And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying,
The chapter opens with a fresh word from the LORD to Moses, and what follows is a warning to Aaron and his sons about the holy things of Israel. The concern is not who is a priest, but when a priest may come near — and what it costs God's name when someone crosses that line.
Leviticus has been tightening its circle: first the people, then the priests, then the priests at their closest point of access. One writer traces the sequence and shows that chapter 22 adds a further class of restriction to the one before it.
Leviticus 21 insists on a still higher sanctity on the part of Aaron's sons, and especially of the high priest, in view of their access to the sanctuary; and Leviticus 22 adds other disqualifications even if only temporary. Then the people are joined with the priests in the caution against a blemished offering.
The command does not begin with the priests themselves. It is given to Moses, who must pass it on — and the instruction that follows leaves no room for a negotiated middle way.
The care with which Moses was charged by the LORD, and the sons of Aaron through him, is most impressive. Compromise in divine things is hateful to God. It is the boast of men... The priests of the LORD were bound under the strictest obligation not to profane His holy name in the holy things of Israel.
The phrase sounds like a call to come closer to God. It is in fact the opposite: a call to stand back when something is wrong.
Leviticus 22. If there was, through weakness or neglect, anything unbecoming this nearness, they were to keep at a distance... It is the same with us. There are things in the spiritual food of Christ, offered to God, that we can only feed on when the Spirit's power has truly set the heart apart for Him.
Much of the uncleanness in this chapter could be hidden from other people. That is where the law did its work.
There might be uncleanness from day to day known only to each priest himself. This tested conscience, and the fear of God. He might easily hide his uncleanness from his fellows, and from the children of Israel; but he could only do so at the peril of being cut off from the LORD's presence. His being of Aaron's descendants gave him no shelter in the sanctuary... The variety or the degree might differ, but the LORD tolerates no uncleanness in those who draw near. He must at least be unclean till evening, and not eat of the holy things until he washes his body with water. After that he was free to eat of them; for the Holy One is merciful and gracious.
Chapter 21 barred the blemished priest from the altar. Chapter 22 bars the defiled priest from the food. Commentators notice that the two disqualifications work very differently, and that the difference is deliberate.
Defilement might happen to any of Aaron's house, and where it existed, it made the unclean man unable to eat the holy things... But why this difference? The answer is obvious. To eat of the holy things pictured communion with God. So no one defiled could have fellowship with Him; that is clear. From defilement, however, a person might get free, if he acted as the law directed him. From the blemish he might never get free. Had the blemish barred the right of eating the holy things, who could ever have had communion with God but one — the Lamb without blemish and without spot?
Nothing in this chapter threatens a priest's descent from Aaron. What it threatens is his access. The same split runs through Christian life.
To be a child of God is one thing; to be in the enjoyment of priestly communion and priestly worship is quite another... As the sons of Aaron, though priests by birth, were still deprived of many privileges through ceremonial defilement and physical defects, so we, though priests to God by spiritual birth, are deprived of many of the high and holy privileges of our position by moral defilement and spiritual defects... Salvation is one thing; communion is quite another. Sonship is one thing; obedience is quite another.
The rest of the chapter settles who inside a priest's household could share that food, and God alone decided it.
The priest's family, and his daughter, if after marriage she was a widow and living under his roof; all those born in his house, or bought with his money — these could eat of the holy things... Birth or purchase gave the right, but nothing else could.
- Name. The chapter guards one thing above all: careless handling of holy things makes God's name common, and He forbids it.
- Distance. Nearness carried a condition. When something did not fit it, the priest was to step back, not press on.
- Conscience. Most of these defilements stayed hidden from others. The law tested the fear of God in secret, where only the priest knew.
- Remedy. Washing cleared defilement, and by evening the priest ate again. A blemish never washed off, yet God still let the blemished eat — otherwise no one but the Lamb without blemish could ever have had communion.
- Birth. The right to the holy food came by birth or by being bought into the house, never by effort. Sonship stands unshaken, while communion rises and falls with our state.
Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in the things that they hallow unto me I am Jehovah.
God speaks to Moses about Aaron and his sons, the family set apart to handle the gifts Israel dedicated to God. The instruction is not about their public conduct. It is about what they touch when they are closest to Him. The reason given is His name.
The chapter opens with a warning aimed at the men who had the most access. One writer weighs what that access demanded of them.
The care Jehovah laid on Moses, and through him on the sons of Aaron, is most impressive (1, 2). Compromise in divine things is hateful to God. The priests of Jehovah were bound under the strictest obligation not to profane His holy name in the holy things of Israel.
The verse tells the priests to abstain; older translations read "separate themselves." It calls them to keep their distance from the holy things when their state does not match their nearness. One writer carries the same rule over to us.
If weakness or neglect left anything in them that did not suit this nearness, they were to keep their distance. So there were things that only the priests could eat, along with the members of their families who kept the same separation. It is the same with us. Some of the spiritual food of Christ, offered to God, we can only feed on so far as the heart is truly separated to Him, by the power of the Spirit.
The priests ate from these offerings, so being shut out mattered. The chapter also draws a line between defilement, which washing removes, and a blemish, which nothing removes.
Eating the holy things was a picture of communion with God. Clearly, then, no one defiled could have fellowship with Him. But a person could get free from defilement, if he did what the law directed. From a blemish he could never get free. Suppose a blemish had barred a man from eating the holy things. Who then could ever have had communion with God but one — the Lamb without blemish and without spot?
Much of what follows in verses 3 to 8 could stay hidden from every human eye. That is the point. The rule tested the priest's own conscience, and God still gave him a way back.
There might be uncleanness from day to day known only to each priest himself. This tested his conscience and his fear of God. He could hide his uncleanness from his fellow priests and from the people of Israel. But he did so at the risk of being cut off from Jehovah's presence (3). Being one of Aaron's descendants gave him no shelter in the sanctuary... The variety or the degree might differ; but Jehovah tolerates no uncleanness in those that draw near. He was unclean at least until evening, and he could not eat the holy things until he washed his body with water. After that he was free to eat of them; for the Holy One is merciful and gracious (4-8).
The chapter still speaks today, though the danger now comes from a different direction. Rules like these can also be twisted.
All these regulations were meant to press one thing on the people of Israel: by nature they were open to what defiles, while God is holy in His very being. We need to feel this too. But the uncleanness we have to fear today springs from within, not from outside. In our Lord's time the Pharisees and others misused instructions like these. They treated such ceremonies as if they were the only thing that mattered. So the Lord said, "What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person" (Matt. 15:18).
