Holy Food, Acceptable Offerings, and Reverence for the Lord's Holy Name

Lev 20:22-26 The list of punishments concludes, like the prohibitions in Lev 18:24. , with exhortations to observe the commandments and judgments of the Lord, and to avoid such abominations (on Lev 18:22 cf. Lev 18:3-5, Lev 18:26, Lev 18:28, Lev 18:30; and on Lev 18:23 cf. Lev 18:3 and Lev 18:24). The reason assigned for the exhortations is, that Jehovah was about to give them for a possession the fruitful land, whose inhabitants He had driven out because of their abominations, and that Jehovah was their God, who had separated Israel from the nations.

For this reason (Lev 18:25) they were also to sever (make distinctions) between clean and unclean cattle and birds, and not make their souls (i. e. , their persons) abominable through unclean animals, with which the earth swarmed, and which God had “ separated to make unclean, ” i. e. , had prohibited them from eating or touching when dead, because they defiled (see ch.

11). For (Lev 18:26) they were to be holy, because Jehovah their God was holy, who had severed them from the nations, to belong to Him, i. e. , to be the nation of His possession (see Exo 19:4-6).

Lev 20:22-26 The list of punishments concludes, like the prohibitions in Lev 18:24. , with exhortations to observe the commandments and judgments of the Lord, and to avoid such abominations (on Lev 18:22 cf. Lev 18:3-5, Lev 18:26, Lev 18:28, Lev 18:30; and on Lev 18:23 cf. Lev 18:3 and Lev 18:24). The reason assigned for the exhortations is, that Jehovah was about to give them for a possession the fruitful land, whose inhabitants He had driven out because of their abominations, and that Jehovah was their God, who had separated Israel from the nations.

For this reason (Lev 18:25) they were also to sever (make distinctions) between clean and unclean cattle and birds, and not make their souls (i. e. , their persons) abominable through unclean animals, with which the earth swarmed, and which God had “ separated to make unclean, ” i. e. , had prohibited them from eating or touching when dead, because they defiled (see ch.

11). For (Lev 18:26) they were to be holy, because Jehovah their God was holy, who had severed them from the nations, to belong to Him, i. e. , to be the nation of His possession (see Exo 19:4-6).

Lev 20:27 But because Israel was called to be the holy nation of Jehovah, every one, ether man or woman, in whom there was a heathenish spirit of soothsaying, was to be put to death, viz. , stoned (cf. Lev 19:31), to prevent defilement by idolatrous abominations. Holiness of the Priests, of the Holy Gifts, and of Sacrifices - Leviticus 21-22 The Sanctification of the Priests.

- As the whole nation was to strive after sanctification in all the duties of life, on account of its calling as a nation of God, the priests, whom Jehovah had chosen out of the whole nation to be the custodians of His sanctuary, and had sanctified to that end, were above all to prove themselves the sanctified servants of the Lord in their domestic life and the duties of their calling. (1) They were not to defile themselves by touching the dead or by signs of mourning (Lev 21:1-6 and Lev 21:10-12); (2) they were to contract and maintain a spotless marriage (Lev 21:7-9 and Lev 21:13-15); and (3) those members of the priesthood who had any bodily failings were to keep away from the duties of the priests’ office (Lev 21:16-24).

Lev 21:1-6 The priest was not to defile himself on account of a soul, i. e. , a dead person ( nephesh , as in Lev 19:28), among his countrymen, unless it were of his kindred, who stood near to him (i. e. , in the closest relation to him), formed part of the same family with him (cf. Lev 21:3), such as his mother, father, son, daughter, brother, or a sister who was still living with him as a virgin and was not betrothed to a husband (cf.

Eze 44:25). As every corpse not only defiled the persons who touched it, but also the tent or dwelling in which the person had died (Num 19:11, Num 19:14); in the case of death among members of the family or household, defilement was not to be avoided on the part of the priest as the head of the family. It was therefore allowable for him to defile himself on account of such persons as these, and even to take part in their burial.

The words of Lev 21:4 are obscure: “ He shall not defile himself בּעמּיו בּעל, i. e. , as lord (pater-familias) among his countrymen, to desecrate himself;” and the early translators have wandered in uncertainty among different renderings. In all probability בּעל denotes the master of the house or husband. But, for all that, the explanation given by Knobel and others, “as a husband he shall not defile himself on the death of his wife, his mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, by taking part in their burial,” is decidedly to be rejected.

For, apart from the unwarrantable introduction of the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, there is sufficient to prevent our thinking of defilement on the death of a wife, in the fact that the wife is included in the “kin that is near unto him” in Lev 21:2, though not in the way that many Rabbins suppose, who maintain that שׁאר signifies wife, but implicite , the wife not being expressly mentioned, because man and wife form one flesh (Gen 2:24), and the wife stands nearer to the husband than father and mother, son and daughter, or brother and sister. Nothing is proved by appealing to the statement made by Plutarch , that the priests of the Romans were not allowed to defile themselves by touching the corpses of their wives; inasmuch as there is no trace of this custom to be found among the Israelites, and the Rabbins, for this very reason, suppose the death of an illegitimate wife to be intended.

The correct interpretation of the words can only be arrived at by considering the relation of the fourth verse to what precedes and follows. As Lev 21:1-3 stand in a very close relation to Lev 21:5 and Lev 21:6, - the defilement on account of a dead person being more particularly explained in the latter, or rather, strictly speaking, greater force being given to the prohibition, - it is natural to regard Lev 21:4 as standing in a similar relation to Lev 21:7, and to understand it as a general prohibition, which is still more clearly expounded in Lev 21:7 and Lev 21:9.

