not only to repent of their sins, and forsake them; but to put their whole trust in the atonement of Christ, by faith in his name, for pardon and acceptance with God; thus only will the Lord make them holy, as his own people.

Matthew Henry: Lev 22:1-9

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 (2Th 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.

Matthew Henry: Lev 22:10-16

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, 1Sa 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.

Matthew Henry: Lev 22:17-33

Here are four laws concerning sacrifices: -

I. Whatever was offered in sacrifice to God should be without blemish, otherwise it should not be accepted. This had often been mentioned in the particular institutions of the several sorts of offerings. Now here they are told what was to be accounted a blemish which rendered a beast unfit for sacrifice: if it was blind, or lame, had a wen, or the mange (Lev 22:22), - if it was bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut (Lev 22:24), that is, as the Jewish writers understand it, if it was, in any of these ways, castrated, if bulls and rams were made into oxen and weathers, they might not be offered. Moreover a difference is made between what was brought as a free-will offering and what was brought as a vow, Lev 22:23. And, though none that had any of the forementioned blemishes might be brought for either, yet if a beast had any thing superfluous or lacking (that is, as the Jews understand it, if there was a disproportion or inequality between those parts that are pairs, when one eye, or ear, or leg, was bigger than it should be, or less than it should be) - if there was no other blemish than this, it might be accepted for a free-will offering, to which a man had not before laid himself, nor had the divine law laid him, under any particular obligation; but for a vow it might not be accepted. Thus God would teach us to make conscience of performing our promises to him very exactly, and not afterwards to abate in quantity or value of what we had solemnly engaged to devote to him. What was, before the vow, in our own power, as in the case of a free-will offering, afterwards is not, Act 5:4. It is again and again declared that no sacrifice should be accepted if it was thus blemished, Lev 22:20, Lev 22:21. According to this law great care was taken to search all the beasts that were brought to be sacrificed, that there might, to a certainty, be no blemish in them. A blemished sacrifice might not be accepted even from the hand of a stranger, though to such all possible encouragement should be given to do honour to the God of Israel, Lev 22:25. By this it appears that strangers were expected to come to the house of God from a far country (1Ki 8:41, 1Ki 8:42), and that they should be welcome, and their offerings accepted, as those of Darius, Ezr 6:9, Ezr 6:10; Isa 56:6, Isa 56:7. The heathen priests were many of them not so strict in this matter, but would receive sacrifices for their gods that were ever so scandalous; but let strangers know that the God of Israel would not be so served. Now, 1. This law was then necessary for the preserving of the honour of the sanctuary, and of the God that was there worshipped. It was fit that every thing that was employed for his honour should be the best of the kind; for, as he is the greatest and brightest, so he is the best of beings; and he that is the best must have the best. See how greatly and justly displeasing the breach of this law was to the holy God, Mal 1:8, Mal 1:13, Mal 1:14. 2. This law made all the legal sacrifices the fitter to be types of Christ, the great sacrifice from which all these derived their virtue. In allusion to this law, he is said to be a Lamb without blemish and without spot, 1Pe 1:19. As such a priest, so such a sacrifice, became us, who was harmless and undefiled. When Pilate declared, I find no fault in this man, he did thereby in effect pronounce the sacrifice without blemish. The Jews say it was the work of the sagan, or suffragan, high priest, to view the sacrifices, and see whether they were without blemish or no; when Christ suffered, Annas was in that office; but little did those who brought Christ to Annas first, by whom he was sent bound to Caiaphas, as a sacrifice fit to be offered (Joh 18:13, Joh 18:24), think that they were answering the type of this law. 3. It is an instruction to us to offer to God the best we have in our spiritual sacrifices. If our devotions are ignorant, and cold, and trifling, and full of distractions, we offer the blind, and the lame, and the sick, for sacrifice; but cursed be the deceiver that does so, for, while he thinks to put a cheat upon God, he puts a damning cheat upon his own soul.

II. That no beast should be offered in sacrifice before it was eight days old, Lev 22:26, Lev 22:27. It was provided before that the firstlings of their cattle, which were to be dedicated to God, should not be brought to him till after the eighth day, Exo 22:30. Here it is provided that no creature should be offered in sacrifice till it was eight days old complete. Sooner than that it was not fit to be used at men's tables, and therefore not a God's altar. The Jews say, "It was because the sabbath sanctifies all things, and nothing should be offered to God till at least one sabbath had passed over it."It was in conformity to the law of circumcision, which children were to receive on the eighth day. Christ was sacrificed for us, not in his infancy, though then Herod sought to slay him, but in the prime of his time.

III. That the dam and her young should not both be killed in one day, whether in sacrifice or for common use, Lev 22:28. There is such a law as this concerning birds, Deu 22:6. This was forbidden, not as evil in itself, but because it looked barbarous and cruel to the brute creatures; like the tyranny of the king of Babylon, that slew Zedekiah's sons before his eyes, and then put out his eyes. It looked ill-natured towards the species to kill two generations at once, as if one designed the ruin of the kind.

IV. That the flesh of their thank-offerings should be eaten on the same day that they were sacrificed, Lev 22:29, Lev 22:30. This is a repetition of what we had before, Lev 7:15; Lev 19:6, Lev 19:7. The chapter concludes with such a general charge as we have often met with, to keep God's commandments, and not to profane his holy name, Lev 22:31, Lev 22:32. Those that profess God's name, if they do not make conscience of keeping his commandments, do but profane his name. The general reasons are added: God's authority over them - I am the Lord; his interest in them - I am your God; the title he had to them by redemption - " I brought you out of the land of Egypt, on purpose that I might be your God;"the designs of his grace concerning them - I am the Lord that hallow you; and the resolutions of his justice, if he had not honour from them, to get himself honour upon them - I will be hallowed among the children of Israel. God will be a loser in his glory by no man at last; but sooner or later will recover his right, either in the repentance of sinners or in their ruin.

Keil-Delitzsch: 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 them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:2-3

Aaron and his sons were to keep away from the holy gifts of the children of Israel, which they consecrated to Jehovah, that they might not profane the holy name of Jehovah by defiling them הנּזר with מן to keep away, separate one's self from anything, i.e., not to regard or treat them as on a par with unconsecrated things. The words, " which they sanctify to Me, "are a supplementary apposition, added as a more precise definition of the "holy things of the children of Israel;"as the expression "holy things"was applied to the holy objects universally, including the furniture of the tabernacle. Here, however, the reference is solely to the holy offerings or gifts, which were not placed upon the altar, but presented to the Lord as heave-offerings and wave-offerings, and assigned by Him to the priests as the servants of His house, for their maintenance (Num 18:11-19, Num 18:26-29). None of the descendants of Aaron were to approach these gifts, which were set apart for them, - i.e., to touch them either for the purpose of eating, or making them ready for eating, - whilst any uncleanness was upon them, on pain of extermination.

Lev 22:4-5

No leper was to touch them (see Lev 13:2), or person with gonorrhaea (Lev 15:2), until he was clean; no one who had touched a person defiled by a corpse (Lev 19:28; Num 19:22), or whose seed had gone from him (Lev 15:16, Lev 15:18); and no one who had touched an unclean creeping animal, or an unclean man. טמאתו לכל , as in Lev 5:3, a closer definition of לו יטמא אשׁר , "who is unclean to him with regard to (on account of) any uncleanness which he may have."

Lev 22:6-7

" A soul which touches it, "i.e., any son of Aaron, who had touched either an unclean person or thing, was to be unclean till the evening, and then bathe his body; after sunset, i.e., when the day was over, he became clean, and could eat of the sanctified things, for they were his food.

Lev 22:8-9

In this connection the command given to all the Israelites, not to eat anything that had fallen down dead or been torn in pieces (Lev 17:15-16), is repeated with special reference to the priests. (On. Lev 22:9, see Lev 8:35; Lev 18:30, and Lev 19:17). יחלּלהוּ , "because they have defiled it (the sanctified thing)."

Lev 22:10-16

No stranger was to eat a sanctified thing. זר is in general the non-priest, then any person who was not fully incorporated into a priestly family, e.g., a visitor or day-labourer (cf. Exo 12:49), who were neither of them members of his family.

Lev 22:11

On the other hand, slaves bought for money, or born in the house, became members of his family and lived upon his bread; they were therefore allowed to eat of that which was sanctified along with him, since the slaves were, in fact, formally incorporated into the nation by circumcision (Gen 17:12-13).

Lev 22:12-13

So again the daughter of a priest, if she became a widow, or was put away by her husband, and returned childless to her father's house, and became a member of his family again, just as in the days of her youth, might eat of the holy things. But if she had any children, then after the death of her husband, or after her divorce, she formed with them a family of her own, which could not be incorporated into the priesthood, of course always supposing that her husband was not a priest.

