← Back to sermon library

 He who is the high priest among his brethren, on whose head the anointing oil was poured, and who is consecrated to wear the garments, shall not uncover his head nor tear his clothes, nor shall he go near any dead body, nor defile himself for his father or his mother, nor shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God. For the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him. I am the Lord. and he shall take a wife and her virginity, a widow or a divorced woman or a defiled woman or a harlot. These he shall not marry, but he shall take a virgin of his own people as a, as wife, nor shall he profane his posterity among his people for I, the Lord sanctify him. And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, speak to Aaron saying no man of your descendants and succeeding generations who has any defect may approach to offer the bread of his God for any man who has a defect shall not approach a man blind or lame who has a marred face or any limb too long, a man who has a broken foot or broken hand or as a hunchback or a dwarf or a man who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scab or is a eunuch. No man of the descendants of Aaron, the priest who has a defect shall come near to offer the offerings made by fire to the Lord. He has a defect. He shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. He may eat the bread of his God, both the most holy and the holy. Only he shall not go near the veil or approach the altar because he has a defect, lest he profane my sanctuaries, for I, the Lord, sanctify them. And Moses told it to Aaron and his sons and to all the children of Israel. Then the Lord spoke to Moses saying, speak to Aaron and his sons that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel and that they do not profane my holy name by what they dedicate to me. I am the Lord. Say to them, whoever of all your descendants throughout your generations, who goes near the holy things, which the children of Israel dedicate to the Lord, while he has uncleanness upon him, that person shall be cut off from my presence. I am the Lord. Whatever man of the descendants of Aaron, who is a leper or has a discharge, shall not eat the holy offerings until he is clean. And whoever touches anything made unclean by a corpse or a man who has had an emission of semen or whoever touches any creeping thing by which he would be made unclean or any person by whom he would become unclean, whatever his uncleanness may be, the person who has touched any such thing shall be unclean until evening and shall not eat the holy offerings unless he washes his body with water. And when the sun goes down, he shall be clean. And afterward, he may eat the holy offerings because it is his food, Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself with it. I am the Lord. They shall therefore keep my ordinance, lest they bear sin for it and die thereby, if they profane it. I, the Lord, sanctify them. No outsider shall eat the holy offering. One who dwells with the priest or a hired servant shall not eat the holy thing. But if the priest buys a person with his money, he may eat it. and one who is born in his house may eat his food. If the priest's daughter is married to an outsider, she may not eat of the holy offerings. But if the priest's daughter is a widow or divorced and has no child and has returned to her father's house as in her youth, she may eat her father's food, but no outsider shall eat it. And if a man eats the holy offering unintentionally, then he shall restore a holy offering to the priest and add one-fifth to it. They shall not profane the holy offerings of the children of Israel, which they offer to the Lord, or allow them to bear the guilt of trespass when they eat their holy offerings. For I, the Lord, sanctify them. And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the children of Israel and say to them, whatever man of the house of Israel or of the strangers in Israel who offers his sacrifice for any of his vows or any of his freewill offerings, which they offer to the Lord as a burnt offering, you shall offer of your own free will a male without blemish from the cattle, from the sheep, or from the goats. Whatever has a defect, you shall not offer, for it shall not be acceptable on your behalf. And whoever offers a sacrifice of a peace offering to the Lord to fulfill his vow, or a freewill offering from the cattle or the sheep, it must be perfect to be accepted. There shall be no defect in it. Those that are blind or broken or maimed or have an ulcer or eczema or scabs, you shall not offer to the Lord, nor make an offering by fire of them on the altar to the Lord. Either a bull or a lamb that has any limb too long or too short, you may offer as a freewill offering, but for a vow, it shall not be accepted. You shall not offer to the Lord what is bruised or crushed or torn or cut, nor shall you make any offering of them in your land, nor from a foreigner's hand shall you offer any of these as the bread of your God, because their corruption is in them and defects are in them. They shall not be accepted on your behalf. And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, when a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall be seven days with its mother. And from the eighth day and thereafter, it shall be accepted as an offering made by fire to the Lord. Whether it is a cow or you do not kill her and her young on the same day. And when you offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Lord, offer it of your own free will on the same day, it shall be eaten. You shall leave none of it until morning. I am the Lord. Therefore you shall keep my commandments and perform them. I am the Lord. You shall not profane my holy name, but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel. I am the Lord who sanctifies you, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God. I am the Lord. Amen. We see that recurring emphasis throughout the section on God as the agent of sanctification for the children of Israel. Now there are certainly some puzzling and perplexing things in these two chapters, things that probably will not get answered tonight. But for the most part, it is pretty straightforward. As I said, the people of Israel as people had particular conduct or particular daily conduct stipulated to them. It included their diet. It included what they wore. It included how they conducted themselves. The same thing obtained for the priest. Now, certainly some of this affects them in their ministerial capacity, but