Speak unto Aaron, saying, Any of thy seed throughout their generations that hath any defect, shall not approach to present the bread of his God;
Leviticus 21 gives God's rules for the priests who served at the altar. This verse shuts the altar to any of Aaron's descendants who has a physical defect, without touching his place in the priestly family.
The verse describes the priest's work at the altar as bringing bread to God. The altar had a second name as well.
The altar and the table of the Lord are one and the same thing here. The altar has that name because the sacrifices were called God's bread — and so was Christ, whom they pictured.
The animal on the altar had to be without blemish. The man who carried it there was held to the same standard, and both pointed to the same person.
A personal blemish in the priest made him unfit for public ministry, but not unfit for sharing in the holy things. This reminds us of the sacrificial animals. God required the same unblemished perfection from them. A blemished priest would not suit an unblemished offering, for both the one and the other speak of Christ. If we approach God, it can only be in the perfectness of Christ before Him.
Being born into Aaron's line did not shield a man from the damage that runs through the whole human race.
The sons of Aaron were made to take note of what suited the presence and service of their God. They had no immunity from the effects of sin over a ruined world and in a ruined race. Their descent from Aaron or Abraham did not override the rights of Jehovah. They shared the consequences of the fall with the nations outside Israel, even the most debased and idol-worshipping. Some defects might last a lifetime; others only for a season. But while a defect lasted, they were bound not to approach.
The blemished man kept his place in the family. What he lost was part of the service open to him.
To be a child of God is one thing. To enjoy priestly communion and priestly worship is quite another… Many of us have to mourn over our spiritual defects. There is lameness of walk, poor sight, stunted growth… We are priests to God by spiritual birth. Yet moral defilement and spiritual defects rob us of many of the high and holy privileges of our position.
Verse 22 goes further. God told this same man to eat the bread, both the most holy and the holy.
A man of the priestly family who was deformed or blemished could not enter the sanctuary and carry out his duties. But he did not lose his priestly food. He should eat "the bread of his God," though he might not offer "the bread of his God." Today all true Christians are priests… Some may be shut out of public activity, in worship or in service, by a serious defect that everyone can see. Yet they share as fully in what, as spiritual food, is the life of the priestly family as the most unblemished and favoured of their brothers and sisters.
The list in verses 18–20 is physical, but the writers do not apply it physically.
Physical defects are no barrier to true worship for believers today. But physical defects picture spiritual or moral defects, and there were none of these in the Lord Jesus.
Some writers take this further, to who leads when believers gather.
To lead the gathering of believers in prayer, praise, or ministry is an official, representative, priestly service. So the same principle would mean this: a believer with a matching spiritual blemish is not to approach God for the people, or speak to the people for God. Though privileged to share in the Lord's Supper, he is not qualified to be the mouthpiece of the assembly.
The rule shut out men through no fault of their own, and it still stood.
Though someone may object that a man could not help many of these physical defects, that did not change the matter. Jehovah could not have a blemished priest at His altar, or a blemished sacrifice on it. Now we have both the perfect priest and the perfect sacrifice in the Person of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. He "offered himself without blemish to God." Then He passed into the heavens as our great High Priest, where He always lives to make intercession for us… In Him we have divine perfectness, whether as the Victim or as the Priest. We have all that God could require, and all that man could need.
- Bread — the offerings on the altar were God's bread. They and the priest who carried them both pointed to Christ.
- Match — an unblemished sacrifice needed an unblemished priest. A defect in the man spoiled the picture, so he could not come near.
- Race — Aaron's line gave no exemption. The priests carried the effects of the fall like everyone else.
- Grace — the blemish never cancelled sonship or priestly standing. He still ate the bread he could not offer.
- Christ — no son of Aaron could meet the standard. God met it in one Person who is both the perfect Sacrifice and the perfect Priest.
for whatever man hath a defect, he shall not approach a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or one limb longer than the other,
The rules for Aaron's line move from a priest's family and conduct to his body. Any man with a defect — blind, lame, a mutilated face, a limb too long — could not come near to present the offerings.
Descent from Aaron gave no exemption. Their own bodies carried the marks of a world spoiled by sin. Service at God's altar kept that in view.
The sons of Aaron had to take note of what suited the presence and service of their God. They had no immunity from the effects of sin over a ruined world and in a ruined race. Their descent from Aaron or Abram counted for nothing against the rights of the Lord. They shared the results of the fall with the other nations, even the most corrupt and idol-worshipping. Some defects might last a lifetime. Others lasted only a season. But while a defect lasted, the man was bound not to approach.