Lev 22:14-16

But if any one (i.e., a layman) should eat unawares of that which was sanctified, he was to bring it, i.e., an equivalent for it, with the addition of a fifth as a compensation for the priest; like a man who had sinned by unfaithfulness in relation to that which was sanctified (Lev 5:16). - In the concluding exhortation in Lev 22:15 and Lev 22:16, the subject to יחלּלוּ (profane) and השּׂאוּ (bear) is indefinite, and the passage to be rendered thus: " They are not to profane the sanctified gifts of the children of Israel, what they heave for the Lord (namely, by letting laymen eat of them), and are to cause them ( the laymen ) who do this unawares to bear a trespass-sin (by imposing the compensation mentioned in Lev 22:14), if they eat their (the priests') sanctified gifts ."Understood in this way, both verses furnish a fitting conclusion to the section Lev 22:10-14. On the other hand, according to the traditional interpretation of these verses, the priesthood is regarded as the subject of the first verb, and a negative supplied before the second. Both of these are arbitrary and quite indefensible, because Lev 22:10-14 do not refer to the priests but to laymen, and in the latter case we should expect אליהם ישׂאוּ רלא (cf. Lev 22:9) instead of the unusual אותם השּׂאוּ .

Keil-Delitzsch: Lev 22:17-20

Acceptable Sacrifices. - Lev 22:18-20. Every sacrifice offered to the Lord by an Israelite or foreigner, in consequence of a vow or as a freewill-offering (cf. Lev 7:16), was to be faultless and male, "for good pleasure to the offerer"(cf. Lev 1:3), i.e., to secure for him the good pleasure of God. An animal with a fault would not be acceptable.

Keil-Delitzsch: Lev 22:21-22

Every peace-offering was also to be faultless, whether brought "to fulfil a special (important) vow"(cf. Num 15:3, Num 15:8 : פּלּא , from פּלא to be great, distinguished, wonderful), or as a freewill gift; that is to say, it was to be free from such faults as blindness, or a broken limb (from lameness therefore: Deu 15:21), or cutting (i.e., mutilation, answering to חרוּם Lev 21:18), or an abscess ( יבּלת , from יבל to flow, probably a flowing suppurating abscess).

Keil-Delitzsch: Lev 22:23

As a voluntary peace-offering they might indeed offer an ox or sheep that was רקלוּט שׂרוּע , "stretched out and drawn together,"i.e., with the whole body or certain limbs either too large or too small;

(Note: In explanation of these words Knobel very properly remarks, that with the Greeks the sacrificial animal was required to be ἀφελής ( Pollux i. 1, 26), upon which Hesychius observes, μήτε πλεονάζων μήτε δέων τι τοῦ σώματος .)

but such an animal could not be acceptable as a votive offering.

Keil-Delitzsch: Lev 22:24

Castrated animals were not to be sacrificed, nor in fact to be kept in the land at all. מעוּך compressus , θλιβίας , an animal with the stones crushed; כּתוּת contusus , θλασίας , with them beaten to pieces; נתוּק avulsus , σπάδων , with them twisted off; כּרוּי excisus , τομίας or ἐκτομίας , with them cut off. In all these different ways was the operation performed among the ancients (cf . Aristot. hist. an. ix. 37, 3; Colum . vi. 26, vii. 11; Pallad . vi. 7). "And in your land ye shall not make,"sc., וגו מעוּך , i.e., castrated animals, that is to say, "not castrate animals."This explanation, which is the one given by Josephus ( Ant . iv. 8, 40) and all the Rabbins, is required by the expression "in your land,"which does not at all suit the interpretation adopted by Clericus and Knobel , who understand by עשׂה the preparation of sacrifices, for sacrifices were never prepared outside the land. The castration of animals is a mutilation of God's creation, and the prohibition of it was based upon the same principle as that of mixing heterogeneous things in Lev 19:19.

Keil-Delitzsch: Lev 22:25-26

Again, the Israelites were not to accept any one of all these, i.e., the faulty animals described, as sacrifice from a foreigner. " For their corruption is in them, "i.e., something corrupt, a fault, adheres to them; so that such offerings could not procure good pleasure towards them. - In Lev 22:26-30 three laws are given of a similar character.

Keil-Delitzsch: Lev 22:27

A young ox, sheep, or goat was to be seven days under its mother, and could only be sacrificed from the eighth day onwards, according to the rule laid down in Exo 22:29 with regard to the first-born. 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.

(Note: For this reason the following rule was also laid down by the Romans: Suis faetus sacrificio die quinto purus est, pecoris die octavo, bovis tricesimo (Plin. h. n. 8, 51).)

This maturity was not reached till after the lapse of a week, that period of time sanctified by the creation. There is no rule laid down in the law respecting the age up to which an animal was admissible in sacrifice. Bullocks , i.e., steers or young oxen of more than a year old, are frequently mentioned and prescribed for the festal sacrifices (for the young ox of less than a year old is called עגל ; Lev 9:3), viz., as burnt-offerings in Lev 23:18; Num 7:15, Num 7:21, Num 7:27, Num 7:33, Num 7:39.; Num 8:8; Num 15:24; Num 28:11, Num 28:19, Num 28:27; Num 29:2, Num 29:8, and as sin-offerings in Lev 4:3, Lev 4:14; Lev 16:3; - sheep (lambs) of one year old are also prescribed as burnt-offerings in Lev 9:3; Lev 12:6; Lev 23:12; Exo 29:38; Num 6:14; Num 7:17, Num 7:21, Num 7:27, Num 7:33, Num 7:39., Num 28:3, Num 28:9, Num 28:19, Num 28:27; Num 29:2, Num 29:8, Num 29:13, Num 29:17., as peace-offerings in Num 7:17, Num 7:23; Num 29:35., and as trespass-offerings in Num 6:12; also a yearling ewe as a sin-offering in Lev 14:10 and Num 6:14, and a yearling goat in Num 15:27. They generally brought older oxen or bullocks for peace-offerings (Num 7:17; Num 23:29.), and sometimes as burnt-offerings. In Jdg 6:25 an ox of seven years old is said to have been brought as a burnt-offering; and there can be no doubt that the goats and rams presented as sin-offerings and trespass-offerings were more than a year old.

Keil-Delitzsch: Lev 22:28-30

The command not to kill an ox or sheep at the same time as its young is related to the law in Exo 23:19 and Deu 22:6-7, and was intended to lay it down as a duty on the part of the Israelites to keep sacred the relation which God had established between parent and offspring. - In Lev 22:29, Lev 22:30, the command to eat the flesh of the animal on the day on which it was offered (Lev 7:15; Lev 19:5-6) is repeated with special reference to the praise-offering.

Constable: Lev 17:1--27:34

II. The private worship of the Israelites chs. 17--27

The second major division of Leviticus deals with how the Israelites were to express their worship of Yahweh in their private lives.

"The first sixteen chapters of Leviticus are concerned primarily with establishment and maintainance [sic] of the relationship between Israel and God. . .

"In chapter 17, the emphasis shifts to the affairs of the everyday life of the Israelites as God's holy people."¹⁸²

In critical circles, scholars are fond of referring to chapters 17-26 as the Holiness Code.¹⁸³

"Leviticus 17-26 has been called the Holiness Code because of the frequency of the occurrence of the phrase, attributed to Yahweh: You shall be holy because I am holy,' which corresponds to the theological theme of the other priestly laws but here receives a special emphasis. One other phrase is characteristic of these chapters: I am Yahweh' (sometimes I am Yahweh your God')."¹⁸⁴

"The section is not as distinctive as some scholars imagine; but it is characterized by moral and ethical instruction (with one chapter on the annual feasts), and it does base moral obligation in the nature of God. This last point is not unique, however. The Ten Commandments are prefaced by the statement I am the Lord your God' (Exod 20:2), and a typical Holiness Code' phrase has already been pointed out in Leviticus 11:44."¹⁸⁵

"The unique feature of the Holiness Code is the fact that in its introduction and throughout its laws, the audience it addresses is not the priests as such but the whole of the congregation. It calls the entire people of God to holiness. As has long been observed, the Holiness Code is not attached directly to the Priestly Code [Exod. 35--Lev. 16]. Between these two legal codes lies a striking account of Israel's offering sacrifices to goat idols' (Lev 17:1-9). Though brief and somewhat enigmatic, this short fragment of narrative, usually taken to be the work of the final composer, portrays the Israelites forsaking the tabernacle and sacrificing outside the camp.' The content of the narrative is similar to the incident of the golden calf: the people forsook the Lord and his provisions for worship and followed after other gods--in this case, the goat idols.' Unlike the narrative of the golden calf, however, which places the blame on the priesthood, this narrative of the goat idols makes the people, not the priests, responsible for the idolatry. Thus within the logic of the text, the incident of the people's sacrificing to the goat idols plays a similar role to that of the priests' involvement in the golden calf. Just as the narrative of the golden calf marked a transition in the nature of the covenant and its laws, so here also the incident of the goat idols marks the transition from the Code of the Priests to the additional laws of the Holiness Code."¹⁸⁶

Note how the three major law collections in the Pentateuch fit into the Sinai narrative.¹⁸⁷

"The placement of the Holiness Code (Lev 17-26) at this point in the narrative, then, plays an important role in the author's strategy. It aptly shows that God gave further laws designed specifically for the ordinary people. These laws are represented in the Holiness Code. Thus, as is characteristic of the Holiness Code, its laws pertain to specific situations in the everyday life of the people."¹⁸⁸

Constable: Lev 21:1--22:33

B. Holiness of the priests, gifts, and sacrifices chs. 21-22

All the people were to maintain holiness before God, but the priests had higher standards because of their privileges in relationship to God. Moses explained these higher regulations in this section of two chapters.