This is not only an Old Testament rule.
Holy things have to be used in a reverent and holy way. The same principle holds good in the New Testament. We may well think here of the Lord's table. Read 1 Cor. 11:23-31. Coming to the Lord's table to remember Him calls for self-judgment.
- Nearness — The word goes to Aaron's family. They handled what Israel had given to God, and the closest place carries the strictest duty.
- Care — To abstain means holding back from the holy things while anything unfitting remains. The priest keeps his place; he only stands back.
- Cleansing — Uncleanness no one else could see still barred a priest. Washing and the coming of evening restored him, for "the Holy One is merciful and gracious."
- Communion — Eating the holy things pictured fellowship with God. Defilement could be washed away; a blemish could not. So acceptance rests on the Lamb without blemish.
- Name — Every step guards one thing — His holy name. Careless handling of what belongs to Him profanes it.
Say unto them, Every one of all your seed, throughout your generations, that approacheth the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto Jehovah, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before me I am Jehovah.
Chapter 21 dealt with the defects a priest was born with. This chapter turns to the daily defilements any priest could pick up, and it asks why the right family name gives no cover.
The subject changes; the standard does not.
This chapter, like the one before it, presses the same demand for holiness in the priestly family towards Jehovah. Here the subject is not permanent disqualifications, as in the last section, but passing defilements. But no defilement was to be treated as a light thing. Reverence was due to Him who is a consuming fire. His will and word ruled everything, and especially those who drew near to Him.
This rule reached into what no one else could check.
There might be uncleanness from day to day known only to each priest himself. This tested his conscience and his fear of God. He could easily hide his uncleanness from his fellow priests and from the children of Israel. But he could only do so at the risk of being cut off from Jehovah's presence (v. 3). Being of Aaron's line gave him no shelter in the sanctuary; quite the opposite... The kind or the degree might differ; but Jehovah tolerates no uncleanness in those who draw near. He had at least to be unclean until evening, and not eat of the holy things until he washed his flesh with water. After that he was free to eat of them; for the Holy One is merciful and gracious (vv. 4-8).
A priest with a physical blemish still ate his share (21:22); a defiled priest could not eat at all until cleansed. One writer presses the reason for the difference, and what eating stood for.
Defilement could happen to anyone in Aaron's house. Where it existed, the unclean man could not eat the holy things... The chapter then lists the ways a priest might catch defilement (vv. 4-8). This shows very plainly the difference between a blemish and uncleanness, and directions for cleansing the defiled priest follow. But why this difference? The answer is obvious. To eat of the holy things pictured communion with God. So no one defiled could have fellowship with Him; that is clear. From defilement, however, a person could get free, if he acted as the law directed him. From the blemish he could never get free. Suppose the blemish had barred the right to eat of the holy things. Who could then ever have had communion with God except one — the Lamb without blemish and without spot? We are without blemish, but as chosen in Christ (Eph. 1:4).
These rules were teaching Israel something about themselves, and about God.
Leviticus 22 continues the same theme for the first sixteen verses. They had to take the strictest care that no uncleanness of any sort ever touched the holy things of God. All these rules were meant to teach the children of Israel one thing: by nature they were open to what defiles. God, by contrast, is holy in His very being. We need to feel this too, though the uncleanness we have to fear today springs from within rather than from outside. In our Lord's time the Pharisees and others were misusing instructions like these. They treated outward ceremonies as if they were the only thing that mattered. So the Lord said, "what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person" (Matt. 15:18).
Distance was one side of it. Nearness had its own food.
If anything unfitting this nearness came in through weakness or neglect, they were to keep at a distance. So there were things only the priests could eat, along with those of their families who lived in the same priestly separation. It is the same with us. In the spiritual food of Christ, offered to God, there are things we can feed on only so far as the heart is truly separated to Him by the power of the Spirit.
Another writer applies the chapter to the Lord's table:
Holy things have to be used in a reverent and holy way. The same principle holds good in the New Testament. We may well think here of the Lord's table. Read 1 Cor. 11:23-31. Coming to the Lord's table to remember Him calls for self-judgment.
- Nearness raises the standard. God's word ruled everyone, but especially those who drew near; the closer the place, the stricter the rule.
- Uncleanness is personal. Often only the priest himself knew of it, so conscience and the fear of God held him back, not the opinion of others.
- Birth settles standing, not access. Nothing could make a son of Aaron cease to be a priest, yet his line gave him no shelter when he came unclean.
- Eating pictures communion. A blemish never went away, yet it never barred the table; defilement could be cleansed, yet it barred the table until it was.
- Cleansing restores. Water and the coming of evening put the priest back at his food; the law that cut men off also opened the way back.
Whatsoever man of the seed of Aaron is a leper, or hath a flux, he shall not eat of the holy things, until he is clean. And he that toucheth any one that is unclean by a dead person, or a man whose seed of copulation hath passed from him;
Leviticus 22 turns from the priest's body and family to his condition, and verse 4 lists what keeps a son of Aaron from the holy food for a time. It raises a sharp question: if priesthood came by birth, what did an unclean priest lose — and why only "until he is clean"?
These men were already priests. The chapter does not make them priests; it governs what they may eat. One writer sees the same two levels in the Christian life: a standing that cannot be shaken, and a nearness we can spoil:
To be a child of God is one thing; to be in the enjoyment of priestly communion and priestly worship is quite another. Sadly, many things interfere with the second. We let circumstances and associations defile us… The sons of Aaron were priests by birth. Yet ceremonial defilement and physical defects still deprived them of many privileges. In the same way, 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.
A priest with a physical blemish still ate the holy food. A priest who was unclean did not. One writer explains why that difference matters:
Though blemished, the priest still shared in the portion provided for Aaron's house. If defiled, he could not share in it until he was cleansed, and Jehovah decided what that cleansing was to be… To eat of the holy things pictured communion with God. So no defiled person could have fellowship with Him. That is clear. From defilement, however, a person might get free if he acted as the law directed him. From the blemish he might never get free. Suppose a blemish had barred the right to eat the holy things. Then only one could ever have had communion with God — the Lamb without blemish and without spot.
The verse names three sources of defilement: a skin disease, a discharge, and contact with the dead. One writer traces a line from sin within, to what comes out, to death:
Leprosy is a type of that "sin in the flesh" of which Romans 8:3 speaks. The "issue" reminds us of the words of our Lord, "What comes out of the mouth, this defiles a person" (Matthew 15:11). Sin has corrupted man, so everything that comes out of him is defiled and defiling. And then "sin when it is fully grown brings forth death," as the Apostle James tells us.