also it affects them in terms of their character, keeping them qualified for their ministerial capacity. So as I said, we have restrictions for ordinary priests in verses 1 to 9, restrictions for high priests in verses 10 to 15, physical impediments to priestly service in verses 16 to 24, then restrictions concerning their food, verses 1 to 16, and then the impediments with reference to sacrificial animals in 17 to 33. So let's pick up first on the restrictions for ordinary priests. And there's two things spoken of here. First, the act of mourning, and then secondly, the act of marriage. Now, much of these things we've already seen alluded to with reference to the people as a whole, and you see it scattered throughout the Pentateuch. They were not to mourn for their dead in a way that would compromise their function or activity as the priest of God most high. So if you look specifically at chapter 21, verse 1, and the Lord said to Moses, speak to the priest, the sons of Aaron, and say to them, we need to make sure we appreciate that, along with verse 24, and Moses told it to Aaron and his sons and to all the children of Israel. chapter 20, 22, verse one, then the Lord spoke to Moses saying, and then chapter 22, verses 31 to 33, the authority behind these commands come from God. It's not Moses that came up with this. It's not Moses. That's innovative. It's not Moses. That's creative here, but it's rather God, the Lord speaking through the covenant mediator, which is Moses at this particular juncture and telling the priests how they are to conduct themselves. And then in verse 1b, notice, none shall defile himself for the dead among his people. So none shall defile himself for the dead among his people. In other words, he could contract ceremonial uncleanness or defilement, and that would render him ineffective or inoperative with reference to his priestly duty or his priestly ministry. Following that, we have some exceptions built in for the ordinary priests. When we get to the high priest, there's no exception. Even if his father and mother or father or mother dies, he is not to be defiled. He is not to have contact with them in that particular state. But here there is an exception for the rank and file. It says, none shall defile himself for the dead among his people, except for his relatives who are nearest to him. His mother, his father, his son, his daughter, and his brother. And then notice in verse 3, also his virgin sister who is near to him. The idea being that if she was married and not near to him, then ultimately it would be her husband that would bear the responsibility to look after the funeral and to make sure that the body was disposed of properly. But with reference to a virgin sister who is near to him, who has had no husband, for her he may defile himself. So the idea is defilement. Again, contact with a dead body. Not that he's going to drape himself on it, but being in that proximity with that dead body renders him unclean and unfit for service. And that's the emphasis there in verse 4. Otherwise, he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people to profane himself. So he's got to maintain holiness. Profane in its broadest or most general meaning means not holy. Profane is often taken in modern parlance to be something bad, something wicked, something evil, and typically and usually it is. But in the Bible, you've got that which is holy, that which is close to God, and then you've got that which is profane, that which is removed from God, that which is apart from God. And so the purpose of these mourning rites is not to say that these persons are to lack compassion or empathy or love or kindness or anything like that, but it was to make sure that they weren't rendered unfit for the task of priestly mediation. There was a lot of sinners in Israel. There was a lot of sacrifices to be presented. And there was, in fact, a holy God. And we've already seen something of this in Leviticus chapter 10, After the death of Nadab and Abihu, God essentially tells the priest to keep going. A death in the sanctuary does not stop the worship of the living God. Drag that dead body out. Let the people who have authorization mourn for that body. But the priest maintain fidelity in the priestly activity. John Gill makes the observation on verse 4. He says, because he was a principal person among his people to officiate for them in sacred things. Wherefore, if he did not take care that he was not defiled for the dead, which might often happen, he would be frequently hindered from doing his office for the people. There was a high mortality rate back then. We were pretty blessed for now in terms of not having people dropping dead next to us pretty much every day all the time. But it wasn't the case that if it was the case, these priests would be always defiled and never able to render that service under God's tabernacle. So he said he would be frequently hindered from doing his office for the people, which would be attended with ill consequence to them. And therefore, the above cases are only accepted as being such that rarely happen. So it's not a lack of compassion. It's not a lack of empathy. It's not a lack of concern at the fact that somebody close to you has died. but it's rather a concern for the conduct of the priest to function in that holy manner, to be consistently on duty with reference to tabernacle service. And then note the following prohibition in verses 5 and 6. This is connected to mourning rites that the pagans of the heathen engaged in. If you look back to chapter 19 in Leviticus, we see that this is in fact the case. notice in Leviticus chapter 19 specifically at verse 27 you shall not shave around the sides of your head nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard you shall not make any cuttings in your flesh notice the next language next words for the dead nor tattoo any marks on you I am the Lord and then a parallel passage in Deuteronomy chapter 14. Deuteronomy chapter 14 verse 1 says essentially the same thing. You are the children of the Lord, your God. You shall not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead. For you are a holy people to the Lord, your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. The pagans or the heathens engaged in those rites in terms of their mourning practice. The children of Israel were forbidden from doing so because it was in fact heathenish. It was in fact godless. Robert Alter says all these acts are pagan rites of mourning that must be avoided. And that's precisely the emphasis