The animals brought to the altar had to be flawless. So did the man who carried them there — because both were pictures of the same Person.
The second section is about personal blemish in the priest. It would make him unfit for public ministry, but not for sharing in the holy things. This reminds us of the sacrificial animals, which had to be just as unblemished. A blemished priest would not suit an unblemished offering, for both the one and the other speak of Christ. If we approach God, it can only be in the perfection of Christ before Him.
Commentators read each physical defect as a picture of a spiritual one. Raymond Campbell works from an older translation, which says "flat nose" where the ESV has "a mutilated face".
One who is blind cannot see; he lacks spiritual discernment. "Whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins" (2 Peter 1:9). A flat nose would point to someone who cannot detect the sweet fragrance of sacrifice. He cannot take in something of how precious Christ is to God. A dwarf would speak of stunted spiritual growth. And one who is lame or broken-footed would picture someone whose walk is weak or poor.
The blemished man stayed a son of Aaron and stayed a priest. What he lost was the higher ground of service and nearness. Commentators apply this to believers today. The loss touches closeness with God, not salvation.
To be a child of God is one thing; to be in the enjoyment of priestly communion and priestly worship is quite another. Not all Christians enjoy the same height of walk, the same closeness of fellowship, the same felt nearness to Christ. Many of us have to mourn over our spiritual defects. There is lameness of walk, defective vision, stunted growth. Saved we are, through the free grace of God, on the ground of Christ's perfect sacrifice. But salvation is one thing; communion is quite another.
Still, the table was never closed to him.
Lame legs did not stop Mephibosheth from being welcomed at the king's table. So the poor lame priest still eats the bread of his God, both the most holy and the holy things. Royal grace!
The same principle reaches church life today.
To lead a gathering of believers in prayer, praise, or ministry is an official, representative, priestly service. By this principle, a believer with a matching spiritual blemish is not to approach God for the people, or speak to the people for God. Though he is free to share in the Lord's Supper, he is not qualified to be the mouthpiece of the assembly.
The condition is not permanent. "One may be recovered from these spiritual or moral disfigurements, for grace can certainly change things," writes L. M. Grant.
The blind and the lame appear again long after Leviticus. This time the Son of David meets them.
Leviticus 21:18 forbade the blind and lame to approach. 2 Samuel 5:6-8 records David's sentence against them: he said they "shall not come into the house." Now the great Son of David had arrived in Zion, and He reverses David's action. That day He loved and blessed the very people David's soul hated.
- Defect — sin's damage reached even Aaron's family. Priestly birth gave no exemption.
- Match — the man who brought the offering had to be as flawless as the offering. Both pictured Christ.
- Kept — a blemish never cancelled sonship or priesthood. The man still ate the holy bread.
- Limited — it cost him the altar and public service, not his place in the family.
- Reversed — the Son of David loved and blessed the very people the law shut out.
or a man that is broken-footed, or broken-handed,
Leviticus 21:19 sits in a list of bodily defects that kept a son of Aaron back from the altar. Why should an injury a man never chose bar him from serving? And what does he still keep?
One writer ties the priest to the sacrifice and shows why the standard was so high:
The second section deals with a personal blemish in the priest. Such a blemish would make him unfit for public service, though not for sharing in the holy things. This reminds us of the sacrificial animals, of which God required the same unblemished perfection. A blemished priest would not suit an unblemished offering, for both the one and the other speak of Christ. If we approach God, it can only be as in the perfectness of Christ before Him.
A broken foot is an accident, so it seems unfair that it should cost anything. One commentator raises that objection and answers it:
If one of the sons of Aaron happened to be "broken-footed, or broken-handed," was he deprived of his sonship? Certainly not. Was he deprived of his priestly position? By no means... What, then, did he lose by his physical blemish? He was not allowed into some of the higher areas of priestly service and worship... These were very serious losses. Someone may object that a man could not help many of these physical defects, but that did not change anything. Jehovah could not have a blemished priest at His altar, or a blemished sacrifice on it.
Another writer reads each bodily defect as a picture of a moral one — the sight, the walk, the hands:
Something may be wrong with a person's sight, walk, attitude (as with a marred face), actions (hands) or anything else of a moral or spiritual kind. As long as that is true, it is not right for him to take a public place in approaching God, even though he may be a believer. "He may eat the bread of his God" (v. 22), but is disqualified from public service.