Another writer presses how little evil it takes:
So long as sin is working, there can be no fellowship with God, or with His people… It does not matter what the character or amount of the evil may be. It might be only the weight of a feather. It might be only some foolish thought. So long as it keeps working, it must hinder communion. It must cause a suspension of fellowship.
A priest could hide his uncleanness from everyone but God. That is what this law tested:
There might be uncleanness from day to day known only to each priest himself. This tested conscience and the fear of God. He might hide his uncleanness from his fellows and from the children of Israel. But he could only do so at the risk of being cut off from Jehovah's presence. Being of Aaron's seed gave him no shelter in the sanctuary; just the opposite — whether he suffered from leprosy, or a discharge, or the touch of the dead… The variety or the degree might differ, but Jehovah tolerates no uncleanness in those who draw near. At the very least he was unclean until evening, and could not eat of the holy things until he washed his flesh with water. After that he was free to eat of them; for the Holy One is merciful and gracious.
Exclusion lasted only "until he is clean." The same care for holy things carries over to Christians today:
We must treat holy things in a reverent and holy way. The same principle holds good in the New Testament. We may well think here of the Lord's table. Read 1 Corinthians 11:23-31. Coming to the Lord's table to remember Him calls for self-judgment.
Holding back honestly is itself a step toward cleansing:
Often now a person may sense that his moral or spiritual condition means he ought to avoid handling spiritual things. If we are in an unclean moral state, how much better this is than any hypocritical pretence of religious observance! At least the person will realise he needs cleansing.
- Birth. A son of Aaron was a priest by birth, not by achievement. This verse never threatens that relationship. It governs the enjoyment of it.
- Barrier. What the verse withholds is the holy food. Eating that food pictured communion with God. So uncleanness suspends fellowship while it lasts.
- Blemish. A blemish could not be removed, yet it never barred the food. Defilement barred the food, yet washing always took it away. Otherwise only the Lamb without blemish could ever have fellowship with God.
- Bath. God set the remedy, not the priest: wash, wait for evening, then eat. The exclusion had an end, because the Holy One is merciful.
- Bread. Family descent gave no cover for hidden uncleanness. The same holds at the Lord's Table, where self-judgment, not pretence, is the way back to the food.
or a man that toucheth any crawling thing whereby he becometh unclean, or a man by whom he may become unclean, whatever may be his uncleanness,
The Lord addresses Leviticus 22 to Aaron and his sons, the family set apart to serve at the sanctuary. Verse 5 names two ways a priest could become unclean without any wrongdoing: touching a swarming creature, or touching a person who was already unclean.
The chapter is not about losing his family or his office. It is about one privilege: eating the holy things. One writer asks why a blemish never barred a priest from them, while defilement did.
To eat of the holy things pictured communion with God. So no one defiled could have fellowship with Him — that is clear. From defilement, however, a person might get free, if he acted as the law directed him. From the blemish he might never get free. Suppose a blemish had barred the right to eat the holy things. Then who could ever have had communion with God but one — the Lamb without blemish and without spot? We are without blemish, but as those chosen in Christ (Ephesians 1:4).
Verse 5 names no crime. Nothing here is theft, idolatry or cruelty.
What makes this subject so searching is this. In defilement we do not have the thought of outward sins — offences against the moral code, such as idolatry or injustice to a neighbour, which would bring direct and righteous penalty. We have instead the solemn reminder that association or contact with what defiles disqualifies a man from communion with God and from fellowship with His loyal people.
Often the priest alone knew what he had touched. Descent from Aaron gave him no cover.
There might be uncleanness from day to day known only to each priest himself. This tested his conscience and his fear of God. He might hide his uncleanness from his fellows and from the children of Israel. But he could do so only at the risk of being cut off from the Lord's presence. Being of Aaron's seed gave him no shelter in the sanctuary. It was the very opposite. It made no difference whether he suffered from leprosy, or a discharge, or even from the touch of the dead, or of someone with an unclean infirmity, or of a defiling reptile. The variety or the degree might differ; but the Lord tolerates no uncleanness in those who draw near. He must at least be unclean until evening, and he must not eat of the holy things until he washes his body with water. After that he was free to eat them, for the Holy One is merciful and gracious.
The second half of the verse turns to contact with a person, "whatever his uncleanness may be." Uncleanness spreads by touch. One writer finds the same rule in Numbers 19, and carries it from the body to the mind.
In Numbers 19, if anyone touched the unclean person, whoever had anything to do with it was unclean until evening. You cannot have to do with evil without getting, in a certain sense, away from God. It may not be like the man who had to be cleansed and wait seven days. But the mind cannot touch sin without a certain removal from direct communion with God.
The law never left a defiled priest without a remedy. One writer traces that pattern through the book and into the believer's life.
Now look through this Book of Leviticus, and you will find that water must wash away every possible defilement. In the same way the word of God must meet every possible defilement in the believer — the washing of water by the word.
Alongside the washing, another writer looks for honesty about how the defilement came:
Suppose we have had such contact with uncleanness, willingly or not. Then there is to be true self-judgment about the matter, a washing of our clothes (our habits), and then restoration.
The rule did not end at the sanctuary. One writer brings it into the New Testament.
Holy things have to be used in a reverent and holy way. The same principle holds good in the New Testament. We may well think here of the Lord's table. Read 1 Corinthians 11:23-31. Coming to the Lord's table to remember Him needs self-judgment.
- Touch. No sin is named in the verse. A swarming creature or an unclean person was enough — defilement came by contact, not by crime.
- Cost. The touch never cancelled the priest's birth into Aaron's family; it suspended his meal. He kept his place, and lost his fellowship until he washed.
- Hiding. Only the man himself knew, so the law tested conscience. Descent from Aaron sheltered nobody who drew near with uncleanness on him.
- Water. Every defilement in this book has its washing. For the believer that water is the word of God, with honest self-judgment about how the contact happened.
- Table. Believers still eat holy things. Judge yourself before the Lord's table, and handle what is holy in a holy way.
-- a person that toucheth any such shall be unclean until even, and shall not eat of the holy things; but he shall bathe his flesh with water,
This rule falls on a priest who has touched something unclean. It costs him his place at the table, not his place in the family. Why should one touch shut a man out from food God gave him? And what does washing with water do?