there in verses five and six. They shall not make any bald place on their heads nor shall they shave the edges of their beards nor make any cuttings in their flesh They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God For they offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire and the bread of their God. Therefore, they shall be holy. They'll be set apart from the heathen that engage in these practices in terms of their mourning rights for their dead. Don't be like that. You need to be holy and not profane. So that's the act of mourning for the ordinary priests in verses 1 to 6. Now notice the act of marriage in verses 7 to 9. Note the assumption in the first place. Priests in the Old Covenant got married. Priests in the Old Covenant were not celibate. Priests in the Old Covenant did not take a vow of celibacy the way the Roman Catholic institution does. If they want to be consistent and model their priesthood after the Old Covenant model, then they ought to let their priests marry instead of burn and engage in sexual immorality. So that the assumption is, is that the priest of God will be married. The assumption is also that the priest of God can buy slaves. We'll see that later when we drop down to the section on who can eat the priest of God's food. But here, for instance, notice there is an assumption, but then there is a prohibition in verse seven says they shall not take a wife who is a harlot or a defiled woman, nor shall they take a woman divorced from her husband for the priest is holy to his God. They shall not take a wife who is a harlot or a defiled woman. Says nothing about a widow. For the high priest, they're also not supposed to marry a widow. But with reference to the ordinary priest, the ordinary priest, at least by implication, could marry a widow. So they shall not take a wife who is a harlot or a defiled woman, nor shall they take a woman divorced from her husband. So that is conduct fitting for the priests. By implication, we learn something though. We learn that the ordinary Israelite could in fact marry a divorced person. We learn as well that an ordinary Israelite, a prophet for instance, could marry a harlot in the case of Hosea. So what we see here prohibited in terms of the priest and the high priest is not prohibited in terms of the rank and file in the nation of Israel. And again, We don't usually talk about these sorts of things, but the prohibition does not mean, or the prohibition covers the ordinary priest. So again, by implication, a non-priest Israelite could marry a divorced woman. And I want to just give a brief excursus with reference to this concept. The prohibition of priests from marrying divorced women implies that non-priests could, in fact, marry divorced women. In fact, the Bible operates on the assumption that when there is a biblical divorce that obtains, then remarriage is usually the case. Remarriage is usually normative when somebody biblically divorces. Now, we have to ask the question, what's a biblical divorce? Well, in the New Covenant, we know there are two reasons and two reasons alone as to why people divorce. First in Matthew 5 and then Matthew 19, in even more clarity in verses 1 to 10, we see that sexual immorality is a cause for the innocent party to sue out for divorce against the guilty party. And then in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, desertion. Now in desertion, I would include as a subset spousal abuse because somebody who's beating his wife has deserted her. So in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, you see as well that desertion is an authorized reason for divorce. That's it. Not because he doesn't hang up his jacket. Not because she burns the roast. Not because you just don't like her anymore. You fell out of love. No, there are two reasons given in the New Testament for New Covenant Christians as to why they may divorce. Now, sexual immorality, porneia, there in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19, is broader than moikeia, which is adultery. So there are more things involved than just the act of adultery. Sexual immorality or porneia is quite broad, much broader than just the act of adultery, which is moikeia. Jesus knows the distinction and Jesus uses the word porneia. And he says that is a legitimate reason for someone to pursue divorce. Now, after somebody, innocent party, divorces, they are free to remarry. And we're not supposed to judge them. We're not supposed to tell them, well, you can't get married in the sanctuary. You've got to go to the justice of the peace. If they've obeyed the law of God, and they have been the innocent party in that act, and they have done things in a manner that is consistent with the scripture, they're not second-class citizens. They deserve every right to get married in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, just like everybody else does that isn't, you know, guilty of an unbiblical practice. One of the texts that I think gets very much misinterpreted when it comes to this whole issue of divorce and remarriage is Deuteronomy 24. There's a class of teachers out there called Permanence View of Marriage. Vati Bauckham is one of them. John Piper is another, probably the most popular fellows. They teach what's called the Permanence View of Marriage. Now, I believe in the permanence view of marriage. One man, one woman forever, unless one of them commits porneia or one of them deserts the other, because Jesus and Paul authorized divorce in that particular instance. So we cannot deny what God has provided in terms of redress for evils conducted in this world. So notice in Deuteronomy chapter 24, again, for whatever reason, this passage gets misunderstood, misinterpreted and bent out of shape. I think it's actually in the background to Jesus teaching in Matthew 19. And I think it's in the background of Paul's teaching in first Corinthians chapter seven. There's only one prohibition going on in this section. Notice in Deuteronomy 24 verse one, when a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her. And he writes her a certificate of divorce. Just by way of an observation, this writing of the certificate of divorce was to mitigate a divorce-happy society. There was an actual process. There was an actual requirement. There was actual responsibility on the part of the person. He couldn't just say, get out, honey, you burned the dinner. I'm done with you. No, there had to be a legal process, the writing of this certificate of divorce. Notice he then puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house. when