Leviticus 22

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:32:05utc

22:1-33

In this chapter we continue the topic of the previous one and consider:

c. Physical impurities of priest vs. 1-16

d. Perfection in sacrificial animals. vs. 17-25

e. Humane treatment of sacrificial animals. vs. 26-33

c. Physical Impurities of Priest vs. 1-16

The priest had to examine himself before he could eat the meat that had been sacrificed and which had been, rightfully, given to him. His rights did not come to him automatically. His right only applied if he was, actually, in a state of purity. If he incurred any ritual impurity, he had to abstain from the eating of the holy food. The eating of holy food could be for the priest either a feast or a capital crime. The same also applied to the common man.[ 1 ] We have to keep in mind that the intent of the emphasis on the difference between pure and impure is to point to the direction of salvation and sanctification in Jesus Christ. We see some of this reflected in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Whoever does not place himself under the protection of the blood of Christ, who "eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."[ 2 ] The whole commandment is summed up in vs. 3, "For the generations to come, if any of your descendants is ceremonially unclean and yet comes near the sacred offerings that the Israelites consecrate to the LORD, that person must be cut off from my presence. I am the LORD."

In vs. 4-9 the details of uncleanness are worked out. A priest would be unclean if he was afflicted with leprosy or if he had an emission of semen. Also, touching objects that had been defiled by others would make him unclean. Purification consisted in bathing with water and abstaining until sundown.

Vs. 10-16 elaborate on who would qualify to eat the holy food. Only those who could be counted to belong to the priest's family, either by birth or purchase, as in the case of a slave, would qualify. Inadvertently eating of holy food was treated as theft and had to be atoned for with a guilt offering and restitution. Eating of holy food by anyone else, other than the priest or his family, would desecrate the food. We have to think of what David did in Nob, when he and his men ate the consecrated bread.[ 3 ] Jesus justifies David's deed.[ 4 ] I do not know if the Talmud condemns David's behavior, but Jesus' justification of what David did is a revolutionary act which introduces a new order of priesthood.

The phrase: "I am the LORD, who makes them holy," in vs. 9 pertains to the priests who, in principle, were allowed to eat the holy food but who had to abstain, temporarily, because of defilement. The same words in vs. 16 apply to people who were not allowed to eat this food because they were not priests. To eat or not to eat does not influence the actual sanctification. The distinction is a temporary one that has only symbolical significance. Sanctification comes from God and applies to both the authorized and the unauthorized.

d. Perfection in Sacrificial Animals vs. 17-25

Vs. 17-25 deal with the condition of the sacrificial animals. A sacrificial animal had to be without defect or blemish. The only exception was when its legs were too short or too long. That animal could be brought as a free will offering. What is meant is, probably, the burnt offering. The sacrificial animal had to reflect the perfect human nature of Jesus Christ. God reproaches the priests of Malachi's days that they show contempt for His name by offering crippled or diseased animals. God says: "Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?"[ 5 ] Honoring God is a form of elementary politeness.

e. Humane Treatment of Sacrificial Animals vs. 26-33

Vs. 26-28 strike us because of their concern with the fate of the animal. Paul asks, mockingly, "Is it about oxen that God is concerned?"[ 6 ] We could answer, "Yes, He who created the animals is concerned about their condition." And He wants us to be concerned. A sacrificial animal may not be killed the day of its birth. It could, also, not be killed on the same day as its mother. It is true that the animal itself will, probably, have had no feelings about this, but God wants us to be aware of the pain sin has caused in this world. The prohibition, "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk," which we find three times in the Pentateuch,[ 7 ] probably, falls into the same category. God wants us to be aware of the contradictory and torn condition of this world that has been put out of joint by the sin of man. It is not a matter of not being allowed to drink a glass of milk with a roast beef sandwich, as the Jewish rabbis interpreted it.

It is interesting to note that these warnings were given in the same breath with the mention of the thank offering. This accentuates the absurdity of the situation even more. It also contains a confession that the present situation is not permanent and that we believe in a God Who will make all things new. God does issue a warning, however, that our thank offering is subject to corruption. We read in vs. 29,30, "When you sacrifice a thank offering to the LORD, sacrifice it in such a way that it will be accepted on your behalf. It must be eaten that same day; leave none of it till morning. I am the LORD." This is the same commandment as in ch. 7:15.

The last three verses of the chapter give the contents of the Christian life in a nutshell. Obedience has to do with the person of God. The point is our testimony to the holiness of God. Holiness flows from God to us. The basis of our redemption and the purpose of it is fellowship with God. All of this is contained in the character of God the One without an equal.

[ 1 ] See Lev. 7:20,21

[ 2 ] I Cor. 11:27

[ 3 ] I Sam. 21:1-6

[ 4 ] Mark 2:25,26

[ 5 ] Mal. 1:6-8

[ 6 ] I Cor. 9:9

[ 7 ] Ex. 23:19; 34:26 and Deut. 14:21