The holy things were the portion given to Aaron's house. One writer separates two cases: a priest with a physical blemish, and a priest who had become defiled. Only one of the two could put the matter right.
Though blemished, the priest, as we have seen, shared in the portion provided for Aaron's house. If defiled, he could not have part in that until he had gone through the proper cleansing, and Jehovah decided what that cleansing was to be... To eat of the holy things pictured communion with God. So no one defiled could have fellowship with Him — that is clear. From defilement, however, a person might get free, if he acted as the law directed him. From the blemish he might never get free.
A son of Aaron was a priest by birth, and uncleanness never unmade that. Defilement touched his enjoyment, not his standing. The same line runs through the Christian life.
We should not suppose that all Christians enjoy the same height of walk, the same closeness of fellowship, the same felt nearness to Christ... The sons of Aaron were priests by birth, and yet ceremonial defilement and physical defects robbed them of many privileges. In the same way we are priests to God by spiritual birth, and yet moral defilement and spiritual defects rob us of many of the high and holy privileges of our position... Saved we are, through the free grace of God, on the ground of Christ's perfect sacrifice. "In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith"; but then, salvation is one thing; communion is quite another. Sonship is one thing; obedience is quite another.
Much of what made a priest unclean here was invisible to everyone around him. That is what made the law a test.
There might be uncleanness from day to day known only to each priest himself. This tested conscience, and the fear of God. He might easily hide his uncleanness from his fellows and from the children of Israel. But he could only do so at the risk of being cut off from Jehovah's presence. Being of Aaron's line gave him no shelter in the sanctuary — the opposite, in fact, whether he had leprosy, or a bodily discharge, or had touched a dead body, or someone with an unclean condition, or a crawling creature that defiles, or the like. The variety or the degree might differ, but Jehovah tolerates no uncleanness in those who draw near. He must at least be unclean till evening, and not eat of the holy things till he washes his flesh with water. After that he was free to eat of them, for the Holy One is merciful and gracious.
The verse names the remedy: water. One writer asks why water, and not blood a second time.
A priest under the law with defiled hands and feet did not go back to the bronze altar. He went forward to the bronze basin. He did not need the blood applied again to make him a priest. He needed only to wash with water, so that he could carry on his priestly work. So now, if a believer fails, if he commits sin, if he picks up defilement, he does not need washing in the blood again as at first. He needs only the cleansing action of the Word, by which the Holy Spirit brings home to the soul the remembrance of what Christ has done. So the defilement is gone, communion is restored, and the spiritual priest is fit once more for his priestly work. Does this make little of defilement? The very opposite!
The uncleanness runs until evening. For those hours, the honest course is to stay away from holy things.
Often now a person senses that his moral or spiritual state means he ought to keep away from handling spiritual things. If we are in an unclean moral state, how much better it is to stay away than to put on a hypocritical show of religion! At least the person will see that he needs cleansing.
One writer shows where this lands for Christians today.
We must treat holy things in a reverent and holy way. The same principle holds good in the New Testament. We may well think here of the Lord's table. Read 1 Cor. 11:23-31. Coming to the Lord's table to remember Him calls for self-judgment.
- Contact — one touch makes the priest himself unclean, and often only he knows it. The law tests his conscience.
- Cost — he loses the food, not the family. Defilement stops communion; sonship stands.
- Cleansing — the answer is water, not blood a second time. The Word cleanses again, which shows how serious defilement is, not how small.
- Clock — the uncleanness lasts until evening, and in that gap honest withdrawal beats pretending.
- Come back — once washed, he eats again, because the holy things are his food and the Holy One is merciful and gracious.
and when the sun goeth down, he shall be clean, and may afterwards eat of the holy things; for it is his food.
Leviticus 22 lists the ways a priest could become unclean. He might touch a dead body, a crawling creature, or another unclean person. Each case ends the same way: no eating of the holy things. Verse 7 sets a limit on that. The priest shut out during the day is back at the table by nightfall.
Chapter 21 dealt with priests who had a physical blemish. Chapter 22 deals with priests who had become unclean. One writer makes that difference the key to the passage.
If he was defiled he could not share in the food of Aaron's house until he was properly cleansed, and the Lord decided what that cleansing would be... To eat of the holy things pictured communion with God. So no one defiled could have fellowship with Him, that is clear. From defilement, however, a person might get free, if he acted as the law directed him. From the blemish he might never get free. If a blemish had barred the right to eat the holy things, who could ever have had communion with God but one — the Lamb without blemish and without spot? We are without blemish, but as chosen in Christ (Ephesians 1:4).
His standing was never in question. His fitness for that day's privileges was. One writer draws the same line for believers today:
To be a child of God is one thing; to be in the enjoyment of priestly communion and priestly worship is quite another... salvation is one thing; communion is quite another. Sonship is one thing; obedience is quite another.
The verse holds two things together. God allows no defilement at all, and He has fixed the hour when it ends.
Some uncleanness was known only to the priest himself, from day to day. This tested his conscience and his fear of God. He could easily hide his uncleanness from his fellow priests and from the people of Israel, but only at the risk of being cut off from the Lord's presence... The variety or the degree might differ; but the Lord tolerates no uncleanness in those who draw near. He must at least be unclean till evening, and not eat of the holy things till he washes his flesh with water. After that he was free to eat of them; for the Holy One is merciful and gracious.
The defiled priest went to water, not back to the altar. One writer draws from that the difference between what deals with guilt once and what deals with daily soiling.
The bronze sea held water, not blood. Those who came to it had already proved the power of the blood, and so needed only the washing of water. Under the law, a priest whose hands and feet had become defiled did not need to go back to the bronze altar, but forward to the bronze sea. So now, if a believer fails, if he sins, if he becomes defiled, he does not need the blood to wash him again as at the first. He simply needs the cleansing action of the Word, by which the Holy Spirit brings to his soul the remembrance of what Christ has done. So the defilement is removed, the communion restored, and the priest fit again for his service.
The reason given for his return is striking: the holy things are what he lives on. Barring him from them was not a fine; it was starvation. One writer names what that food pictures.
Everything precious in the offering of Christ is the food and nourishment of our souls. Take it from every point of view — His life and His death; that bread come down from heaven, seen in His life of devotedness and grace here below; and His death for us. All of it is ours in that communion with God in which we ourselves are kept in our priesthood. The priests alone ate the holy things, and they ate them in a holy place.
The cleansing ran on a clock.