she has departed from his house and goes and becomes another man's wife. That's just assumed. She's going to become another man's wife. We say, well, that doesn't seem... She's going to starve to death if she doesn't become another man's wife. Brethren, this wasn't the day and age of welfare. This wasn't the day and age where, you know, there was all kinds of options to, you know, the woman, you know, I am woman, hear me roar. I can go do whatever I want. No, she would necessarily get remarried. Now notice, she has departed from his house. She goes and becomes another man's wife if the latter husband detests her. This is husband number two. Husband number one wrote her the certificate of divorce, sent her out. She then marries husband number two. She goes and becomes another man's wife. If the latter husband, husband number two, detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, it might be a good time for her to reflect on her life, character, and conduct for one thing, but he puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house. Or if the latter husband dies, who took her as his wife, then. So you've got what's called a protesis, the if section in a clause. That's verses one to three. And then you have the apotheosis, which is the then section in verse four. Here's the specification. Here's the stipulation in Deuteronomy 24. Then her former husband, husband number one, who divorced her, must not take her back. That's the prohibition there. It's a blanket prohibition against remarriage, which these permanence guys, for some reason, use or invoke this passage to teach that it does mitigate against remarriage. No, the text assumes remarriage. The text prohibits marriage to number one after she's been defiled by number two. That's the only thing going on in Deuteronomy 24. So what Matthew 19 or Jesus teaches in Matthew 19 verses 1 to I think it's 10 is exactly consistent with what we find here in Exodus chapter 24. So going back to our passage, divorce is a bad thing. The church apes the world in many regards with reference to that. The numbers are atrocious. The numbers are high. But in our zeal to protect the institution of marriage, let's not mitigate the very thing that God has built in to his law to help protect innocent parties. There are innocent parties in marriage. Are they duty bound forever to be miserable? Is their life just, you know, horror and pain and destruction? Well, if that person is guilty of sexual immorality or desertion, then the innocent party can sue out for divorce. So when we go back to Leviticus 21, this is a passage, at least by implication, that indicates there were divorced women in Old Covenant Israel and non-priests married those divorced women. So back to the text, notice the exhortation in verse 8. You'll find that along the way. He gives a block of teaching, God through Moses, and then gives exhortation. Typically, it's be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy. And that's precisely what you have in verse 8. Therefore, you shall consecrate him, for he offers the bread of your God. He shall be holy to you, for I, the Lord, who sanctify you, am holy. And then notice, in his household, it's not just his marriage partner. It's not just his wife and the fidelity that she must bear, but it's also the conduct of his children. And in verse nine, it's the conduct of his daughter. Kind of helps you understand first Timothy chapter three, right? Paul's not doing something brand new when he's giving this list of qualifications for elders and deacons. Well, you know, it might be a good idea for him to have only one wife. It might be a good idea for him to keep his children under control. It might be a good idea for him to be able to take care of his own house or manage his own house, because if he can't manage his own house, how is he going to steward the very house of God? So what we have here is that the man who is chief among his people, that's to be holy, that's to be a leader, that's to be a teacher, that's to be one that brings the people of God into the presence of God. He needs to be upright and godly. So verse nine, the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father. She shall be burned with fire. Now we read passages like these and probably we recoil in horror. We think, wow, that's just terrible. Remember, this is a published law. God is telling the people of Israel what is required of them. In other words, if this girl hears this and goes out and plays the harlot, she's going to get punished, but she can't say, well, I just didn't know. This was an authoritarian in some sense totalitarian, because it was theocratic nation. And what God said was what God said. And you didn't mess around. And so the emphasis here is on the priest and his family. There must be conduct that is consistent with God's law. And I think the two sections balance out as well in another sense. All the children of Israel, all the men in Israel should have aspired to be godly like the priests in Israel, right? Just like in the new covenant church, all the men in the church should aspire to be what Paul describes there in chapter three in first Timothy one to seven in terms of virtues consistent with the man of God. Everybody should, right? I mean, that's what we want as Christians. We want to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. We want to put on virtue. We want to put to death vice. But with reference to the priest in the Old Testament and the elder in the New Testament, there must be some demonstrated faithfulness in this regard. He doesn't have that. If a man married a harlot, if a man married a divorced woman or a man married a woman that was defiled, then he was not fit. He was not qualified. And so this emphasis is God's with reference to the purity of the office. Now, not perfection of the office. Here, cleanliness, non-defilement, non-profaneness, but rather a holiness and a fitness for service in the holy place. That brings us secondly to the restrictions for the high priest. Essentially the same. Notice the identification in verse 10. He who is the high priest among his brethren, on whose head the anointing oil was poured and who is consecrated to wear the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor tear his clothes, nor shall he go near any dead body, nor devile himself for his father or his mother. So again, what was okay with reference to the ordinary priest is a no-no with reference to the high priest. Why? A greater degree of responsibility. In fact, you notice that there