"The thrust of this section [21:1-22:16] is twofold: the office of a priest is holy, and the office is above the man. A priest must be holy in body, upright in conduct, and ceremonially clean; for he is the representative of God."²⁴²

This section also contains the requirements for sacrificial animals because the sacrificial animals were the priests of the animal world. Many of the deformities that kept a priest from offering sacrifice (21:18-20) are the same as those that kept an animal from qualifying as a sacrifice (22:20-24). Sacrificial animals corresponded to the priests, clean animals to the Israelites, and unclean animals to the Gentiles.²⁴³

A formula statement, "For I am the Lord who sanctifies them," or a similar affirmation, closes each of the six subsections (21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32).

Constable: Lev 22:1-33

3. The third list of regulations for priests 22:1-33

The previous section (21:16-24) named physical impediments that prohibited some priests from offering sacrifices. This one identifies the circumstances under which priests could neither officiate at the sacrifices nor eat priestly food.

Twenty-eight selected laws (7 x 4) compose this section.

Constable: Lev 22:1-9

Things that profane a priest 22:1-9

A selection of seven laws appears between a brief introduction (vv. 1-2) and a conclusion (v. 9). The priests could, of course, become defiled like any other Israelites, but no priest who had become ceremonially unclean was to touch or eat the holy things (the furniture, sacrifices, etc.).

Constable: Lev 22:10-16

Persons who could not eat the sacred offerings 22:10-16

Another list of seven laws guarded the offerings. No non-priest could eat the sacrifices the priests ate except those who had become members of the priests' households. The principle appears at the beginning and at the end of the list (vv. 10, 13b) with a brief statement regarding restitution for accidentally eating an offering following (vv. 14-16). All these regulations guarded the holiness of God by treating the people and things most closely associated with Him as special.

Constable: Lev 22:17-25

The offerings of the priests 22:17-25

Another list of seven selected laws appears with the principle stated at the end (v. 25). Certain animals were not acceptable as sacrifices under any circumstances. Other animals were acceptable for some sacrifices but not for others. Generally the more important the offering the higher were the requirements for the sacrificial animal. Only the best sacrifices were suitable for presentation to the Lord since He is worthy of only the very best.

Constable: Lev 22:26-33

The time intervals of sacrifices 22:26-33

Seven additional laws specified the time periods that governed the offering of some sacrifices. The Israelites were not to offer oxen, sheep, and goats as sacrifices before these animals were eight days old (v. 27). It took these animals this long to attain the strength and maturity necessary for them to represent the offerer adequately. The people were not to slay parent animals on the same day as their offspring (v. 28).

The reason may have been ". . . to keep sacred the relation which God had established between parent and offspring."²⁵²

Moses repeated reasons for these regulations again (vv. 31-33) so the Israelites would know why God instructed them as He did (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2).

"These chapters like many others in this book form the background to much NT teaching. Christ is both perfect priest (21:17-23; Heb. 7:26) and perfect victim (22:18-30; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:19; 2:22). His bride (cf. 21:7-15) is the Church, whom he is sanctifying to make her without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish' (Eph. 5:27; cf. Rev. 19:7-8; 21:2)."²⁵³

Guzik: Lev 22:1-33

Leviticus 22 - More Specific Instructions for Priests

Things that might defile a priest.

1. (1-3) The need for ceremonial purity.

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to Aaron and his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they do not profane My holy name by what they dedicate to Me: I am the LORD. Say to them: 'Whoever of all your descendants throughout your generations, who goes near the holy things which the children of Israel dedicate to the LORD, while he has uncleanness upon him, that person shall be cut off from My presence: I am the LORD.'"

a. Who goes near the holy things which the children of Israel dedicate to the LORD, while he has uncleanness upon him, that person shall be cut off: Because the Old Covenant was a covenant of shadows and types, pointing to the glory of the New Covenant (Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 8:4-5; 10:1), the idea that a priest could not minister in a ceremonially defiled (unclean) state was important. Israel needed to know that drawing close to God was to be pure.

2. (4-9) Examples of things that might defile a priest.

Whatever man of the descendants of Aaron, who is a leper or has a discharge, shall not eat the holy offerings until he is clean. And whoever touches anything made unclean by a corpse, or a man who has had an emission of semen, or whoever touches any creeping thing by which he would be made unclean, or any person by whom he would become unclean, whatever his uncleanness may be; the person who has touched any such thing shall be unclean until evening, and shall not eat the holy offerings unless he washes his body with water. And when the sun goes down he shall be clean; and afterward he may eat the holy offerings, because it is his food. Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the LORD. They shall therefore keep My ordinance, lest they bear sin for it and die thereby, if they profane it: I the LORD sanctify them.

a. Shall not eat the holy offerings until he is clean: Violations of these examples would not ruin a man's career as a priest. A violation would make the priest ceremonially unclean until evening. Once ceremonial cleanliness was restored, they could be restored to their priestly service as before.

And when the sun goes down he shall be clean. The Jews start their days at sundown, not sunrise or midnight. With this description, God indicates that one can start the new day clean and pure to the LORD. No matter how we might have failed the day before, we can begin each new day pure and close to the LORD. His mercies are new every morning (Lamentations 3:23).

i. In application, we can stop beating our self up for yesterday's sin. We should confess it, repent of it, and then get on with the business of walking with the LORD today.

3. (10-16) Only the priest and his household could eat of the offerings.

No outsider shall eat the holy offering; one who dwells with the priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat the holy thing. But if the priest buys a person with his money, he may eat it; and one who is born in his house may eat his food. If the priest's daughter is married to an outsider, she may not eat of the holy offerings. But if the priest's daughter is a widow or divorced, and has no child, and has returned to her father's house as in her youth, she may eat her father's food; but no outsider shall eat it. And if a man eats the holy offering unintentionally, then he shall restore a holy offering to the priest, and add one-fifth to it. They shall not profane the holy offerings of the children of Israel, which they offer to the LORD, or allow them to bear the guilt of trespass when they eat their holy offerings; for I the LORD sanctify them.

a. If the priest buys a person with his money, he may eat it: This means that a slave in the household of a priest could eat of the holy things, if the slave was purchased or born in his household. A hired servant (a temporary worker) was not considered part of the priest's household and therefore could not eat of the sacred offering.

i. Leviticus 22:11 shows that a slave was considered part of the priest's household, and entitled to eat of the offerings. This shows us there was a different attitude towards slavery in Israel than in American history; slaves were considered - and largely treated as - part of the family.

For I the LORD sanctify them: This shows why the offerings had to be regarded with special care. These offerings were specially sanctified by the LORD.

B. Examples of unacceptable sacrifices.

1. (17-30) Unacceptable sacrifices.