This was only ceremonial uncleanness, but it pictures moral or spiritual uncleanness. Cleansing would not be complete until evening. In cases of leprosy the wait was longer, with offerings to be made. In every case the man was to bathe and wash his clothes.
Holding back is the honest response.
Often now a person may sense that his moral or spiritual state means he ought to keep away from handling spiritual things. If we are morally unclean, how much better it is to keep away than to pretend to be religious! At least the person will realise the need of being cleansed.
- Defilement, not disqualification. A blemish was for life; uncleanness was for a day. The priest was never less a priest — he was only, for a while, unfit to eat.
- Barred. God allows no uncleanness in those who draw near. Hiding it risked being cut off from His presence.
- Washed. The remedy was water, not a fresh sacrifice; the cleansing action of the Word removes the soil and restores the communion.
- Fed. He eats again "because they are his food" — the holy things are the priest's living, and what is precious in Christ is the nourishment of our souls.
- Restored. Until evening, honest waiting; after sundown, full return. Better to hold back and be cleansed than to handle holy things while unclean.
Of a dead carcase and what is torn shall he not eat, to make himself unclean therewith I am Jehovah.
Leviticus 22 lists what could bar a priest from eating the holy food. Verse 8 ends the list with something the priest puts in his own mouth by choice. An animal found dead, or killed by a predator, was enough to shut him out of the sanctuary meal. Why did God attach such weight to one private meal?
The ban has to do with what death means. One writer ties it to who God is, and notes that the same rule already bound every Israelite:
The Lord is the living God. Death is sin's wages — though not all of it, since judgment remains. Every Christian should know this, because Christ revealed the whole truth. So the touch of death defiled anyone, and the priest much more. No Israelite was free to eat even what was torn by beasts of the field; he was called to throw it to the dogs (Exodus 22:31). "I am the Lord" shut out the sons of Aaron beyond all others.
Such an animal was also wrong for a second reason — it never came by way of the altar:
If an animal died or was killed by beasts, it was not to be eaten (v. 8). In this case it had not been offered before the Lord.
A blemish and a defilement are not the same thing. One writer draws the line between them:
To eat of the holy things pictured communion with God. So no one defiled could have fellowship with Him; that is clear. From defilement, however, a person might get free, if he acted as the law directed him. From the blemish he might never get free. Suppose a blemish had barred the right to eat the holy things. Who then could ever have had communion with God except one — the Lamb without blemish and without spot? We are without blemish, but as chosen in Christ. (Ephesians 1:4)
No one but the priest himself would know what he had eaten. Yet the law reached him there, and it does not end in exclusion:
There might be uncleanness from day to day known only to each priest himself. Conscience was tested in this way, and the fear of God. He might easily hide his uncleanness from his fellow priests and from the children of Israel. But he could only do so at the risk of being cut off from the Lord's presence (v. 3). Being of Aaron's seed gave him no shelter in the sanctuary; it was the opposite... The kind or the degree might differ, but the Lord tolerates no uncleanness in those who draw near. He must at least be unclean till evening, and not eat of the holy things until he washes his flesh with water. After that he was free to eat of them, for the Holy One is merciful and gracious (vv. 4-8).
A defiled priest was still a son of Aaron. One writer applies the same distinction to believers today:
To be a child of God is one thing; to be in the enjoyment of priestly communion and priestly worship is quite another... We are saved through the free grace of God, on the ground of Christ's perfect sacrifice. "In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith"; but salvation is one thing and communion is another. Sonship is one thing; obedience is another.
What a believer can feed on depends on how far his heart is set apart:
If weakness or neglect left anything in them that did not fit this nearness, they were to keep away. So there were things only the priests could eat, along with those of their families who kept the same separation. It is the same with us. There are things in the spiritual food of Christ, offered to God, which we can only feed on if the heart is truly separated to Him by the power of the Spirit.
The danger has changed direction. What once came from outside now rises from within:
All these rules were meant to impress on the children of Israel how open they were by nature to what defiles, in contrast to the essential holiness of God. We need to feel this too, though the uncleanness we have to fear today springs from within, not from outside.
- Death — death is sin's wages, and the God served at the altar is the living God. What no Israelite could eat, a priest could eat even less.
- Altar — the animal died by accident or violence. It never came by way of an offering, and food not given to God is no food for those who serve Him.
- Defilement — a blemish could never be removed, but uncleanness could. God barred communion on a ground the priest could deal with.
- Cleansing — no one else knew what the priest ate, so the law tested his conscience. He could wash, wait till evening, and eat again, because the Holy One is merciful.
- Diet — sonship was never in question, only the meal. What we take in still decides how much of Christ we can feed on.
And they shall keep my charge, lest they bear sin for it, and die by it, if they profane it I am Jehovah who do hallow them.
This verse closes a run of rules about uncleanness among the priests. Carelessness carried the gravest consequence: bearing sin, and dying for it. Yet the same verse names who made them holy in the first place — not their own fitness, but the Lord.
The duty laid on Aaron's sons was heavier than the duty laid on Israel. Their nearness to God set the standard.
Our relationships, whether with God or with man, determine our duties. The closer they are, the greater the call. The Lord had chosen Aaron and his sons to draw near to Him as no one else could. Not even the tribe that had charge of the sanctuary came so close. So He would be sanctified in the people He had so privileged, and they had to walk in a way that matched their holy nearness. If anything made them careless about His majesty, He would surely make them feel it. They were dealing with One who never slumbers or sleeps.
Some uncleanness was known to no one but the priest himself. That is what made keeping the charge a test of the heart.
There might be uncleanness from day to day known only to each priest himself. This tested his conscience and his fear of God. He could easily hide his uncleanness from his fellow priests and from the children of Israel. But he could only do so at the risk of being cut off from the Lord's presence. Being of Aaron's line gave him no shelter in the sanctuary; it was the opposite... The kind or the degree might differ, but the Lord tolerates no uncleanness in those who draw near.
Death defiled anyone who touched it. The reason lies in the link between death and sin.
The Lord is the living God. Death is sin's wages — though not all of it, since judgment remains. Every Christian should know this, for Christ revealed the whole truth. So the touch of death defiled anyone, and much more a priest... They were therefore to keep His ordinance, so that they would not bear sin and die in their profaning of it. He had sanctified them above all others.
God Himself had done the separating. That is why He would have them clean.
But His word was to be the rule. They were to obey Him in His directions, for it was He who was separating them to Himself. This is a very instructive word about the standard for all our thinking on this. If any are in my house, I will have them clean, because they are there; those outside are no concern of mine. And it was the Lord who was separating them for that.