specifically in verse 12, nor shall he go out of the sanctuary. I don't think that meant ever. He can't ever go out of the sanctuary. But when he was consecrated and earlier passages in the book of Leviticus indicated this once the priest was consecrated once he was quote unquote on duty he was supposed to stick with it Again in chapter 10 Nadab and Abihu are killed by God for having offered up profane fire before the Lord. God doesn't say, well, go ahead and suspend worship. Everybody go home and, you know, sort of investigate your own heart, repent. No, God says, drag the bodies out and keep on worshiping. Keep on going. In other words, we are engaged in holy business here and that holy business continues. So the emphasis for the high priest, he shall, he shall, nor shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God, probably in relation to the funeral of his father and his mother for the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him. I am the Lord. And then the same sort of emphasis with reference to his marriage, but he is not given the authorization to marry a widow. He shall take a wife in her virginity, a widow or a divorced woman or a defiled woman or a harlot. These he shall not marry, but he shall take a virgin of his own people as wife, nor shall he profane his posterity among the people for I, the Lord, sanctify him. How has this priestly mantle passed through progeny, through seed, through babies, right? And I think Robert Alter is, again, absolutely right when he says the priest has to marry a virgin to ensure the purity of the priestly line. This is crucial. If he doesn't do this, then he is going to profane his posterity among his people, for I, the Lord, sanctify him. Again, when we read through some of these Old Testament passages, we don't spend any time thinking through them, we think, wow, that seems so odd. That seems so strange. But once we start to understand it in a larger context, we say, well, God actually took care of all the details to make sure that these people didn't run astray, to make sure they didn't compromise the priestly line, to make sure that they were able to maintain the cult. And then that brings us, thirdly, to the physical impediments to priestly service. Now, again, if you're squeamish, this is going to be a bit hardcore because God says you can't do it. Sorry. If you got a defect, you're not going to serve. You can eat, but you can't serve. That's the emphasis in verses 16 to 24. Note the general statement in verses 16 and 17. The Lord spoke to Moses saying, it's almost like he punctuates the narrative with that. So we understand that this isn't Moses coming up with some odd duck views that is going to bind the people of God and cause them to have hard feelings because somebody's got a gimped hand or a gimped foot. Moses is against me. He's got, you know, whatever issue. He's offended me. No, it's God who makes the stipulation of the commandment. So the Lord spoke to Moses saying, speak to Aaron, saying, no man of your descendants in succeeding generations who has any defect may approach to offer the bread of his God. Now, it's interesting that up until this point a couple of times already, the bread of his God. That feeds into the first section in chapter 22, which deals with the eating of the priest's food. Remember, the priests were not given a tribal allotment of land. They didn't go out and farm. They didn't have livestock. How did they live? They lived based on sacrifices and tithes. And so when it gets to the priests and their eating habits, it's not to micromanage them and, you know, to look at them and all of their, you know, weird details, but they were given from God specific things for the sustenance of life. And so that bread is what's dealt with in chapter 22. But here specifically, notice again, speak to Aaron, no man of your descendants and succeeding generations who has any defect may approach to offer the bread of his God. Again, Robert Alter, very good section, very good comments on this particular section. He says the underlying notion, however objectionable to modern sensibilities. Don't miss that because let's just read the list. Verse 18, for any man who has a defect shall not approach. A man blind or lame who has a marred face or any limb too long. A man who has a broken foot or broken hand. Now you might think, well, that would just heal and go right back to normal. Yeah, in 21st century North America, but back then it was quite possible that you'd get healed, but you'd have a gimp. You'd have something wrong with you. There would be some defect. Again, this is God's comments. Verse 19, a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema, or scab, or is a eunuch. No man of the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a defect shall come near to offer the offerings made by fire to the Lord. He has a defect. He shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. So back to altar. He says the underlying notion, however objectionable to modern sensibilities, is one shared by many ancient religions. Just as the animal offered and sacrificed must be unblemished. Guess how the section ends in chapter 22? On unblemished animals, right? We're coming to the thrice holy God. That means you get the guy that doesn't have the defect and you get the animal that doesn't have the defect. When you read, say, for instance, second or first Kings or Chronicles at the building of the temple and Solomon pours all of this gold and wealth into the building of the temple. What's the rationale? The Lord, our God is great among all the gods. In other words, we're not going to put Yahweh in a shack. We're going to put Yahweh in the very best. We're going to make gold hinges on his temple. So the fact that our God is so glorious, that God demands a defectless man and a defectless animal in order to sacrifice unto him. So back to altar. Just as the animal offered in sacrifice must be unblemished, the officiant offering the sacrifice must be without physical blemish. Gordon Wenham makes the observation, the idea emerges that holiness finds physical expression in wholeness and normality. Probably much of the laws concerning clean and unclean animals are at the level of wholeness and normality, things that are normal. That's what is good and acceptable to God. And then Matthew Poole makes, I think, a very fine observation here. He says, the reason hereof, the reason why a man with a defect can't offer sacrifice to the Lord, the reason hereof is partly typical. And he's going to foreshadow what I'm going to