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to Aaron and his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: 'Whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, who offers his sacrifice for any of his vows or for any of his freewill offerings, which they offer to the LORD as a burnt offering; you shall offer of your own free will a male without blemish from the cattle, from the sheep, or from the goats. Whatever has a defect, you shall not offer, for it shall not be acceptable on your behalf. And whoever offers a sacrifice of a peace offering to the LORD, to fulfill his vow, or a freewill offering from the cattle or the sheep, it must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it. Those that are blind or broken or maimed, or have an ulcer or eczema or scabs, you shall not offer to the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them on the altar to the LORD. Either a bull or a lamb that has any limb too long or too short you may offer as a freewill offering, but for a vow it shall not be accepted. You shall not offer to the LORD what is bruised or crushed, or torn or cut; nor shall you make any offering of them in your land. Nor from a foreigner's hand shall you offer any of these as the bread of your God, because their corruption is in them, and defects are in them. They shall not be accepted on your behalf.'" And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: "When a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall be seven days with its mother; and from the eighth day and thereafter it shall be accepted as an offering made by fire to the LORD. Whether it is a cow or ewe, do not kill both her and her young on the same day. And when you offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the LORD, offer it of your own free will. On the same day it shall be eaten; you shall leave none of it until morning: I am the LORD."

a. Whatever has a defect, you shall not offer: Blemished or deformed animals were obviously unacceptable to the LORD, and the priests had a responsibility to make sure that the animals brought before them by the people were good enough to bring to the LORD. God didn't want the cast-offs from the people; He had right to their best.

i. Unfortunately, this practice was abused in the days of Jesus, where priests would disqualify an animal for an insignificant reason, and them require them to purchase an approved sacrificial animal at an exorbitant price (Matthew 21:12-13).

This also was a foreshadowing of Jesus, our perfect sacrifice. He was perfect in His nature as both God and man, perfect in His motive, perfect in His personality, perfect in His obedience, perfect in His sacrifice for sin on our behalf.

Whatever has a defect, you shall not offer, for it shall not be acceptable on your behalf: The prophet Malachi spoke out against those who brought God inferior animals: You offer defiled food on My altar. But say, 'In what way have we defiled You?' By saying, 'The table of the LORD is contemptible.' And when you offer the blind as a sacrifice, Is it not evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, Is it not evil? Offer it then to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you favorably?" Says the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 1:7-8)

c. From the eighth day and thereafter it shall be accepted as an offering: Also prohibited was an offering of an animal less than eight days old, and to sacrifice an animal and its offspring at the same time.

2. (31-33) Summary.

"Therefore you shall keep My commandments, and perform them: I am the LORD. You shall not profane My holy name, but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel. I am the LORD who sanctifies you, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD."

a. Therefore you shall keep My commandments, and perform them: God commanded Israel - and especially the priests - to keep His commandments and to honor His name because of who He is (I am the LORD), because of what He is (My holy name), because of what He is doing (I am the LORD who sanctifies you), and what He has done (who brought you out of the land of Egypt).

I am the LORD: Surely, these four things are true of the believer in relation to God today - and are each valid and important reasons for obedience.

© 2004 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

LEVITICUS. So called from its treating of the laws relating to the ritual, the services, and sacrifices of the Jewish religion, the superintendence of which was entrusted to the Levitical priesthood. It is chiefly, however, the duties of the priests, "the sons of Aaron," which this book describes; and its claim to be the work of Moses is established by the following passages:-- 2Ch 30:16; Neh 8:14; Jer 7:22-23; Eze 20:11 Mat 8:4; Luk 2:22; Joh 8:5; Rom 10:4; Rom 13:9; 2Co 6:16; Gal 3:12; 1Pe 1:16.

JFB: Leviticus (Outline)

• BURNT OFFERINGS OF THE HERD. (Lev. 1:1-17)
• THE MEAT OFFERINGS. (Lev. 2:1-16)
• THE PEACE OFFERING OF THE HERD. (Lev. 3:1-17)
• SIN OFFERING OF IGNORANCE. (Lev 4:1-2)
• SIN OFFERING FOR THE PRIEST. (Lev. 4:3-35)
• TRESPASS OFFERINGS FOR CONCEALING KNOWLEDGE. (Lev 5:1)
• TOUCHING ANY THING UNCLEAN. (Lev 5:2-3)
• FOR SWEARING. (Lev 5:4-19)
• TRESPASS OFFERING FOR SINS DONE WITTINGLY. (Lev 6:1-7)
• THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING. (Lev 6:8-13)
• THE LAW OF THE MEAT OFFERING. (Lev 6:14-18)
• THE HIGH PRIEST'S MEAT OFFERING. (Lev 6:19-23)
• THE LAW OF THE SIN OFFERING. (Lev 6:21-30)
• THE LAW OF THE TRESPASS OFFERING. (Lev. 7:1-27)
• THE PRIESTS' PORTION. (Lev 7:28-38)
• MOSES CONSECRATES AARON AND HIS SONS. (Lev. 8:1-36)
• THE PRIESTS' ENTRY INTO OFFICE. (Lev. 9:1-24)
• NADAB AND ABIHU BURNT. (Lev. 10:1-20)
• BEASTS THAT MAY AND MAY NOT BE EATEN. (Lev. 11:1-47)
• WOMAN'S UNCLEANNESS BY CHILDBIRTH. (Lev 12:1-8)
• THE LAWS AND TOKENS IN DISCERNING LEPROSY. (Lev. 13:1-59)
• THE RITES AND SACRIFICES IN CLEANSING OF THE LEPER. (Lev. 14:1-57)
• UNCLEANNESS OF MEN. (Lev. 15:1-18)
• UNCLEANNESS OF WOMEN. (Lev 15:19-33)
• HOW THE HIGH PRIEST MUST ENTER INTO THE HOLY PLACE. (Lev. 16:1-34)
• BLOOD OF BEASTS MUST BE OFFERED AT THE TABERNACLE DOOR. (Lev. 17:1-16)
• UNLAWFUL MARRIAGES. (Lev. 18:1-30)
• A REPETITION OF SUNDRY LAWS. (Lev. 19:1-37)
• GIVING ONE'S SEED TO MOLECH. (Lev. 20:1-27)
• OF THE PRIESTS' MOURNING. (Lev. 21:1-24)
• THE PRIESTS IN THEIR UNCLEANNESS. (Lev 22:1-9)
• WHO OF THE PRIESTS' HOUSE MAY EAT OF THEM. (Lev 22:10-16)
• THE SACRIFICES MUST BE WITHOUT BLEMISH. (Lev. 22:17-33)
• OF SUNDRY FEASTS. (Lev 23:1-4)
• THE PASSOVER. (Lev 23:5-8)
• THE SHEAF OF FIRST FRUITS. (Lev 23:9-14)
• FEAST OF PENTECOST. (Lev 23:15-22)
• FEAST OF TRUMPETS. (Lev 23:23-25)
• OIL FOR THE LAMPS. (Lev. 24:1-23)
• SABBATH OF THE SEVENTH YEAR. (Lev 25:1-7)
• THE JUBILEE. (Lev. 25:8-23)
• OF IDOLATRY. (Lev 26:1-2)
• A BLESSING TO THE OBEDIENT. (Lev 26:3-13)
• A CURSE TO THE DISOBEDIENT. (Lev. 26:14-39)
• CONCERNING VOWS. (Lev. 27:1-18)

TSK: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

Leviticus is a most interesting and important book; a book containing a code of sacrificial, ceremonial, civil, and judicial laws, which, for the purity of their morality, the wisdom, justice, and beneficence of their enactments, and the simplicity, dignity, and impressive nature of their rites, are perfectly unrivalled, and altogether worthy of their Divine Author. All the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic law are at once dignified and expressive. They point out the holiness of their Author, the sinfulness of man, the necessity of an atonement, and the state of moral excellence to which the grace and mercy of the Creator have destined to raise the human soul. They include, as well as point out, the gospel of the Son of God; from which they receive their consummation and perfection. The sacrifices and oblations were significant of the atonement of Christ; the requisite qualities of these sacrifices were emblematical of his immaculate character; and the prescribed mode in the form of these offerings, and the mystical rites ordained, were allusive institutions, calculated to enlighten the apprehensions of the Jews, and to prepare them for the reception of the Gospel. The institution of the high priesthood typified Jesus, the Great High Priest, called and prepared of God, who hath an unchangeable priesthood, and is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him.

TSK: Leviticus 22 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Lev 22:1, The priests in their uncleanness must abstain from the holy things; Lev 22:6, How they shall be cleansed; Lev 22:10, Who of the priest’s house may eat of the holy things; Lev 22:17, The sacrifices must be without blemish; Lev 22:26, The age of the sacrifice; Lev 22:29, The law of eating the sacrifice of thanksgiving.

Poole: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

THIRD BOOK OF MOSES CALLED LEVITICUS

THE ARGUMENT

This Book, containing the actions of about one month’ s space, acquainteth us with the Levitical ceremonies used after the tabernacle was erected and anointed in the wilderness, and is therefore called LEVITICUS. It treats of laws concerning persons and things, clean and unclean, by infirmity or accident; as also purifyings in general once a year, and divers particular cleansings, with a brief repetition of divers laws, Le 19 , together with certain feasts, of seven years’ rest, of the jubilee, and the redemption of things consecrated to God, &c.; but especially of such ceremonies as were used about offerings and sacrifices, which were both expiatory, for trespasses wittingly or unwittingly committed, whether by the people or the priests; and also eucharistical, in the owning of God’ s blessings. Here are declared also laws for the regulating of these, and prescribing the lawful time for marriages. Here is set down how several abominable sins are punishable by the magistrate; and how these things are to be managed by certain persons appropriated to the tribe of Levi, whose office is confirmed from heaven, and the maladministration of it threatened, and the judgment particularly inflicted on Nadab and Abihu for an example. Here are also promises and threatenings to the observers or breakers of this law.