The privilege at stake was eating the holy things. One writer separates two things: a blemish, which a priest could never lose, and defilement, which could be washed away.
To eat of the holy things pictured communion with God. So no one defiled could have fellowship with Him; that is clear. From defilement, however, a person could get free if he acted as the law directed him. From a blemish he could never get free. Suppose a blemish had barred the right to eat the holy things. Then who could ever have had communion with God except One — the Lamb without blemish and without spot? We are without blemish, but as chosen in Christ. (Ephesians 1:4)
This was no idle caution. The priests failed at the very point the verse guarded.
Sadly, it was just here that they failed. They failed even before their consecration was complete, and then more and more. In the end they became leaders not only in profaning holy things but in the grossest impurity (1 Samuel 2:12-22). Then the prophetic word came through a man of God. The high priest's sons would both die in one day, and the Lord would raise up a faithful priest to do what was in His heart and mind.
One writer applies this to us today. The honest response to an unclean state is to hold back, not to press on.
Often today a person may sense that his moral or spiritual condition is such that he ought to avoid handling spiritual things. If we are in an unclean moral state, how much better is staying away than any hypocritical show of religion! At least he will realise that he needs cleansing.
- Nearness — the closer the relationship to God, the higher the call. What passes unnoticed in others is serious in those who draw near.
- Charge — much of the defilement was private. Keeping the charge was a matter of conscience and the fear of God, not of reputation.
- Death — death defiles because death is sin's wages. A priest who carried it into holy things would bear sin and die.
- Sanctified — the demand rests on a gift. He set them apart, so He will have those in His house clean.
- Communion — eating the holy things pictured fellowship with God. Defilement can be washed away, so the honest move is to stop and be cleansed, not to pretend.
And no stranger shall eat the holy thing; the sojourner with the priest, and the hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
Leviticus 22 draws a line around the priest's table. This verse shows where the line falls: the question is not who lives near the priest, but who belongs to him.
No human authority set the terms for eating this food:
Nothing of this was left to man, to Aaron, or even to Moses, to decide. Jehovah alone settled such questions. He also declared what anyone who had eaten of the holy thing by mistake was to do (10-16). God guarded the privilege of communion with Him that carefully. In the law He defined who shared in such a favour.
(The quotes use the older wording "stranger" and "hired servant" where the ESV has "lay person" and "hired worker.") The people shut out were not enemies. One lived under the priest's roof; another drew his wages:
No stranger was to eat the holy thing. He who separated Israel to Himself separated the priest by a closer separation. Even a guest staying with the priest had no permission, nor a hired servant, however much at home or valued he was. But one who belonged to the priest, bought or born in his house, was allowed that privilege.
The next verse names two ways in: being bought, or being born in the house. One writer takes both words straight into the gospel:
For any of us to have the salvation of God it is not a matter of being bought or born. We have to be both bought and born; bought with the blood of Christ and born of the Spirit (John 3:6).
The contrast between the two kinds of servant carries its own lesson about motive:
A hired servant serves for wages. The one who is bought is his master's own possession, just as true believers today are the Lord's own. They do not serve for gain, but because they are His.
What makes this food worth guarding? One writer answers that the food is Christ, and eating it is communion with God:
Everything precious in the offering of Christ is the food and nourishment of our souls. This holds from every point of view. It is true of His life and of His death. He is that bread come down from heaven, seen in His life of devotedness and grace here below, and in His death for us. All of it nourishes us in that communion with God in which we are kept in our priesthood. The priests alone ate the holy things, and they ate them in a holy place.
The limit is not a refusal. Another writer names who receives this holy food:
It was "most holy." That did not keep it from Christ and His own; it was given to them to enjoy. So those who have entrance into the holy places find their living priestly food in Christ Himself, and in Christ here below as the Gospels show Him. But here it is as with other things. All have the title, yet only those enjoy it in fact who have faith in it and walk in that faith by the Spirit.
One writer marks who the outsider is, then carries the rule into the New Testament:
Strangers who did not belong to the priestly house were not permitted to eat of the offering of the holy things. Holy things have to be used in a reverent and holy way. The same principle holds good in the New Testament. We may well think here of the Lord's table. Read 1 Cor. 11:23-31. Coming to the Lord's table to remember Him requires self-judgment.
Another writer separates being God's child from enjoying communion with Him:
To be a child of God is one thing; to be in the enjoyment of priestly communion and priestly worship is quite another. Sadly, many things get in the way of the second. We let circumstances and associations act on us with their defiling influence.
- God decides. Not Aaron, not Moses — God alone decided who could eat the holy thing and share communion with Him.
- Nearness fails. A guest under the priest's roof and a valued hired worker were both shut out. Nearness and usefulness are not the same as belonging.
- Belonging qualifies. Only the one bought by the priest or born in his house could eat at that table.
- Both, not either. Applied to salvation, it is not bought or born but bought with the blood of Christ and born of the Spirit.
- Then feed. The food is all that is precious in Christ, given to His own to enjoy. Every believer holds the title, but only faith tastes it, and defiling company spoils the meal.
But if a priest buy any one for money, he may eat of it, and he that is born in his house they may eat of his food.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And a priest's daughter who is [married] to a stranger may not eat of the heave-offering of the holy things.
This chapter draws a tight circle around the holy food — the portions of Israel's offerings that belonged to the priests. Verse 12 tests that circle at a tender point: a daughter born inside it marries a man outside it.
The loss is real, but it need not last.
The law also provides for special cases. If the priest's daughter married a man outside Aaron's family, she lost her right, for the time being, to eat of an offering of the holy things. But suppose she became a widow, or was divorced, had no child, and was back in her father's house as in her youth. Then she regained her right, and might eat of her father's food. She was no longer a forbidden stranger.
Commentators differ slightly: Kelly points to the marriage, another writer to where she now lives.
No stranger from outside the priestly house could eat of the holy things. Neither could the priest's daughter, once she was married and living outside the priestly household.
No one negotiated this line. Not even Israel's leaders decided who ate.
It also sets out who in the priest's house might eat of the holy thing. Nothing of this was left to man, to Aaron, or even to Moses, to decide. Jehovah alone settled such questions... God guarded the privilege of communion with Him so carefully that He defined by law who shared in such a favour... Birth, or being bought into the house, gave the right to eat with him of the holy things, and nothing else could.
The daughter does not stop being her father's daughter. The same distinction holds for every believer.