end with. This is all about Christ. Christ is the perfect priest and the perfect victim. Christ is the perfect priest and the perfect victim. You have to see Christ in chapters 21 and 22, because this is prefigurement. This is typical. This is pointing us to the Lord Jesus. So Poole says the reason hereof is partly typical, that he might more fully represent Christ, the great high priest who was typified both by the priest and sacrifice, and therefore both were to be without blemish. And then he says it's partly moral to teach all Christians, and especially ministers of holy things, what purity and perfection of heart and life they should labor after. And that notorious blemishes in the mind or conversation render a man unfit for the ministry of the gospel. And then he says, and partly prudential, in other words, wise, partly wise. Well, why is that? He says, because such blemishes were apt to breed contempt of the person and consequently of his function and of the holy things wherein he ministered. In other words, there's a good reason why you don't have somebody with physical defects, because it might be something that is a distraction. It might be something that hinders him from engaging in priestly function. And so there's a typical aspect, the moral aspect, and then this prudential or wisdom aspect. But then notice, God's not saying because you're a dwarf or because you've got eczema or because you've got a hunchback, you're a horrible person. No, you're just not fit to offer sacrifice. You're not fit to render service to the Lord, but you're still okay to eat if it's your right as a priest to eat. And that's the specification in verse 22. He may eat the bread of his God, both the most holy and the holy. He's not being punished. He's not being called a sinner. He's not being called bad because he's a hunchback. He's simply being told he can't function in the capacity of serving the Lord and the cult because he's a hunchback. But in terms of eating, go ahead. It's your right. It's your perk. It's something that you have coming to you. As Gill says, for though their natural infirmities disqualified them for service, yet they did not become hereby impure, either in a moral or ceremonial sense, and might eat up the sacrifices, which impure persons might not. And later on in the food thing, we're going to see an impure priest without a hunchback could nevertheless not eat because he was impure. So this man that has got the defect or the impediment to service in the sanctuary, he's not being called bad. He's not being called sinner. He's not being called impure. He is simply being limited in terms of his capacity with reference to the service of the Lord. And that's how it ends. Verse 23, only he shall not go near the veil or approach the altar because he has a defect. Lest he profane my sanctuaries, for I, the Lord, sanctify them. And Moses told it to Aaron and his sons and to all the children of Israel. And then that brings us to the restrictions concerning priestly food. The priest might contract defilement. And in that case, he's not supposed to participate until such time as he's clean again. Something similar that you find with reference to the ordinary Israelite. But it's also something that applies to the priest. And the priest is sustained by what God has given or provided through the goodness and the freewill offerings of the people, the sacrifices, and then as well from the tithes. So the problem of uncleanness is what is being spoken to in verses two and three. So notice in verse two, speak to Aaron and his sons that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel and that they do not profane my holy name by what they dedicate to me. This separation from the holy things dedicated by the Israelite is sacrifice, sacrificial food. So the prohibition of verse 2 is connected very intimately to verse 3. In other words, the prohibition of the reason why they're to separate, according to verse 2, it's predicated in verse 3. say to them, whoever of all your descendants throughout your generations, who goes near the holy things, which the children of Israel dedicate to the Lord, while he has uncleanness upon him, that person shall be cut off from my presence. I am the Lord. So if the priest is on unclean or the priest is defiled, he's not supposed to go near those holy things dedicated by the sacrificer to Yahweh. He's got to get clean. He's got to be undefiled before he can participate. Let's say, for instance, in the peace offering. Remember when the worshiper came, he cut the throat of his animal, he gave it to the priest, the priest offered it up to the Lord, saved a portion, and then priest and worshiper ate that together. But if the priest was defiled or unclean, he wasn't supposed to. That's the emphasis there in verse 3. And then the types of uncleanness are given in verses 4 to 8. Stuff we have seen in previous chapters. Leprosy, discharges, touching something unclean by a corpse. uncleanness due to a semen emission, touching, creeping things and touching a person who is unclean. So that's verses four to seven. So if a man has that defilement, then that man is to separate himself from the holy things dedicated by the children of the Lord to the Lord God most high. He is defiled and therefore he is not to participate in that food at this point. He's authorized to eat when he's clean. Notice in verse seven, when the sun goes down, he shall be clean. And afterward he may eat the holy offerings because it is his food. And then this prohibition has come up several times and will come up more later. Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself with it. I am the Lord. And then in verse nine, another exhortation. And then that brings us to his family who gets to eat along with them. Again, he doesn't have a piece of land. He doesn't have a flock. He doesn't have her. He doesn't have all that. So how does he eat? He eats based on sacrifice and tithe. How do those closest to him eat? They eat based on sacrifice and tithe, but they must be permitted. They must be authorized. They must be in his inner circle The idea being if they not then they not participating in those sacrifices and in those tithes So it wasn just for the priest The priest was as it were making a living for himself and for his family, those closest to him. Notice the prohibition in verse 10. No outsider shall eat the holy offering. One who dwells with the priest or hired servant shall not eat the holy thing. The marginal reading here is good as a visitor. Somebody visiting, somebody that is