Poole: Leviticus 22 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 22

The priests in their uncleanness must abstain from the holy things, Lev 22:1-5 . How they shall be cleansed, Lev 22:6-9 . Who of the priest’ s house may eat of the holy things, Lev 22:10-16 . The sacrifices must be without blemish, Lev 22:17-25 . The age of the sacrifice, Lev 22:26-28 . The law of eating the sacrifice of thanksgiving, Lev 22:29,30 .

MHCC: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

God ordained divers kinds of oblations and sacrifices, to assure his people of the forgiveness of their offences, if they offered them in true faith and obedience. Also he appointed the priests and Levites, their apparel, offices, conduct, and portion. He showed what feasts they should observe, and at what times. He declared by these sacrifices and ceremonies, that the reward of sin is death, and that without the blood of Christ, the innocent Lamb of God, there can be no forgiveness of sins.

MHCC: Leviticus 22 (Chapter Introduction)

Laws concerning the priests and sacrifices.

Matthew Henry: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Third Book of Moses, Called Leviticus

There is nothing historical in all this book of Leviticus except the account which it gives us of the consecration of the priesthood (ch. 8-9), of the punishment of Nadab and Abihu, by the hand of God, for offering strange fire (ch. 10), and of Shelomith's son, by the hand of the magistrate, for blasphemy (ch. 24). All the rest of the book is taken up with the laws, chiefly the ecclesiastical laws, which God gave to Israel by Moses, concerning their sacrifices and offerings, their meats and drinks, and divers washings, and the other peculiarities by which God set that people apart for himself, and distinguished them from other nations, all which were shadows of good things to come, which are realized and superseded by the gospel of Christ. We call the book Leviticus, from the Septuagint, because it contains the laws and ordinances of the levitical priesthood (as it is called, Heb 7:11), and the ministrations of it. The Levites were principally charged with these institutions, both to do their part and to teach the people theirs. We read, in the close of the foregoing book, of the setting up of the tabernacle, which was to be the place of worship; and, as that was framed according to the pattern, so must the ordinances of worship be, which were there to be administered. In these the divine appointment was as particular as in the former, and must be as punctually observed. The remaining record of these abrogated laws is of use to us, for the strengthening of our faith in Jesus Christ, as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and for the increase of our thankfulness to God, that by him we are freed from the yoke of the ceremonial law, and live in the times of reformation.

Matthew Henry: Leviticus 22 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter we have divers laws concerning the priests and sacrifices all for the preserving of the honour of the sanctuary. I. That the priests should not eat the holy things in their uncleanness (Lev 22:1-9). II. That no stranger who did not belong to some family of the priests should eat of the holy things (Lev 22:10-13), and, if he did it unwittingly, he must make restitution, (Lev 22:14-16). III. That the sacrifices which were offered must be without blemish (Lev 22:17-25). IV. That they must be more than eight days old (Lev 22:26-28), and that the sacrifices of thanksgiving must be eaten the same day they were offered (Lev 22:29, etc.).

Constable: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

The Hebrews derived the title of this book from the first word in it, wayyiqra', translated "And He [the Lord] called" (1:1). "And" or "then" is a conjunction that shows that what follows in Leviticus is a continuation of the narrative of Exodus. There is no break in the flow of thought. This is the third book of the Torah (Law).

The English title comes to us from the Vulgate (Latin version), which called this book Liber Leviticus. The Vulgate title came from the Septuagint (Greek version), which had as the title Leuitikon, meaning "relating to the Levites." This title is appropriate since the book contains requirements of the Mosaic Covenant that relate to the Levites, or more specifically, the priests.

"It would be wrong, however, to describe Leviticus simply as a manual for priests. It is equally, if not more, concerned with the part the laity should play in worship. Many of the regulations explain what the layman should sacrifice. They tell him when to go to the sanctuary, what to bring, and what he may expect the priest to do when he arrives. Most of the laws apply to all Israel: only a few sections specifically concern the priests alone, e.g., chs. 21-22. The lay orientation of the legislation is particularly noticeable in ch. 23, where the whole emphasis lies on the days that must be observed as days of sabbath rest."¹

Date and Writer

As I explained in the notes on Genesis, almost all Jewish and Christian scholars regarded Moses as the writer of all five books of the Law until about 100 years ago.²

God evidently revealed the material Moses recorded in Leviticus after He renewed the covenant with Israel (1:1).

Leviticus is unique in that it is largely a record of God's instructions to Moses.

"There is no book in the whole compass of that inspired Volume which the Holy Spirit has given us, that contains more of the very words of God than Leviticus. It is God that is the direct speaker in almost every page; His gracious words are recorded in the form wherein they were uttered."³

Scope

As mentioned, Leviticus contains revelation that was particularly appropriate for the priests. While ritual and legal matters predominate, Moses wove them into the historical narratives so as one reads Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers in order there is chronological movement forward. As we shall see, the legislation appears in the narrative at significant and reasonable places.

"The content of Leviticus supplements and completes that of Exodus in the religious and social spheres--and particularly the religious and ritual aspects of the covenant as made, broken and renewed actually at Sinai; this would be reflected by the terminal blessings and curses of Leviticus 26."⁴

"Leviticus enlarges upon matters involving the ordering of worship at the divine sanctuary that are mentioned only briefly in Exodus. Whereas the latter described the specifications and construction of the tabernacle, Leviticus narrates the way in which the priests are to care for the sanctuary and throne room of the Great King. The work is a fundamentally important legal treatise because it contains the regulations by which the religious and civil life of the Hebrew nation was to be governed once the land of Canaan was occupied."⁵

Historically the book fits within the one month between God's occupation of the tabernacle (Exod. 40:17, 34-38) and the taking of the census at Sinai (Num. 1:1-3). However because it contains so much legal material, we should consider it along with the rest of the Mosaic Law that God began to reveal in Exodus.

"It carries on to its completion the giving of the law at Sinai, which commenced at Ex. 25, and by which the covenant constitution was firmly established."⁶

Purpose

"Though the covenant arrangement up to this point clearly specified the need for Israel, the vassal, to appear before her Lord on stated occasions and singled out first Moses and then the priesthood as mediators in this encounter, there yet remained the need to describe the nature of the tribute to be presented, the precise meaning and function of the priesthood, the definition of holiness and unholiness, and a more strict clarification of the places and times of pilgrimage to the dwelling place of the great King. This is the purpose of the book of Leviticus."⁷

"The central theme of the book is holiness. The book intends to show how Israel was to fulfill its covenant responsibility to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation' (Ex 19:6; Lev 26:5)."⁸

"How to maintain the vital covenantal relationship between the Israelites and their God is the concern of the book of Leviticus."⁹

"New Testament theology makes full use of the idea of holiness. All Christians are holy, saints' in most English translations. That is, they have been called by God to be his people just as ancient Israel had been (Col. 1:2; 1 Pet. 1:2; 2:9-10; cf. Exod. 19:5-6). But this state of holiness must find expression in holy living (Col. 1:22; 1 Pet. 1:15). Sanctification is expressed through obedience to the standard of teaching (Rom. 6:17-19), just as in Leviticus through obedience to the law. Peter urges his readers to make the motto of Leviticus their own: Be holy, for I am holy' (1 Pet. 1:16). The imitation of God is a theme that unites the ethics of Old and New Testaments (cf. Matt. 5:48; 1 Cor. 11:1)."¹⁰

". . . the principles underlying the OT are valid and authoritative for the Christian, but the particular applications found in the OT may not be. The moral principles are the same today, but insofar as our situation often differs from the OT setting, the application of the principles in our society may well be different now."¹¹

". . . the Levitical rituals are still of immense relevance. It was in terms of these sacrifices that Jesus himself and the early church understood his atoning death. Leviticus provided the theological models for their understanding. If we wish to walk in our Lord's steps and think his thoughts after him, we must attempt to understand the sacrificial system of Leviticus. It was established by the same God who sent his Son to die for us; and in rediscovering the principles of OT worship written there, we may learn something of the way we should approach a holy God."¹²

Importance

". . . it is no exaggeration to claim that the Book of Leviticus has had more impact on Judaism than any other book of the Old testament. Traditionally it was the first book taught to Jewish children, and over half the commentary of the Talmud is concerned with understanding its contents."¹³

Message¹⁴

The major theme of Leviticus is worship. Moses introduced this theme in the later chapters of Exodus, but he developed it more fully in Leviticus.