Every child of God is a priest... He may be very ignorant; but his position as a priest is not founded on knowledge, but on life. His experience may be very shallow; but his place as a priest does not depend on experience, but on life... He became a priest by birth... Do not confuse the capacity to enjoy a position's privileges and carry out its duties with the position itself. Always keep the two distinct. Relationship is one thing; capacity is quite another.
So what can be lost is not the relationship itself but the enjoyment of it.
To be a child of God is one thing; to be in the enjoyment of priestly communion and priestly worship is quite another. Sadly, many things get in the way of that enjoyment. We let circumstances and associations act on us with their defiling influence... 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. Sonship is one thing; obedience is quite another.
Her household changed, and so did what she could eat.
There were things only the priests could eat, along with those of their families who kept priestly separation. It is the same with us. There is spiritual food of Christ, offered to God. We can feed on it only as far as the heart is truly separated to Him by the power of the Spirit.
Mackintosh applies the chapter's warnings point for point to Christian living:
Nothing can ever rob us of these privileges. But our communion may be marred. Our worship may be hindered. Our holy duties may go undone. The sons of Aaron were warned about ceremonial matters in the section before us, and those warnings have their counterparts in the Christian era. Did they have to be warned against unholy contact? So do we. Did they have to be warned against unholy alliance? So do we.
One writer takes this rule about holy things straight to the Lord's table.
Holy things have to be used in a reverent and holy way. The same principle holds good in the New Testament. We may well think here of the Lord's table... Coming to the Lord's table to remember Him calls for self-judgment.
- Birth — her place in the priestly house came by birth, never by achievement. A believer too is a priest by life, not by knowledge, experience, or capacity.
- Boundary — God alone fixed who could eat. He guarded that line so carefully because the privilege inside it is communion with Himself.
- Bond — marrying outside the family cost her the holy food, not her place as his daughter. Relationship stands; enjoyment is lost.
- Barrier — our associations still act on us with defiling force. Some spiritual food we can feed on only so far as the heart is truly separated to Him.
- Back — widowed or divorced and home again in her father's house, she ate once more. She was no longer a forbidden stranger.
But a priest's daughter that becometh a widow, or is divorced, and hath no seed, and returneth unto her father's house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father's food; but no stranger shall eat thereof.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And if a man eat of a holy thing through inadvertence, then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it, and shall give it unto the priest with the holy thing.
Leviticus 22 fences off the food that belonged to God and to His priests. Verse 14 asks what happens when someone crosses that fence by accident. God does not wave the mistake away. He counts it as real loss, and the man pays it back with a fifth more on top.
The law imagines a man who ate what was not his to eat and did not know it at the time. One commentator finds both seriousness and care in this ruling:
A man might eat the holy thing without knowing it. In that case he had to add a fifth of it, and to give it to the priest along with the holy thing, as a double tithe of trespass. There was no superstition or human exaggeration here. The true God must of necessity be a jealous God; yet He weighed everything carefully.
The verses around this one name who could share the food. God Himself drew the line:
The law also sets out who in the priest's house might eat of the holy thing. It was not for man, for Aaron, or even for Moses, to decide. The Lord alone settled such questions. He also declared what anyone who had eaten of the holy thing by accident was to do. God guarded the privilege of communion with Him that carefully, and the law defined who shared in such a favour. The priest's family could eat of the holy things. So could his daughter, if she was widowed after marriage and living under his roof. So could all those born in his house or bought with his money. But others could not share them: servants who were neither born under his roof nor bought with his money, a stranger, or a visitor staying with him. Birth or buying gave the right to eat with him of the holy things, and nothing else did.
The man did not know what he was doing, yet he still owes. One writer explains why a person's awareness cannot set the measure:
The claims tied to the holy things of the Lord reach infinitely beyond the most sensitive human feeling. A man may cross those claims again and again, trespass on them again and again, and never be aware of it. A man's consciousness can never be the regulator in the sanctuary of God. This is an unspeakable mercy. God's holiness alone must fix the standard, when God's rights are in question.
Paying back what he took would seem enough. The added fifth says otherwise. One writer reads it as God's refusal to settle for a simple return to the starting point:
Even this was not enough. A fifth more had to be added on top. For God would have a surplus of good come out of evil, not just a making up to where things were before. That would not be worthy of Him. How could He have allowed sin at all, merely to show His power in defeating it and no more? Such a victory would be little better than defeat.
The small ritual sum points to something far larger. What a man took from God's holy things, another Man gave back — and more:
That is connected with the trespass offering, where the offender had to add a fifth part to what he had taken away. If man has robbed God of His glory, Christ has restored it. But if that were all He had done, man would only have returned to the position he had lost by his sin. The added fifth brings God a revenue of glory. That revenue gives a basis for His eternal purpose, and it puts man into a new place in heavenly blessing.
The section ends with the men who handled these holy things every day. One commentator follows their story to its end:
As we began with the responsibility attached to the priests, so this section ends. They above all were not to profane the holy things that the children of Israel offered to the Lord. They were not to load themselves with the guilt of trespass by eating those holy things. They were to remember that it was the Lord who sanctified. Sadly, it was just here they failed. But God promised to raise up a faithful priest who would do what was in His heart, and to build him a sure house, with Himself as King before His anointed for ever. Messiah is the only full answer to both Priest and King.
- Holy — the food was God's before it was anyone's. He alone decided who could eat. The right came by birth into the priest's house or by buying, never by nearness or service.
- Unwitting — not knowing does not cancel the debt. God's holiness sets the standard, not the reach of a man's conscience.
- Restore — the remedy is not regret but repayment; the holy thing goes back to the priest.
- Plus a fifth — God will not settle for a return to where things stood. He means to come out a gainer from the wrong done.
- Christ — man robbed God of His glory. Christ restored it with increase: a revenue of glory for God, and a new place for man.
And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which they offer unto Jehovah,
These closing words put the responsibility for Israel's gifts on the priests. So what does it mean to profane a holy thing, and why is the danger greatest for the men who handle holy things every day?
Profaning is the opposite of being set apart for God. One writer defines both words and shows what happens to a thing once people treat it as ordinary. He quotes an older translation of Ezekiel 44:23, where the ESV reads "common" for "profane."
A sanctified person or thing is one set apart from ordinary uses to be for God's own possession and use and enjoyment. The opposite of sanctification is profanation. The priest of Aaron's time was not to "defile himself… to profane himself" (Lev. 21:4). The priests of the coming thousand-year reign are to "teach My people the difference between the holy and profane" (Ezek. 44:23). The very word used there means "common or polluted," and of course a thing gets polluted as soon as people put it to common use.
