Worthy.Bible » BBE » Leviticus » Chapter 22 » Verse 2-33

Leviticus 22:2-33 Bible in Basic English (BBE)

2 Give orders to Aaron and to his sons to keep themselves separate from the holy things of the children of Israel which they give to me, and not to make my holy name common: I am the Lord,

3 Say to them, If any man of all your seed through all your generations, being unclean, comes near the holy things which the children of Israel make holy to the Lord, he will be cut off from before me: I am the Lord.

4 No man of the seed of Aaron who is a leper, or who has a flow from his body, may take of the holy food till he is clean. And any man touching anything which is unclean because of the dead, or any man whose seed goes from him;

5 Or anyone touching any unclean thing which goes flat on the earth, or someone by whom he may be made unclean in any way whatever;

6 Any person touching any such unclean thing will be unclean till evening, and may not take of the holy food till his flesh has been bathed in water;

7 And when the sun has gone down he will be clean; and after that he may take part in the holy food, because it is his bread.

8 That which comes to a natural death, or is attacked by beasts, he may not take as food, for it will make him unclean: I am the Lord.

9 So then, let them keep what I have put into their care, for fear that sin may come on them because of it, so causing their death because they have made it common: I am the Lord, who make them holy.

10 No outside person may take of the holy food, or one living as a guest in the priest's house, or a servant working for payment.

11 But any person for whom the priest has given money, to make him his, may take of it with him; and those who come to birth in his house may take of his bread.

12 And if the daughter of a priest is married to an outside person she may not take of the holy things which are lifted up as offerings.

13 But if a priest's daughter is a widow, or parted from her husband, and has no child, and has come back to her father's house as when she was a girl, she may take of her father's bread; but no outside person may do so.

14 And if a man takes the holy food in error, he will have to give the holy thing back to the priest, with the addition of a fifth part.

15 And they may not make common the holy things which the children of Israel give to the Lord,

16 So causing sin to come on them when they take their holy things for food: I am the Lord who make them holy.

17 And the Lord said to Moses,

18 Say to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel, If any man of the children of Israel, or of another nation living in Israel, makes an offering, given because of an oath or freely given to the Lord for a burned offering;

19 So that it may be pleasing to the Lord, let him give a male, without any mark, from among the oxen or the sheep or the goats.

20 But anything which has a mark you may not give; it will not make you pleasing to the Lord.

21 And whoever makes a peace-offering to the Lord, in payment of an oath or as a free offering, from the herd or the flock, if it is to be pleasing to the Lord, let it be free from any mark or damage.

22 Anything blind or broken or damaged or having any disease or any mark on it may not be offered to the Lord; you may not make an offering of it by fire on the altar to the Lord.

23 An ox or a lamb which has more or less than its natural parts, may be given as a free offering; but it will not be taken in payment of an oath.

24 An animal which has its sex parts damaged or crushed or broken or cut, may not be offered to the Lord; such a thing may not be done anywhere in your land.

25 And from one who is not an Israelite you may not take any of these for an offering to the Lord; for they are unclean, there is a mark on them, and the Lord will not be pleased with them.

26 And the Lord said to Moses,

27 When an ox or a sheep or a goat is given birth, let it be with its mother for seven days; and after the eighth day it may be taken as an offering made by fire to the Lord.

28 A cow or a sheep may not be put to death with its young on the same day.

29 And when you make an offering of praise to the Lord, make it in a way which is pleasing to him.

30 Let it be used for food on the same day; do not keep any part of it till the morning: I am the Lord.

31 So then, keep my orders and do them: I am the Lord.

32 And do not make my holy name common; so that it may be kept holy by the children of Israel: I am the Lord who make you holy,

33 Who took you out of the land of Egypt that I might be your God: I am the Lord.

Commentary on Leviticus 22 Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible


CHAPTER 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.