The book reveals how sinful Israelites could have a relationship with the holy God who dwelt among them. It also reveals how they could maintain that relationship and express it through worship.

One of the major revelations in Leviticus is the nature of sin. God took the fact that man is a sinner for granted in Leviticus. He established this in Genesis and Exodus. He clarified the nature of man's sinfulness in Leviticus. Sin has a three-fold character.

1. Sin is unlikeness to God. In the Creation we see man made in the image of God, but in the Fall we begin to see man's unlikeness to God. The whole system of worship in Leviticus teaches this truth. God is different from man ethically and morally. The word holy (Heb. kodesh) occurs over 150 times in Leviticus, more than in any other book of the Bible. The word occurs even in the sections of the book dealing with personal hygiene. Holy means pure, unblemished, clean, blameless. The opposite of holy is sinful. It is in contrast with God's holiness that we can understand man's sinfulness. Leviticus reveals the standards by which sinful people could have fellowship with a holy God. These standards and regulations point out the vast difference between the character of man and the character of God. God sees us as His Son as Christians (i.e., "in Christ").

2. Sin is essentially wrong that man does to God. To have a relationship with God, the wrong the redeemed sinner had done to God had to be atoned for. The Israelite did this wrong daily. It was the natural fruit of his sinful nature. Consequently he had to make payment for his sin periodically to God (monthly, seasonally, and yearly). God specified how the sinners were to pay for the wrong done Him, namely, by the offerings and sacrifices specified in the law. In Leviticus we learn that wrong done to another human being is wrong done to God. People belong to God, God gives them their lives in trust, and they bear God's image. When one person violates the basic rights of another, he has wronged not only that person but God too (cf. Gen. 39:9; Ps. 51:4). We too sin daily, but "Jesus paid it all." We could never compensate God adequately for the wrong we do to Him by sinning.

3. Sin results in distance from God. Because man is unlike God in his character, he is separate from God in his experience. The Israelites could not approach God except as God made a way and brought them near to Himself. The levitical system of worship illustrated the distance between man and God due to sin and the need for some provision to bring man back to God. The veil, the curtains, and the priests separated the ordinary Israelite from God. He doubtless sensed his personal separation from God as he participated in worship. Jesus tore the veil in two and opened access to God for us. After the Fall, Adam and Eve hid from God.

Another major revelation in Leviticus is the nature of atonement. Atonement is, of course, the solution to the problems that sin creates. Atonement means satisfaction. God covered the sins of the Israelites until a final, acceptable sacrifice would remove them completely. Old Testament saints obtained salvation on credit. (Ill. of a credit card) Through atonement man who is a sinner could enter into fellowship with God. Three things had to be present to make atonement for sin.

1. There had to be substitution. Every animal sacrifice in Israel involved the substitution of one life for another. A living being had to stand in the sinner's place and take the punishment for his sin. The substitute had to be sinless. Every sacrifice of an animal involved the death of an innocent substitute. Animals do not sin. They are not morally responsible.

2. There had to be imputation. God transferred the guilt of the sinner to his substitute when the sinner personally identified with his substitute by laying his hands on it. This ritual illustrated the transference of guilt for the Israelites.

3. There had to be death. Finally the substitute to which God had imputed guilt had to die. Atonement could not take place without death. The shedding of blood illustrated death. Blood is the essence of life (17:11). Bloodshed was a visual demonstration of life poured out. Sin always results in death (cf. Rom. 6:23). Clearly love lay behind this plan even though Moses did not explain why God provided atonement in Leviticus. God opened the way for sinners to have fellowship with Himself by providing for the covering of sins. God could have preserved His holiness and satisfied the demands of his justice by annihilating every sinner. However, God chose another way because He loves man.

A third major revelation in Leviticus is the nature of redemption. Redemption essentially means purchase. To redeem means to purchase for oneself. When God redeemed Israel in Egypt, He bought the nation for Himself. God then provided freedom so the Israelites could be His special treasure. Leviticus teaches three things about redemption.

1. Redemption rests on righteousness. Leviticus reveals that God did what was right to restore man to Himself. He did not simply dismiss sin as unimportant. He provided a way whereby the guilt of sin could be paid for righteously. Redemption rests on a payment to God, not pity.

2. Redemption is possible only by blood. The sacrificial shedding of blood is the giving up of life. The rites of animal sacrifice portrayed this graphically. People do not obtain redemption when they pour out their lives in service but by life poured out in death (cf. Heb. 9:22). Man's redemption cost God the life of His own Son ultimately.

3. Redemption should produce holiness. Redemption should lead to a manner of life that is separate from sin. Redemption does not excuse us from the responsibility of being holy. It gives us the opportunity to be holy. Holiness of life results from a relationship to God and fellowship (communion) with Him that redemption makes possible.

Redemption deals with the sinner's relationship to God whereas atonement deals with his relationship to sin. You have experienced redemption, but God has atoned for your sins.

I would summarize the message of Leviticus as follows on the basis of this three-fold emphasis on sin, atonement, and redemption. God has made provision for the covering of man's sin so man can have fellowship with God.

Genesis revealed that God made man in His own image to have fellowship with Himself. Man enjoyed that fellowship as long as he trusted and obeyed God. However when man ceased to trust and obey God, sin broke that fellowship. God then proceeded to demonstrate to fallen man that He is trustworthy, faithful. Those individuals who trusted and obeyed Him were able to enjoy fellowship with God again.

Exodus emphasized that God is also sovereign. He is the ultimate ruler of the universe who can and did redeem the nation of Israel. He did this so He could demonstrate to all people of all time how glorious it can be to live under the government of God.

Leviticus deals with how sinners can have fellowship with a holy God. Leviticus clarifies both the sinfulness of man and the holiness of God. The proper response of the redeemed sinner to a holy God is worship. Leviticus explains how Israel was to worship God. The Israelites worshipped God under the Old Covenant. Our worship is different because we live under the New Covenant.

Constable: Leviticus (Outline)

Outline

"At first sight the book of Leviticus might appear to be a haphazard, even repetitious arrangement of enactments involving the future life in Canaan of the Israelite people. Closer examination will reveal, however, that quite apart from the division of the work into two basic themes, many of the chapters have their own literary structure. Examples of this can be seen in material patterned after the fashion of a Mesopotamian tablet, with its title, textual content and colophon, as in Leviticus 1:3-7:37-38. Other chapters exhibit a distinct form of construction, which would doubtless prove extremely valuable for purposes of memorizing the contents. Examples of this are to be found in the triadic pattern of the leprosy regulations introduced by the phrase The Lord said to Moses' (Lv. 13:1; 14:1, 33), or the concentric arrangement of propositions (palistrophe) in Leviticus 24:16-22. A particularly attractive literary form is the introverted (chiastic) passage occurring in Leviticus 15:2-30, suggesting considerable artistic ability on the part of the writer."¹⁵

I. The public worship of the Israelites chs. 1-16

A. The laws of sacrifice chs. 1-7

1. The burnt offering ch. 1

2. The meal offering ch. 2

3. The peace offerings ch. 3

4. The sin offerings 4:1-5:13

5. The trespass offerings 5:14-6:7

6. Instructions for the priests concerning the offerings 6:8-7:38

B. The institution of the Aaronic priesthood chs. 8-10

1. The consecration of the priests and the sanctuary ch. 8

2. The entrance of Aaron and his sons into their office ch. 9

3. The sanctification of the priesthood ch. 10

C. Laws relating to ritual cleanliness chs. 11-15

1. Uncleanness due to contact with certain animals ch. 11

2. Uncleanness due to childbirth ch. 12

3. Uncleanness due to skin and covering abnormalities chs. 13-14

4. Uncleanness due to bodily discharges associated with reproduction ch. 15

D. The Day of Atonement ch. 16

1. Introductory information 16:1-10

2. Instructions concerning the ritual 16:11-28

3. Instructions concerning the duty of the people 16:29-34

II. The private worship of the Israelites chs. 17-27

A. Holiness of conduct on the Israelites' part chs. 17-20

1. Holiness of food ch. 17

2. Holiness of the marriage relationship ch. 18

3. Holiness of behavior toward God and man ch. 19

4. Punishments for serious crimes ch. 20

B. Holiness of the priests, gifts, and sacrifices chs. 21-22

1. The first list of regulations for priests 21:1-15

2. The second list of regulations for priests 21:16-24

3. The third list of regulations for priests ch. 22

C. Sanctification of the Sabbath and the feasts of Yahweh ch. 23

1. The Sabbath 23:1-3

2. The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread 23:4-8

3. The Feast of Firstfruits 23:9-14

4. The Feast of Pentecost 23:15-22

5. The Feast of Trumpets 23:23-25

6. The Day of Atonement 23:26-32

7. The Feast of Tabernacles 23:33-44

D. The preparation of the holy lamps and showbread 24:1-9

E. The punishment of a blasphemer 24:10-23

F. Sanctification of the possession of land by the sabbatical and jubilee years ch. 25

1. The sabbatical year 25:1-7

2. The year of jubilee 25:8-55

G. Promises and warnings ch. 26

1. Introduction to the final conditions of the covenant 26:1-2

2. The blessing for fidelity to the law 26:3-13

3. The warning for contempt of the law 26:14-33

4. The objective of God's judgments in relation to the land and nation of Israel 26:34-46

H. Directions concerning vows ch. 27

1. Vows concerning persons 27:1-8

2. Vows concerning animals 27:9-13

3. Vows concerning other property 27:14-29

4. The redemption of tithes 27:30-34

Constable: Leviticus

Leviticus

Bibliography

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

Albright, William Foxwell, The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1956.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. "Sabbatical Typologies of Messianic Redemption." Journal for the Study of Judaism 17:2 (December 1986):153-76.