The section began with the priests and ends with them. Their history shows how real the warning was — and where the true answer lay.
But as we began with the responsibility attached to the priests, so this section ends. They in particular were not to profane the holy things of the children of Israel which they offered to Jehovah. Nor were they to bring the guilt of trespass on themselves by eating their holy things. They were to remember that it was Jehovah who sanctified. Sadly, it was just here they failed… They failed more and more, until they became leaders not only in profaning holy things but in the grossest impurity (1 Sam. 2:12-22)… Messiah is the only full answer to both Priest and King.
The holy things belonged to God, so the standard was His and not the priests'.
It is most impressive how carefully Jehovah charged Moses, and the sons of Aaron through him (vv. 1, 2). Compromise in divine things is hateful to God. The priests of Jehovah were bound under the strictest obligation not to profane His holy name in the holy things of Israel.
Yet strictness is not harshness. The same writer holds both sides together.
There was no superstition or human exaggeration. The true God must be a jealous God; yet He weighed everything with consideration.
Some food belonged only to those who lived close to God, and one writer carries that over to believers now.
If anything about them did not fit this nearness, through weakness or neglect, they were to keep at a distance. So only the priests could eat certain things, along with those of their families who kept the same separation. It is the same with us. There are parts of the spiritual food of Christ, offered to God, that we can only feed on as far as the heart is truly separated to Him. That separation comes by the power of the Spirit.
Commentators apply this in two directions. One points to the instinct that tells a person to stand back rather than pretend.
Often a person today senses that his moral or spiritual condition is such that he ought to avoid handling spiritual things. If we are in an unclean moral state, how much better it is to keep away than to put on a hypocritical show of religion! At least the person will see his need of cleansing.
Another points to where this touches Christians now.
We must use holy things in a reverent and holy way. The same principle holds good in the New Testament. We may well think here of the Lord's table. Read 1 Cor. 11:23-31. Coming to the Lord's table to remember Him calls for self-judgment.
A defiled or blemished son of Aaron was still a son of Aaron. The loss was real, but it was not the loss of the relationship.
To be a child of God is one thing. To enjoy the communion and worship of a priest is quite another… The sons of Aaron were priests by birth, yet ceremonial defilement and physical defects still shut them out of many privileges. It is the same with us. 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… Sonship is one thing; obedience is quite another.
- Common. To profane is to make holy things common — and common use is what pollutes them.
- Charged. The men nearest the holy things carry the charge over them, and Israel's priests failed at just this point.
- Uncompromising. Compromise in divine things is hateful to God, yet He weighs every case with consideration.
- Separated. We feed on parts of the spiritual food of Christ only as far as the heart is separated to Him.
- Kept. Defilement never cancels sonship. It costs communion — and Messiah is the only full answer to a priesthood that failed.
and cause them to bear the iniquity of trespass when they eat their holy things; for I am Jehovah who do hallow them.
Leviticus 22 sets out who may eat the food given to God. Verse 16 is its closing warning: careless use of holy things lays real guilt on real people, because God Himself is the One who makes them holy.
The chapter opened by charging Aaron's sons, and this verse brings the same charge back at the end. One commentator reads the guilt here as guilt the priests bring on themselves by mishandling what Israel brought to God.
But as we began with the responsibility attached to the priests, so this section ends. They above all were not to profane the holy things that the people of Israel brought to the Lord. They were not to load themselves with the iniquity of trespass by eating those holy things. They were to remember that it was the Lord who made them holy. Sadly, this is just where they failed... more and more, until they became leaders not only in profaning holy things but in the worst impurity (1 Sam. 2:12-22).
Verses 10 to 16 say who could share the priest's food. God settled it, and He allowed only two grounds.
This is how carefully God guarded the privilege of communion with Him. By the law He defined who shared in such a favour. The priest's family could eat of the holy things. So could his daughter, if she was a widow after marriage and living under his roof. So could everyone born in his house or bought with his money. But servants not born in his house and not bought with his money could not eat them, and neither could a stranger or a visitor staying with him. Birth or purchase gave the right to eat with him of the holy things. Nothing else did.
A hired man lived close to the priest and worked for him, yet the food was not his.
A hired servant is one who serves for wages. The bought servant belongs completely to his master, just as true believers today belong completely to the Lord. They do not serve for gain, but because they are His.
Verse 14 pictures a man who ate the holy food without realising what it was. He still had to make it good, and to add a fifth on top.
Again (verse 14), a man might eat the holy thing without knowing it. In that case he had to add a fifth of it, and give it to the priest along with the holy thing, as a double tithe of trespass. There was no superstition or human exaggeration here. The true God has to be a jealous God; yet He weighed everything with care.
The verse warns against treating God's portion as ordinary food. To profane something is not to curse it. It is to put what belongs to God to common use.
The root idea of the word, whether we take its Old or New Testament use, is that of setting apart for God. A sanctified person or thing is one set apart from ordinary uses to be for God's own possession and use and enjoyment. The opposite of sanctification is profanation. The word itself means "common or polluted," and of course a thing gets polluted exactly when people put it to common use. When a piece of ground lies open to the whole public it becomes a "common," and at once people must make rules to keep it decent. Left to itself it would soon become more or less of a rubbish heap.
The reason at the end of the verse points to God Himself. He separates people for Himself, so He sets the rule for them.
But His word was to be the rule. They were to obey Him in His directions, for it was He who was separating them to Himself. This is a very instructive word about the standard for all our thoughts here. If any are in my house, I will have them clean, because they are there; those outside are no concern of mine.
One writer applies this to believers, separating two things we easily merge.
To be a child of God is one thing; to be in the enjoyment of priestly communion and priestly worship is quite another... salvation is one thing; communion is quite another. Sonship is one thing; obedience is quite another.
- Holy — to sanctify is to set something apart for God. To profane it is to treat it as ordinary, and common use always pollutes.
- Right — being born in his house or bought by him gave the right to eat. Nearness, service and wages gave none.
- Guard — the section starts and ends with the priests. They could load themselves with guilt through the very things they handled for God.
- Grace — the man who ate in ignorance still paid back a fifth more. God is jealous for His holy things, yet He weighs each case with care.
- Reason — it all rests on God: "I am the LORD who sanctifies them." Those in His house He will have clean, because they are there.