The chapter draws a line that is easy to miss: the blemished priest may not offer the bread of his God, yet he may eat it. For Christians, that line separates public usefulness from a share in what feeds the family:
Any man of the priestly family who was deformed or blemished could not go into the sanctuary and carry out his duties. But he was not to lose his priestly food. He should eat "the bread of his God," though he might not offer "the bread of his God."... Some have a serious defect that everyone can see, and it bars them from public activity, whether in worship or in service. Yet they have as much right as the most unblemished and favoured of their brothers to share in the spiritual food that is the life of the priestly family.
One writer applies the lame priest to a believer whose life does not back his words:
A believer who does not live a good Christian life or walk according to God's Word has a serious blemish. He is a lame priest, and he is unfit for service. If someone who ministers in the meeting fails seriously in his walk, he becomes a lame priest and should be silent there, for his words will have no moral weight. If God is not glorified in one's walk, how can He be in his ministry?
But the parallel breaks at one point. A crushed hand stayed crushed; a spiritual defect need not:
But in Christianity no "blemish" needs to be permanent. Eating the bread of God, spiritually, will remove defects... So saints need not stay permanently unfit for holy service in the meeting. The blind can have their eyes opened, the lame can be healed, and the dwarfs can grow up in Christ if they desire to do so.
Why should such defects appear among priests at all? One writer points to what Aaron's sons shared with everyone else:
They had no immunity from the effects of sin over a ruined world and in a ruined race. Their descent from Aaron or Abram counted for nothing against the rights of Jehovah. They shared the consequences of the fall with the Gentiles, even the most debased and idolatrous. Some defects might last a lifetime, others only for a season. But while these defects lasted, they were bound not to approach.
- Match. The offering had to be flawless, so the man presenting it had to be flawless too — because both picture Christ.
- Family. A broken foot or hand never unmade a son of Aaron; the relationship stood untouched by the injury.
- Loss. The defect cost him the altar and the inner sanctuary — the higher reaches of service, not his place in the family.
- Food. He still ate the bread of his God. He could not offer it, but no one kept him from being fed.
- Healing. A crushed foot stayed crushed, but the defects it pictures need not last: sight, walk and growth can all be restored.
or hump-backed, or withered, or that hath a spot in his eye, or hath the itch, or scabs, or his testicles broken.
This verse ends a list of defects that barred a son of Aaron from the altar. He was still a priest by birth, yet he could not serve — so why would a bodily defect matter to God, and what does it picture for us?
Sin has damaged the whole human race. Priests were not exempt, and their descent gave them no immunity.
The sons of Aaron had to take note of what was fitting for the presence and service of their God. They had no immunity from the effects of sin in a ruined world and in a ruined race. Their descent from Aaron or Abraham did not count against the rights of the Lord. They shared the consequences of the fall with the Gentiles, even the most degraded idol-worshippers. Some defects lasted a lifetime. Others lasted only for a season. But while a defect lasted, they were bound not to approach.
This verse names a dwarf and a defect of sight. Each physical fault stands for a spiritual one.
The physical blemishes listed above would picture spiritual blemishes among Christian priests today. One who is blind cannot see; he lacks spiritual discernment. "Whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins" (2 Peter 1:9). A flat nose would point to one who cannot detect the sweet fragrance of sacrifice. He cannot take in something of how precious Christ is to God. A dwarf would speak of stunted spiritual growth. And one who is lame or broken-footed would represent one whose walk is weak or not good.
The defect stopped the man's service; it never cancelled his place in the family.
His deformity or blemish did not deprive him of his priestly position, nor was he anything less than a son of Aaron. He was excluded from the functions of the holy priesthood. We often carry spiritual defects as a holy priesthood. Lameness pictures a defective walk, blindness a defective sight, arrested growth a dwarf, and so on. None of these affect our sonship or our priestly position. But they do interfere with the enjoyment of the communion into which grace has brought us.
Not every believer lives at the same height, and the reason is often one of these very defects.
We are not to suppose that all Christians enjoy the same elevation of walk, the same closeness of fellowship, the same felt nearness to Christ. They do not. Many of us have to mourn over our spiritual defects. There is lameness of walk, defective vision, stunted growth.