transient, somebody that is not part of the priest's household, is not entitled to eat the priest's food. But then it goes on to specify who it is that can. Specifically, notice in verse 11, his slave can. If the priest buys a person with his money, he may eat it. And one who is born in his house may eat his food. If the priest's daughter is buried to an outsider, she may not eat of the holy offerings. Why? Because she's got a sugar daddy. She's got a husband. She's got a pantry. She's got access to flocks. She's got access to land. She doesn't need her daddy's food because she's got a man. But notice in verse 13, if the priest's daughter is a widow or divorced and has no child and has returned to her father's house as in her youth, she may eat her father's food, but no outsider shall eat it. So you see, it's rules governing the conduct of the priests in their ordinary lives. Things like food, things like how do we divvy it up? How do we function? This is the holiness code. This separates not only priests and people, it separates priests and people from the heathen and the pagan around them. And then again, verse 14, if a man eats the holy offering unintentionally, the visitor actually does take something off the priest's table, then he shall restore a holy offering to the priest and add one-fifth to it. They shall not profane the holy offerings of the children of Israel, which they offer to the Lord, or allow them to bear the guilt of trespass when they eat their holy offerings. For I, the Lord, sanctify them. And then the last section, physical impediments with reference to sacrificial animals. Again, we've been prepared for this. We should already expect something like this. But there's a requirement, verses 17 to 19. The requirement is, is the worshiper brings an animal specified by God for the particular offense in view. The list of sacrifices are covered in chapters one to six. It is detailed. It is it is very, very well explained. And so 17 to 19 basically encapsulates that when a man brings an offering, he brings it of his own free will to do his bit with reference to the service of God. And then notice when he does that, he's to bring a specific type of animal. And again, Alter says the list of deformities for the animals unfit for the cult parallels the list of deformities for priests unfit for the cult in the previous chapter. You don't want defects in your priests. You don't want defects in your animals. And so as we read through this list, it's nothing that should surprise us. You want the animal that's the best in the flock. And one of the best commentaries or at least a commentary on a straying from this principle is in the prophet Malachi. God through Malachi upbraids the children of Israel. Why? Because they brought the worst sacrifice. They brought the lame. They brought the maimed. They brought the one that limped or that hobbled. Why? Because the good ones would fetch more money for that, or the good ones would serve better in their own farm. And so they'd bring the worst to the Lord. And so God through Malachi upbraids them for that conduct or activity. He says, give this kind of offering to your earthly governor and see if he'd be impressed with it. Try to pay your taxes to the Persians with some mangy animal and see how they're going to approve of that. And then toward the end of chapter one, God through Malachi upbraids them for even stealing sacrifices. So when it comes to sacrifice, what we give to God says something about our view of God. If we bring the lamed or we bring the maimed or we bring the mangy or we steal one on the way, that indicates that we really don't esteem God. We don't really revere God. So we don't want defects in the animals that we bring to the Lord. And that's the specification there, specifically in verses 20 to 25. Now, verse 27 is interesting. Well, 27 to 30. I don't know. Honestly, there's a lot of answers given. I don't know that any of them are satisfying. Notice in verse 27, when a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall be seven days with its mother. And from the eighth day and thereafter, it shall be accepted as an offering made by fire to the Lord. Some suggest it's a humanitarian thing. Not even for a little bit. Is it a humanitarian thing? The eighth day, you're killing it. So you let it live for seven days and you're the champion of humanity. The eighth day, you kill it. That's okay. I don't know. Some say there's some sort of conservational element involved, not environmentalism, but respect for God's creation. I think that's probably the view that has the most merit because you've got other passages throughout the Pentateuch that shows some regard on the part of the worshiper or on the part of the Israelite to respect God's created order, not just to devastate it and decimate it. but with reference to that, it's a tough one. And then verse 28, whether it is a cow or you do not kill both her and her young on the same day. Again, that can't be humanitarian. You kill her and then you kill her young the next day. You're not a champion of humanitarianism. And when you offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Lord, offer it of your own free will. On the same day, it shall be eaten. You shall leave none of it until morning. I am the Lord. And then 31 to 33, basically again, summarizes the authority behind the commands. And here God reminds them once again, as he does so frequently, that it's he that brought them out of the land of Egypt, that he was the one that redeemed them. He brought them into this land. In other words, theologically, and I know that this isn't a strict parallel, but it certainly is a parallel to some degree. You've got God's justifying grace, bringing them out of bondage into this particular place. and then the emphasis on how then they ought to live in light of their redeemed status. Now, in conclusion, as I've already mentioned, we see here the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. You can leave your pen or pencil or whatever there and look at Hebrews chapter 7. Hebrews chapter 7 celebrates the high priestly office of our Lord Jesus Christ. And one of the things it does is underscores his perfection over and against the Levitical priesthood, the sons of Aaron. And notice in chapter 7 at verse 23, also there were many priests because they were prevented by death from continuing. This is a great argument right here, the eternality of Christ. The reality that he continues forever solidifies him as a more excellent priest than they. But he, because he continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore, he is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. But then notice the emphasis on his perfection for such a high priest was fitting for us who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners. Everything we just read there in Leviticus chapters 21 and 22, that was necessary for the priest of Israel in that old covenant, that which was necessary was never attained. The priest never got to that place. He never got that status of holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners. That was always the standard. That was always the expectation. But there was a built-in mechanism for uncleanness, a built-in mechanism for defilement, a built-in mechanism for failure, because God knew he was dealing with failure men, but not so with Jesus. And then it says, who does not need daily as those high priests to offer up sacrifices first for his own sins and then for the people's. For this he did once for all when he offered up himself. So he's both priest and victim. He's both sacrificer and sacrifice. And in that, he is the antitype to what is specified in chapters 21 and chapter 22 of the book of Leviticus. He is the perfect priest and he is the perfect sacrifice. And he offers himself to the father for the sins of his people. A second observation is the superiority of the new covenant. Now that's not, you know, me just taking that shot at the old covenant. The old covenant was good. It functioned the way God intended it to. But if we had read previous in chapter seven and continued reading into chapter eight, we learned that the new covenant is a better covenant. It's founded on better promises and it affords a better hope. Well, what's one of the things you find in the new covenant? You don't see the exclusion of eunuchs. You see the inclusion of eunuchs. This is prophesied in Isaiah 56. Isaiah 56, there's a prophecy concerning the new covenant era, the messianic reign of our blessed savior. When the eunuch who at one time was a far off is now welcomed into the assembly of the Lord. And that is put to full application or brought to full application in that Ethiopian eunuch in the book of Acts, Acts chapter eight. That passage is significant for the salvation of the Ethiopian eunuch, but that passage is far more significant in terms of redemptive history and the reality that the new covenant era is upon us. Because at one time in the old covenant, eunuchs were kept out of the house of the Lord. But in this new covenant era, eunuchs are brought into the house of the Lord. And then Jesus in Luke's gospel talks about a great wedding feast. And he tells the servant to go and to call the main and to call the lame and to call the blind and to invite them to this great wedding feast. Brethren, read that with this background in mind. There were persons that were excluded from the near presence of God Most High for the defects that they bore in their body. In this new covenant era, Christ says to the servant to go and bid them to come. And then I've already mentioned or alluded to the qualifications for ministry. I figured this would be a heavy night. There's a lot of heavy stuff in here. I wanted to end on a bit of a lighter note with an extended quote from C.H. Spurgeon. I don't know that C.H. Spurgeon had Leviticus 21 in his mind. I wouldn't have any clue whatsoever. But he had at least some degree of application of the principle. Now, I'm not suggesting that this old covenant principle for priests is automatically parallel in the new covenant sort of qualifications for elders. But it's a humorous look at how he would look at men relative to gospel ministry. He says, physical infirmities raise a question about the call of some excellent men. I would not like Eusthenes' judgment by their features, but their general physique is no small criterion. The narrow chest does not indicate a man formed for public speech. You may think it odd, but still I feel very well assured that when a man has a contracted chest with no distance between his shoulders, the all-wise creator did not intend him habitually to preach. If he had meant him to speak, he would have given him in some measure breadth of chest, sufficient to yield a reasonable amount of lung force. When the Lord means a creature to run, he gives it nimble legs. and if he means another creature to preach, he will give it suitable lungs. A brother who has to pause in the middle of a sentence and work his air pump should ask himself whether there is not some other occupation for which he is better adapted. A man who can scarcely get through a sentence without pain can hardly be called to cry aloud and spare not. There may be exceptions, but is there not weight in the general rule? Brethren with defective mouths and imperfect articulation are not usually called to preach the gospel. The same applies to brethren with no palate or an imperfect one. Application was received some short time ago from a young man who had a sort of rotary action of his jaw of the most painful sort to the beholder. His pastor commended him as a very holy young man who had been the means of bringing some to Christ. And he expressed the hope that I would receive him. But I could not see the propriety of it. I could not have looked at him while preaching without laughter. If all the gold of Tarshish had been my reward. And in all probability, nine out of 10 of his hearers would have been more sensitive than myself. A man with a big tongue which filled up his mouth and caused indistinctness. Another without teeth. Another who stammered. Another who could not pronounce all the alphabet. I have had the pain of declining on the ground that God had not given them those physical appliances, which are, as the prayer book would put it, generally necessary. Anyways, I thought that was at least some degree far removed. but something of an application of the principle here in Leviticus 21. I'll pray and if there's any questions, we can take those. Our Father in heaven, thank you for your word. Thank you for Leviticus 21 and 22. The demand for a perfect priest and the demand for a perfect sacrifice is met by the Son of God. We rejoice in your loving kindness. We rejoice in the one that is holy, harmless and undefiled. The one who ever lives to make intercession for us. And that one who is able to save to the uttermost. all who draw nigh unto God through him. Lord, I pray that you would encourage our hearts as we view the Savior, as we see Christ, as we understand scripture, and may we grow in grace and in the knowledge.