Baillie, Rebecca A., and E. Eugene Baillie. "Biblical Leprosy as Compared to Present-Day Leprosy." Christian Medical Society Journal 14:3 (Fall 1983):27-29.

Baker, David W. "Division Markers and the Structure of Leviticus 1-7." In Studia Biblica 1978: I, pp. 9-15. Edited by E. Livingstone. Sheffield, England: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1979.

Bare, G. Plants and Animals of the Bible. N.c.: United Bible Societies, 1969.

Blosser, Don. "The Sabbath Year Cycle in Josephus." Hebrew Union College Annual 52 (1981):129-39.

Bonar, Andrew A. A Commentary on Leviticus. 5th ed. Geneva Series Commentary series. London: Banner of Truth Trust; reprint ed., 1966.

Bowen, Otis R. "Safer Behavior against AIDS Reiterated for Minorities." American Medical News, December 11, 1987, p. 59.

Browne, S. G. Leprosy in the Bible. London: Christian Medical Fellowship, 1970.

Bush, George. Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Leviticus. New York: Newman and Ivison, 1852; reprint ed. Minneapolis: James & Klock Publishing Co., 1976.

Cansdale, G. S. Animals of the Bible. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1970.

Cardona, Dwardu. "The Rites of Molech." Kronos 9:3 (Summer 1984):20-39.

Carmichael, Calum M. "Forbidden Mixtures." Vetus Testamentum 32:4 (1982):394-415.

Chan, Kim-Kwong. "You Shall Not Eat These Abominable Things: An Examination Of Different Interpretations On Deuteronomy 14:3-20." East Asia Journal of Theology 3:1 (1985):88-106.

Chiu, Andrew. "Is There Ancestor Worship in the Old Testament?" Evangelical Review of Theology 8:2 (October 1984):217-24.

Clements, Ronald E. "Leviticus." In The Broadman Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1969-72.

Cole, Sherwood A. "Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:615 (July-September 1997):355-66.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. Revised ed. 5 vols. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Davies, D. J. "An Interpretation of Sacrifice in Leviticus." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1977):387-99.

de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. 2 vols. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1961.

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966.

Dressler, Herold H. P. "The Sabbath in the Old Testament." In From Sabbath to Lord's Day, pp. 21-41. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Old Testament Library series. 2 vols. Translated by J. A Baker. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961.

Fawver, Jay D. and R. Larry Overstreet. "Moses and Preventive Medicine." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September 1990):270-85.

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth. Second ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. "Hanakkah." Fundamentalist Journal 5:1 (December 1986):16-18.

Friedland, Eric L. "The Atonement Memorial Service in the American Mahzor." Hebrew Union College Annual 55 (1984):243-82.

Gerstenberger, E. S. Leviticus. Old Testament Library series. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993.

Gnuse, Robert. "Jubilee Legislation in Leviticus: Israel's Vision of Social Reform." Biblical Theology Bulletin 15:2 (April 1985):43-48.

Goldberg, Michael. "Expository Articles: Exodus 1:13-14." Interpretation 37:4 (October 1983):389-91.

Gowan, Donald E. "Wealth and Poverty in the Old Testament." Interpretation 41:4 (October 1987):341-53.

Grabbe, Lester L. "The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation." Journal for the Study of Judaism 18:2 (December 1987):152-67.

Harris, R. Laird. "Leviticus." In Genesis--Numbers. Vol. 2 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.

Harrison, R. K. Leviticus. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1980.

Hartley, J. E. Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Publishers, 1992.

Hays, J. Daniel. "Applying the Old Testament Law Today." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):21-35.

Hertz, J. H. Leviticus. London: Oxford University Press, 1932.

Hoffner, Harry A. "Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East." In Orient and Occident. Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, pp. 81-90. Edited by H. A. Hoffner. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1973.

Horton, Fred L., Jr. "Form and Structure in Laws Relating to Women: Leviticus 18:6-18." In Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, pp. 20-33. Edited by George W. MacRae. Cambridge, Mass.: Scholars Press, 1973.

Hui, Timothy K. "The Purpose of Israel's Annual Feasts." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:586 (April-June 1990):143-54.

Hulbert, Terry C. "The Eschatological Significance of Israel's Annual Feasts." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1965.

Hulse, E. V. "The Nature of Biblical Leprosy' and the Use of Alternative Medical Terms in Modern Translations of the Bible." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 107 (1975):87-105.

Johnson, James R. "Toward a Biblical Approach to Masturbation." Journal of Psychology and Theology 10:2 (Summer 1982):137-46.

Johnson, Luke T. "The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James." Journal of Biblical Literature 101:3 (1982):391-401.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, l866.

Judisch, Douglas McC. L. "Propitiation in the Language and Typology of the Old Testament." Concordia Theological Quarterly 48:2-3 (April-July 1984):121-43.

Jukes, Andrew. The Law of the Offerings. 17th ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1966.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "Leviticus." In The Interpreter's Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994.

_____. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

Keil, C. F. Manual of Biblical Archaeology. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1887-88.

Keil, C. F., and Franz Delitzsch. The Pentateuch. 3 vols. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kellogg, Samuel H. The Book of Leviticus. The Expositors' Bible series. New York: George H. Doran Co., n.d.

King, Marchant A. "Pentecost and the Fall Feasts." Moody Monthly 85:10 (June 1985):55-58.

_____. "The Sabbath and the Spring Feasts." Moody Monthly 85:9 (May 1985):46-48.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

_____. The Bible In Its World: The Bible and Archaeology Today. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

_____. "The Old Testament in its Context: 2 From Egypt to the Jordan." Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 60 (1971):3-11.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 1: Genesis-Leviticus, by John Peter Lange and Frederic Gardiner. Translated by Tayler Lewis, A. Gosman, and Charles M. Mead.

Leach, E. R. Culture and Communication. Cambridge: University Press, 1976

Levine, B. A. In the Presence of the Lord. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1974.

Lemche, N. P. "The Manumission of Slaves - The Fallow Year - The Sabbatical Year - The Jobel Year." Vetus Testamentum 26 (January 1976):38-59.

Lindsey, F. Duane. "Leviticus." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 163-214. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

Livingston, Dennis H. "The Crime of Leviticus XXIV 11." Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (July 1986):352-53.

Livingston, G. Herbert. The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Macht, D. I. "A Scientific Appreciation of Leviticus 12:1-5." Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):253-60.

Magonet, Jonathan. "The Structure and Meaning of Leviticus 19." Hebrew Annual Review 7 (1983):151-67.

Margotta, R. The Story of Medicine. New York: Golden Press, 1967.

Master, John R. "The Place of Chapter 24 in the Structure of the Book of Leviticus." Bibliotheca Sacra 159:636 (October-December 2002):415-24.

Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1-11:26. New American Commentary series. N.c.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.

Mendelsohn, I. Slavery in the Ancient Near East. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949.

McMillen, Sim I. None of These Diseases. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1963.

Merrill, Eugene H. "A Theology of the Pentateuch." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 7-87. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Milgrom, Jacob. "The Biblical Diet Laws as an Ethical System." Interpretation 17 (1963):288-301.

_____. "The Compass of Biblical Sancta." Jewish Quarterly Review 65 (April 1975):205-16.

_____. Cult and Conscience: The "Asham" and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1976.

_____. "The Graduated Hatta't [Sin Offering] of Leviticus 5:1-13." Journal of the American Oriental Society 103:1 (January-March 1983):249-54.