Verse 22 still gives the blemished priest the holiest food.
A dwarf among the sons of Aaron lost many of the higher priestly dignities. Yet a dwarf was to "eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things." God would not leave the feeblest or smallest member of the priestly household without a holy portion... A dwarf could not attend the altar of God, but the God of the altar took care of the dwarf. The two things are divinely perfect. God's claims have been perfectly answered and the need of His priestly family perfectly met.
Commentators differ over how far to press this. Some take it as a matter of enjoyed communion; others apply it to who leads when believers gather.
If we apply this principle to the Church, leading a gathering of believers in prayer, praise, or ministry is an official, representative, priestly service. The principle above would then mean that a believer with a matching spiritual blemish is not to approach God for the people, or speak to the people for God. Though he has the privilege of sharing in the Lord's Supper, he is not qualified to be the mouthpiece of the assembly.
Under the law some defects lasted a lifetime, but that is not how it stands now.
In Christianity no "blemish" need be permanent. Eating the bread of God, spiritually, will remove defects... So there is no need for believers to be permanently incapable of holy service in the assembly. The blind can have their eyes opened, the lame can be healed, and the dwarfs can grow up in Christ if they want to.
Each man in this list was barred by a defect. Our Priest has none.
And Christ as our Priest is without any defect or blemish. "For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens" (Hebrews 7:26).
- Blemish. These defects are marks of a ruined race. Even Aaron's own line felt the fall and had no automatic right to approach.
- Picture. Each fault stands for a spiritual one — blind for no discernment, dwarf for stunted growth, lame for a poor walk.
- Sonship. A blemish shut a man out of the service; it never touched the relationship. He was a son of Aaron all the same.
- Bread. Barred from the altar, he was still fed with the holiest food: the God of the altar took care of the dwarf.
- Growth. No blemish need stay. Eyes open, walks are healed, dwarfs grow up — because the Priest who serves for us has no defect at all.
No man of the seed of Aaron the priest that hath defect shall come near to present Jehovah's offerings by fire he hath a defect; he shall not come near to present the bread of his God.
This rule falls on a man born into the priesthood: a descendant of Aaron with a physical defect could not serve at the altar. Why would God shut a man out for something that was not his fault, and what did he still keep?
God had already barred every damaged animal from His altar. He held the man who carried it there to the same standard.
If one of the sons of Aaron happened to be "broken-footed, or broken-handed," was he deprived of his sonship? Certainly not... What, then, did he lose by his physical blemish? He was forbidden to walk in some of the higher paths of priestly service and worship: "he shall not go through the veil or approach the altar." It might be objected that a man could not help many of these physical defects. That did not change the matter. The Lord could not have a blemished priest at His altar, or a blemished sacrifice on it. Both the priest and the sacrifice had to be perfect.
There is a reason the two must match:
A blemished priest would not suit an unblemished offering, for both the one and the other speak of Christ. If we approach God, it can only be in the perfectness of Christ before Him.
The phrase sounds strange today. It is the Bible's own name for what went on the altar.
The altar and the table of the Lord, in this scripture, are one and the same thing. The altar is given this name because the sacrifices were called God's bread — and so was Christ, whom they pictured.
Being Aaron's son did not place a man above the damage sin has done to the human race.
The sons of Aaron were compelled to take note of what suited the presence and service of their God. They had no immunity from the effects of sin in a ruined world and in a ruined race. Their descent from Aaron or Abraham counted for nothing against the rights of the Lord... Some defects might last a lifetime, others only for a season. But while these defects lasted, they were bound not to approach.
He was shut out of the sanctuary and still fed from it.
Still, he could eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy. His deformity or blemish did not deprive him of his priestly position, nor was he anything less than a son of Aaron. He was excluded from the functions of the holy priesthood... Our spiritual defects — the blemishes often on us as a holy priesthood — do not affect our sonship or our priestly position. But they do interfere with the enjoyment of the communion that grace has brought us into.
One writer applies the rule to Christians today, then reads each defect as a picture of a spiritual fault.
If we apply this principle to the Church, to lead the gathering of believers in prayer, praise, or ministry is a representative, priestly service. A believer with a matching spiritual blemish is not to approach God for the people, or speak to the people for God... One who is blind cannot see; he lacks spiritual discernment... A flat nose would point to one who cannot detect the sweet fragrance of sacrifice. Such a person cannot enter into something of the preciousness of what Christ is to God. A dwarf would speak of stunted spiritual growth. And one who is lame or broken-footed would picture someone whose walk is weak or not good.
