Ch. Leviticus 22:1-16. Ceremonial purity and membership of a priestly family are indispensable for those who share in the sacrificial feast

The whole or part of Leviticus 22:1-2 may be looked upon as the introductory formula by Rp[70].

[70] A Reviser, who, probably after that collection had been combined with the Priestly Code, introduced further elements from that Code.

2. separate] not of course in the full sense of the word. What is meant is that whenever they are in a condition of ceremonial impurity they must be careful not to come into contact with holy things.

3. your seed] For this expression, and ‘seed of Aaron,’ in Leviticus 22:4, see introd. note on chs. 21, 22.

your generations] See latter part of the same note.

4–7 may be compared with Leviticus 21:11-15.

8. Cp. Leviticus 17:15.

10–16 describe those to whom, outside the priestly body, permission to eat of the holy things may be extended.

10. The ‘sojourner,’ and the hired servant, were not considered as members of the family; not so the cases mentioned in Leviticus 22:11.

12. a stranger] i.e. not a priest. By her marriage she has become a member of a non-priestly family, and thus her rights have lapsed. Cp. Leviticus 21:3.

13. and have no child] The children are debarred, as having had a non-priestly father, and the mother shares their disability.

14. unwittingly] Cp. Leviticus 4:2. We are reminded by the directions here (‘the fifth part’ to be added) of ch. Leviticus 5:14-16; but the case there is quite different. It had to do with unintentionally keeping back from the Lord His dues. Here the man has unwittingly eaten of consecrated food, although not belonging to those who, in accordance with the preceding regulations, were privileged in that respect. The penalty in the former case was naturally a heavier one, viz. a Guilt-Offering.

16. to bear the iniquity that bringeth guilt] The expression is unique.

17–25. Directions as to the quality of offerings

This passage retains clear signs of a remarkably composite character. Leviticus 22:17-18 a indicate (‘unto Aaron, and to his sons,’ ‘unto all etc.’) that what follows is a blending of directions referring to priests and to the people. But further, Leviticus 22:21 presents what is virtually a repetition of the directions in Leviticus 22:18-20, while the differences in phraseology between the two point to diversity of origin. We notice further that the classes of offerings dealt with differ, viz. Burnt-Offerings and Peace-Offerings respectively, while each of these have the same sub-divisions, i.e. Vows and Freewill-Offerings, the former passage making no reference to other classes of Burnt-Offerings, such as the Sin-Offerings and Guilt-Offerings (4, 5), and the latter ignoring the third species, viz. Thank-Offering (see Leviticus 22:29), included (Leviticus 7:12) under the genus Peace-Offering. Moreover, within the parallelism (Leviticus 22:18-20 as compared with Leviticus 22:21) there are marked differences in phraseology (e.g. ‘of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats,’ Leviticus 22:19, ‘of the herd or of the flock,’ Leviticus 22:21). For other differences see Oxf. Hex., which further points out the frequent changes in number and person in 18a–20 as indicating successive editorial revisions.

22. The definitions of what constitutes a blemish may be compared with those of Leviticus 21:18 ff. ‘Broken ‘here is from the same root as that so rendered in Leviticus 21:19; ‘maimed’ is lit. cut, mutilated; ‘a wen’ means a running sore, or ulcer.

23. but for a vow] The three varieties included under the name Peace-Offering were, as has been noticed (see on Leviticus 7:11), (a) Thank-Offerings (here mentioned as a separate item in Leviticus 22:29, (b) Votive-Offerings, and (c) Freewill-Offerings. The first (see W.P.Paterson, HDB, Art. Sacrifice, p. 338) was offered in acknowledgment of benefits received, the second and third were combined with prayer for blessings hoped for. These two differed thus, that the Freewill-Offering was simply in support of the prayer, and was made in anticipation of the benefit asked. The vow was promised on fulfilment of the prayer, and thus, unlike the Freewill-Offering, need not be offered if the prayer remained unfulfilled. According to this v., gratitude for the answer was to be indicated by the greater stringency of the regulation as to the nature of the animal to be offered in acknowledgment of the mercy vouchsafed.

For the general prohibition to offer a sacrifice that had a blemish, cp. the rebuke in Malachi 1:8; Malachi 1:13.

24. A reference to emasculation. Animals thus treated were forbidden to be offered.

25. The case apparently is that of a foreigner who desires to offer sacrifice, and is forbidden to present an animal with a blemish. So Dillm. It is much less probable that the prohibition is directed against an Israelite buying blemished animals from a foreigner for a sacrificial purpose.

the bread of your God] See on Leviticus 22:6.

26–30. Three further directions of a special character with regard to sacrifices

27. For the regulation cp. Exodus 22:30 [Heb. 29].

28. Cp. Deuteronomy 22:6.

29. A sacrifice of thanksgiving, co-ordinated here with the other two species classified elsewhere under Peace-Offering. See on Leviticus 22:23.

30. See Leviticus 7:15.

31–33. Concluding exhortation (characteristic of H)