_____. Leviticus 1-16. Anchor Bible series. New York: Doubleday, 1991.

_____. "The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance." Revue Biblique 82 (April 1975):186-205.

_____. "Two Kinds of Hatta't [Sin Offering]." Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976):333-37.

Mitchell, Bill. "Leviticus 24.6: The Bread of the Presence--Rows or Piles?" Bible Translator 33:4 (October 1982):447-48.

Mitchell, Mike. "The Go'el: Kinsman Redeemer." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):13-15.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morganstern, Julian. "The Decalogue of the Holiness Code." Hebrew Union College Annual 26 (1955):1-27.

Murray, John. Principles of Conduct. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957.

Neufeld, Edward. "The Prohibitions Against Loans at Interest in Ancient Hebrew Laws." Hebrew Union College Annual 26 (1955):355-412.

The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed. S.v. "Clean and Unclean," by Charles L. Feinberg.

Noordtzij, A. Leviticus. Translated by Raymond Togtman. Bible Student's Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

North, Robert. Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1954.

Noth, Martin. The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966.

_____. Leviticus: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977.

Penner, Clifford L. "A Reaction to Johnson's Biblical Approach to Masturbation." Journal of Psychology and Theology 10:2 (Summer 1982):147-49.

Peter, Rene. "L'Imposition des Mains dans L'Ancien Testament." Vetus Testamentum 27:1 (1977):48-55.

Philip, James. Numbers. The Communicator's Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

Porter, J. R. Leviticus. Cambridge Bible Commentary series. Cambridge: University Press, 1976.

Rainey, A. F. "The Order of Sacrifices in OT Ritual Texts." Biblica 51 (1970):485-98.

Richard, Ramesh P. "Soteriological Inclusivism and Dispensationalism." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):85-108.

Riggans, Walter. Numbers. Daily Bible Study series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983.

Rooker, Mark F. Leviticus. The New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.

Rosner, Brian. "The Ritual of the Peace Offering: Leviticus 7:11-21." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):83-94.

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

_____. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Sansom, M. C. "Laying on of Hands in the Old Testament." Expository Times 94:11 (August 1983):323-26.

Schultz, Samuel J. Leviticus: God Among His People. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Snaith, Norman. "The Cult of Molech." Vetus Testamentum 16 (1966):123-24.

Speiser, E. A. Oriental and Biblical Studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1967.

Sprinkle, Joe M. "Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 (December 1997):529-50.

_____. "The Rationale of the Laws of Clean and Unclean in the Old Testament." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:4 (December 2000):637-57.

Stager, Lawrence E., and Samuel R Wolff. "Child Sacrifice at Carthage--Religious Rite or Population Control?" Biblical Archaeology Review 10:1 (January-February 1984):31-51.

Tosato, Angelo. "The Law of Leviticus 18:18: A Reexamination." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46 (1984):199-214.

Vermes, Geza. "Leviticus 18:21 in Ancient Jewish Bible Exegesis." In Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, pp. 108-124. Edited by Jakob J. Petuchowski and Ezra Fleischer. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981.

Waltke, Bruce K. "Cain and His Offering." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):363-72.

Walvoord, John F. The Holy Spirit. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.

_____. Numbers. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1981.

_____. "Why Does Sexual Intercourse Defile (Lev 15:18)?" Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95:3 (1983):432-34.

West, J. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1952.

Whybray, R. Norman. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Holy. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1979.

Wilkinson, John. "Leprosy and Leviticus: The Problem of Description and Identification." Scottish Journal of Theology 30 (1984):153-69.

Wood, Leon. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Wright, Christopher J. H. "What Happened Every Seven Years in Israel?" Evangelical Quarterly 56:3 (July 1984):129-38; 56:4 (October 1984):193-201.

Wright, David P. "The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature." Journal of the American Oriental Society 106:3 (July-September 1986):433-46.

_____. "Observations on the Ethical Foundations of the Biblical Dietary Laws: A Response to Jacob Milgrom." In Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, pp. 193-98. Edited by Edwin B. Firmage, Bernard G. Weiss, and John W. Welch. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Zimmerli, Walther. I Am Yahweh. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Zohar, Noam. "Repentance and Purification: The Significance and Semantics of ht't in the Pentateuch." Journal of Biblical Studies 107:4 (1988):609-18.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION.

The Book is called Leviticus : because it treats of the offices, ministries, rites and ceremonies of the Priests and Levites. The Hebrews call it Vayyicra , from the word with which it begins; (Challoner) "and (the Lord) called." The a at the end of this word is printed in a smaller size, to insinuate that little children should begin to read this Book first, if we may give any credit to those who attempt to account for all the irregularities sanctioned by the great Massora! But such irregular letters are the faults of some transcribers, and are of no authority. (Kennicott, Dis. 1.) --- This Book is styled also, "The Priests' Law." (Haydock) --- The seven first chapters explain the sacrifices; the sixteen next, the offices and ordination of the Priests and Levites. From the 23d chapter to the end, the feasts are designated, and some regulations respecting vows are interspersed. All these rites and sacrifices foreshewed the eucharistic sacrifice of Jesus Christ, (St. Leo, ser. 8. de pas. Trid. sef. 22. c. 1.) and tended to keep the Hebrews employed, and at a greater distance from idolatry. (St. Jerome on Isai. i. &c.) --- These prescriptions were given during the month of Nisan, in the second year after the exit, while the Hebrews remained at the foot of Mount Sinai. God spoke from the New Tabernacle. (Tirinus) --- In the Book of Deuteronomy we find but few regulations respecting sacrifices, as Moses had sufficiently explained them in this book. (Du Hamel) --- If we confine ourselves to the letter, we may say these precepts are not good, and carnal; (Ezechiel xx. 25.; Hebrews vii. 16.) but if we consider the spirit, we shall confess that they are excellent, and spiritual. (Romans vii. 14.; 2 Corinthians iii. 6.; Origen, contra Cels. vii.) (Calmet)

Gill: Leviticus (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO LEVITICUS

This book is commonly called by the Jews Vajikra, from the first word with which it begins, and sometimes תורת כהנים, "the law of the priests" ^a; and this is its name in the Syriac and Arabic versions: by the Septuagint interpreters it is called λευιτικον, and by the Latins, Leviticus, or the Levitical book, because it gives an account of the Levitical priesthood, as the apostle calls it, Heb 7:11. It treats of the sacrifices under the Levitical dispensation, and of the priests concerned in them, and of the times and seasons in which they were offered, and of many other rites and ceremonies. That it was wrote by Moses is not only generally believed by the Jews, but is affirmed in the New Testament; see Mat 8:4 compared with Lev 14:2 from whence, as well as from other citations out of it in other places, the authority of it may be concluded. The matter of it was delivered to Moses, and very likely by him then written upon the erection of the tabernacle, which was in the second year of the Israelites coming out of Egypt, in the first month, and the first day of the month, Exo 40:17 and it was on the same day that the Lord spake to Moses out of it, and delivered to him the laws concerning sacrifices, recorded in the first seven chapters; see Num 1:1 compared with Lev 1:1 and on the eighth day of the same month, and some following days, the remainder of it was given to him, and written by him, see Lev 8:1 to which agrees the Targum of Jonathan on Lev 1:1.

"when Moses had made an end of erecting the tabernacle, Moses thought and reasoned in his heart, and said, Mount Sinai, its excellency was the excellency of an hour, and its holiness the holiness of three days, it was not possible for me to ascend unto it, until the time that the Word was speaking with me; but this tabernacle of the congregation, its excellency is an excellency for ever, and its holiness an holiness for ever, it is fit that I should not enter into it, until the time that be speaks with me from before the Lord; and therefore the Word of the Lord called to Moses, and the Word of the Lord spake with him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying;''

and to the same purpose the Jerusalem Targum. It was written in the year from the creation of the world 2514, and about 1490 years before the coming of Christ. The various sacrifices, rites, and ceremonies made mention of in it, were typical of Christ, and shadows of good things to come by him: there are many things in it, which give great light to several passages in the New Testament, and it is worthy of diligent reading and consideration.

Gill: Leviticus 22 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO LEVITICUS 22

In this chapter several laws are delivered out, forbidding the priests to eat of holy things, when in any uncleanness, or at any time what dies of itself, or is torn of beasts, Lev 22:1; also showing who belonging to the priests might or might not eat of the holy things, Lev 22:10; and others requiring that whatever offerings were brought by the children, of Israel, they should be perfect and without blemish, Lev 22:17; and also declaring what age a creature should be of when sacrificed, and the time when thank offerings were to be eaten, Lev 22:26; concluding with an exhortation to observe the commands of God, and sanctify him, and not profane his name, Lev 22:31.