The limit falls on public service, not on belonging:
Some are kept back from public activity, in worship or in service, because of a serious defect that everyone can see. Yet they have just as much right to their share in the spiritual food that is the life of the priestly family as the most unblemished and favoured of their brothers.
What the altar demanded, God has provided.
Now we have both the perfect priest and the perfect sacrifice in the Person of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. He "offered himself without blemish to God." He passed into the heavens as our great High Priest. There He always lives to make intercession for us... In Him we have divine perfectness, whether as the Victim or as the Priest. We have all that God could require, and all that man could need.
- Standard — God asked the offerer to match the offering. No defect on the altar, and no defect in the hand that brought it there.
- Birth — A blemish never cancelled his descent; a son of Aaron with a broken foot was still a son of Aaron.
- Loss — The blemish cost him the higher service. He could not go through the veil or approach the altar.
- Gift — The blemish never cost him the food. He still ate the bread of his God, the most holy and the holy alike.
- Fulfilment — Every blemished priest pointed forward to the one Priest with no blemish. He offered Himself, and He now lives to pray for us.
The bread of his God, of the most holy and of the holy, shall he eat;
Leviticus 21 lists the physical defects that barred a son of Aaron from serving at the altar. Verse 22 turns the ruling around. The man who may not approach still receives his share of the holiest food. So what does he keep, and what does he lose?
The phrase is the standing name for what went on the altar. The priests fed on it as sharers with the altar itself.
This word food — literally bread — of the offerings made by fire was not limited to the peace offering. We do first meet it when the lawgiver was writing about that offering. Leviticus 21:6 (in the Hebrew), 8, 17, 21, and Leviticus 22:25 make it clear. This term covered everything offered on the altar as an offering made by fire. And the priests, who eat of the altar as partakers with it, eat of the bread of their God (Lev. 21:22).
A defect changed the man's duties. It could not touch who he was or the family he belonged to. The writers below quote the older wording "He shall eat."
If one of the sons of Aaron happened to be "broken-footed, or broken-handed," was he deprived of his sonship? Certainly not. Was he deprived of his priestly position? Not at all. It was plainly declared, "He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy." What, then, did he lose by his physical blemish? He was forbidden to walk some of the higher paths of priestly service and worship. "Only he shall not go in to the veil, nor come near to the altar."
Why should a bodily defect matter at the altar? Descent from the right family was no shield against a world ruined by sin.
The sons of Aaron had to take account of what suited the presence and service of their God. They had no exemption from the effects of sin in a ruined world and a ruined race. Their descent from Aaron or Abraham counted for nothing against the rights of the LORD. They shared the consequences of the fall with the nations, even the most debased and idolatrous. Some defects might last a lifetime, others only for a season; but while those defects lasted, they were bound not to approach.
Among the men barred was a dwarf. He was not written off. The same law that shut a door also guaranteed him a portion.
A dwarf among the sons of Aaron lost many of the higher priestly dignities. But a dwarf was to "eat the bread of his God, of the most holy, and of the holy." God would not leave the feeblest or smallest member of the priestly household without a holy portion... A dwarf could not attend the altar of God, but the God of the altar took care of the dwarf. The two things are divinely perfect. God's claims have been fully answered and the need of His priestly family fully met.
Commentators read the verse as a picture of Christian life. There the defects are moral and spiritual, not bodily. One writer draws the line between public function and personal supply.
Any man of the priestly family who was deformed or blemished could not go into the sanctuary and carry out his functions there. But he was not to lose his priestly food. He was to eat "the bread of his God," though he might not offer "the bread of his God." Today all true Christians are priests... Some have a serious defect which is public, and it keeps them from public activity, whether in worship or in service. Yet they have as much right to their share in the spiritual food which is the life of the priestly family as the most unblemished and favoured of their brothers and sisters.
Another notes that the sidelining need not be permanent, and points to a lame man who still ate at the king's table.
A person may recover from such spiritual or moral disfigurements, for grace can certainly change things. But even when some things are defective, what grace it is that one is allowed to eat the food of his God. Mephibosheth is an example of one who ate at the king's table continually, though he was lame in both his feet (2 Sam. 9:13).
- Bread. "The bread of his God" is the altar's own food, the offerings made by fire — and the priest ate as a sharer with the altar.
