Leviticus 22

Le 22:1-9.

THE

PRIESTS IN

THEIR

UNCLEANNESS.

2. Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves

from the holy things--"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.

that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow

unto me, &c.--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.

3. Whosoever he be . . . that goeth unto the holy

things--The multitude of minute restrictions to which the priests,

from accidental defilement, were subjected, by keeping them constantly

on their guard lest they should be unfit for the sacred service, tended

to preserve in full exercise the feeling of awe and submission to the

authority of God. The ideas of sin and duty were awakened in their

breasts by every case to which either an interdict or an injunction was

applied. But why enact an express statute for priests disqualified by

the leprosy or polluting touch of a carcass

[Le 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.

4-6. wash his flesh with water--Any Israelite who had contracted

a defilement of such a nature as debarred him from the enjoyment of his

wonted privileges, and had been legally cleansed from the disqualifying

impurity, was bound to indicate his state of recovery by the immersion

of his whole person in water. Although all ceremonial impurity formed a

ground of exclusion, there were degrees of impurity which entailed a

longer or shorter period of excommunication, and for the removal of

which different rites required to be observed according to the trivial

or the malignant nature of the case. A person who came inadvertently

into contact with an unclean animal was rendered unclean for a

specified period; and then, at the expiry of that term, he washed, in

token of his recovered purity. But a leper was unclean so long as he

remained subject to that disease, and on his convalescence, he also

washed, not to cleanse himself, for the water was ineffectual for that

purpose, but to signify that he was clean. Not a single case is

recorded of a leper being restored to communion by the use of water; it

served only as an outward and visible sign that such a restoration was

to be made. The Book of Leviticus abounds with examples which show that

in all the ceremonial washings, as uncleanness meant loss of

privileges, so baptism with water indicated a restoration to those

privileges. There was no exemption; for as the unclean Israelite was

exiled from the congregation, so the unclean priest was disqualified

from executing his sacred functions in the sanctuary; and in the case

of both, the same observance was required--a formal intimation of their

being readmitted to forfeited privileges was intimated by the appointed

rite of baptism. If any one neglected or refused to perform the

washing, he disobeyed a positive precept, and he remained in his

uncleanness; he forbore to avail himself of this privilege, and was

therefore said to be "cut off" from the presence of the Lord.

8. dieth of itself--The feelings of nature revolt against such

food. It might have been left to the discretion of the Hebrews, who it

may be supposed (like the people of all civilized nations) would have

abstained from the use of it without any positive interdict. But an

express precept was necessary to show them that whatever died naturally

or from disease, was prohibited to them by the operation of that law

which forbade them the use of any meat with its blood.

Le 22:10-16.

WHO OF THE

PRIESTS'

HOUSE

MAY

EAT OF

THEM.

10-13. There shall no stranger eat the holy thing--The portion

of the sacrifices assigned for the support of the officiating priests

was restricted to the exclusive use of his own family. A temporary

guest or a hired servant was not at liberty to eat of them; but an

exception was made in favor of a bought or homeborn slave, because such

was a stated member of his household. On the same principle, his own

daughter, who married a husband not a priest, could not eat of them.

However, if a widow and childless, she was reinstated in the privileges

of her father's house as before her marriage. But if she had become a

mother, as her children had no right to the privileges of the

priesthood, she was under a necessity of finding support for them

elsewhere than under her father's roof.

13. there shall no stranger eat thereof--The interdict recorded

(Le 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.

14. if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly--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.

15, 16. they shall not profane the holy things of the children of

Israel--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].

Le 22:17-33.

THE

SACRIFICES

MUST

BE WITHOUT

BLEMISH.

19. Ye shall offer at your own will--rather, to your being

accepted.

a male without blemish--This law

(Le 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.].

23. that mayest thou offer, &c.--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"

[Le 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"

[Le 22:21],

led them typically to Him without whom no sacrifice could be offered

acceptable to God.

27, 28. it shall be seven days under the dam--Animals were not

considered perfect nor good for food till the eighth day. As sacrifices

are called the bread or food of God

(Le 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

Le 22:28,

inculcated a lesson of humanity or tenderness to the dam, as well as

secured the sacrifices from all appearance of unfeeling cruelty.