- Blemish. The defect blocked the veil and the altar, because God would have neither a flawed priest nor a flawed sacrifice there.
- Belonging. No blemish could unmake a son of Aaron; he kept his place and lost only the higher service.
- Boundary. Commentators apply this today to moral and spiritual defects. Standing is one thing; nearness and public service another.
- Bounty. The altar was closed, yet the table was open — the God of the altar still fed the dwarf, and grace can still restore.
only he shall not come in unto the veil, nor shall he draw near unto the altar; for he hath a defect that he profane not my sanctuaries; for I am Jehovah who do hallow them.
Leviticus 21 lists the physical defects that barred a son of Aaron from the altar. This last verse states the limit and the reason: he keeps his place and his food, but not his role at the altar.
The verse has two halves: what the blemished priest may still do, and the one door closed to him.
A dwarf among the sons of Aaron lost many of the higher priestly privileges. But a dwarf was still to "eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things." God would not leave the feeblest or smallest member of the priestly household without a holy portion... A dwarf could not attend the altar of God, but the God of the altar took care of the dwarf. The two things are perfect, as God's work always is. God has answered His own claims in full, and met the need of His priestly family in full.
The bar came from God's unchanging nature. His service stopped; his standing as a priest did not.
The blemished priest could not minister at the altar or serve in the sanctuary. Yet he did not lose his birthright... God's nature never alters. That is why no one with a blemish in his body could come near Him in priestly service, so that he would not profane God's sanctuary... But the priest's portion was God's provision for a priest. The blemished man of Aaron's house shared it equally with those who had nothing lacking or excessive... Priesthood came by birth, so nothing could make a man of Aaron's house stop being a priest.
Defilement shut a priest out from the holy food altogether. That contrast explains why this verse still lets the blemished man eat.
Though blemished, the priest shared in the portion provided for Aaron's house. If he became defiled, he could not share in it until he was properly cleansed... To eat of the holy things pictured communion with God. So no one defiled could have fellowship with Him. From defilement, however, a person might get free, if he acted as the law directed. From the blemish he might never get free. Suppose the blemish had also barred a man from eating the holy things. Then who could ever have had communion with God but one — the Lamb without blemish and without spot?
A system that had to turn away its own sons was never the final answer.
The law made nothing perfect. Priests and people were alike liable to blemish of all kinds. So even if a man was of Aaron's line, he might be forbidden to serve in the sanctuary.
The priest at the altar stood in for someone else. The same word — blemish — then follows into the New Testament.
The blemished priest was not allowed to serve at the altar. The one who served there — high priest or common priest — was a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. In Christ there was no blemish... Here, again, we see that the person of the Lord Jesus Christ was always present to God's eye. Of Him we read in the New Testament that He was without blemish (Heb. 9:14; 1 Peter 1:19). Of Christians we read that it was God's purpose to have them like that before Him in Christ (Eph. 1:4); and the Church Christ will present to Himself holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:27).
Commentators carry this principle across to the church. A believer too can carry a spiritual blemish that limits his part in worship.
A priest with a blemish could not enjoy the full privilege of his place as a priest. He was allowed to eat the bread of his God. But he could not go into the sanctuary, or approach the altar to offer the bread of his God. He could not represent the people in priestly service. If we apply this principle to the Church... a believer with a matching spiritual blemish is not to approach God for the people, or speak to the people for God. Though privileged to share in the Lord's Supper, he is not qualified to be the mouthpiece of the assembly.
Under the law a blemish was for life. The picture does not carry that far.
But in Christianity no "blemish" need be permanent. Eating the bread of God, in a spiritual sense, will remove defects. As another has said, "Our High Priest can remove all the defects in the members of His family." So no believer need stay unfit for holy service... The blind can have their eyes opened, the lame can be healed, and the dwarfs can grow up in Christ if they want to.
- Birth — the priest's place came by descent, so no defect could unmake it; he was a son of Aaron all the while.
- Bread — the blemish shut the sanctuary door, not the dining table. God's provision reached the feeblest member of the household.
- Blemish, not defilement — a blemish limited service. Uncleanness cut a man off from the holy food until he followed the law's way of cleansing.
- Bar — the reason given is God's holiness, not the man's fault: "for I am the LORD who sanctifies them."
- Beyond — the shadow ends in the Priest without blemish, and in a Church He will present to Himself the same way.