The priest was not to defile himself as a husband and the head of a household, either by marrying a wife of immoral or ambiguous reputation, or by training his children carelessly, so as to desecrate himself, i. e. , profane the holiness of his rank and office by either one or the other (cf. Lev 21:9 and Lev 21:15). - In Lev 21:5 desecration is forbidden in the event of a death occurring.

He was not to shave a bald place upon his head. According to the Chethib יקרחה is to be pointed with ה- attached, and the Keri יקרחוּ is a grammatical alteration to suit the plural suffix in בּראשׁם, which is obviously to be rejected on account of the parallel יגלּחוּ לא זקנם וּפאת. In both of the clauses there is a constructio ad sensum , the prohibition which is addressed to individuals being applicable to the whole: upon their head shall no one shave a bald place, namely, in front above the forehead, “between the eyes” (Deu 14:1).

We may infer from the context that reference is made to a customary mode of mourning for the dead; and this is placed beyond all doubt by Deu 14:1, where it is forbidden to all the Israelites “for the dead. ” According to Herodotus , 2, 36, the priests in Egypt were shaven, whereas in other places they wore their hair long. In other nations it was customary for those who were more immediately concerned to shave their heads as a sign of mourning; but the Egyptians let their hair grow both upon their head and chin when any of their relations were dead, whereas they shaved at other times.

The two other outward signs of mourning mentioned, namely, cutting off the edge of the beard and making incisions in the body, have already been forbidden in Lev 19:27-28, and the latter is repeated in Deu 14:1. The reason for the prohibition is given in Lev 21:6 - “ they shall be holy unto their God, ” and therefore not disfigure their head and body by signs of passionate grief, and so profane the name of their God when they offer the firings of Jehovah; that is to say, when they serve and approach the God who has manifested Himself to His people as the Holy One.

On the epithet applied to the sacrifices, “the food of God,” see at Lev 3:11 and Lev 3:16.

Lev 21:1-6 The priest was not to defile himself on account of a soul, i. e. , a dead person ( nephesh , as in Lev 19:28), among his countrymen, unless it were of his kindred, who stood near to him (i. e. , in the closest relation to him), formed part of the same family with him (cf. Lev 21:3), such as his mother, father, son, daughter, brother, or a sister who was still living with him as a virgin and was not betrothed to a husband (cf.

Eze 44:25). As every corpse not only defiled the persons who touched it, but also the tent or dwelling in which the person had died (Num 19:11, Num 19:14); in the case of death among members of the family or household, defilement was not to be avoided on the part of the priest as the head of the family. It was therefore allowable for him to defile himself on account of such persons as these, and even to take part in their burial.

The words of Lev 21:4 are obscure: “ He shall not defile himself בּעמּיו בּעל, i. e. , as lord (pater-familias) among his countrymen, to desecrate himself;” and the early translators have wandered in uncertainty among different renderings. In all probability בּעל denotes the master of the house or husband. But, for all that, the explanation given by Knobel and others, “as a husband he shall not defile himself on the death of his wife, his mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, by taking part in their burial,” is decidedly to be rejected.

For, apart from the unwarrantable introduction of the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, there is sufficient to prevent our thinking of defilement on the death of a wife, in the fact that the wife is included in the “kin that is near unto him” in Lev 21:2, though not in the way that many Rabbins suppose, who maintain that שׁאר signifies wife, but implicite , the wife not being expressly mentioned, because man and wife form one flesh (Gen 2:24), and the wife stands nearer to the husband than father and mother, son and daughter, or brother and sister. Nothing is proved by appealing to the statement made by Plutarch , that the priests of the Romans were not allowed to defile themselves by touching the corpses of their wives; inasmuch as there is no trace of this custom to be found among the Israelites, and the Rabbins, for this very reason, suppose the death of an illegitimate wife to be intended.

The correct interpretation of the words can only be arrived at by considering the relation of the fourth verse to what precedes and follows. As Lev 21:1-3 stand in a very close relation to Lev 21:5 and Lev 21:6, - the defilement on account of a dead person being more particularly explained in the latter, or rather, strictly speaking, greater force being given to the prohibition, - it is natural to regard Lev 21:4 as standing in a similar relation to Lev 21:7, and to understand it as a general prohibition, which is still more clearly expounded in Lev 21:7 and Lev 21:9.

The priest was not to defile himself as a husband and the head of a household, either by marrying a wife of immoral or ambiguous reputation, or by training his children carelessly, so as to desecrate himself, i. e. , profane the holiness of his rank and office by either one or the other (cf. Lev 21:9 and Lev 21:15). - In Lev 21:5 desecration is forbidden in the event of a death occurring.

He was not to shave a bald place upon his head. According to the Chethib יקרחה is to be pointed with ה- attached, and the Keri יקרחוּ is a grammatical alteration to suit the plural suffix in בּראשׁם, which is obviously to be rejected on account of the parallel יגלּחוּ לא זקנם וּפאת. In both of the clauses there is a constructio ad sensum , the prohibition which is addressed to individuals being applicable to the whole: upon their head shall no one shave a bald place, namely, in front above the forehead, “between the eyes” (Deu 14:1).

We may infer from the context that reference is made to a customary mode of mourning for the dead; and this is placed beyond all doubt by Deu 14:1, where it is forbidden to all the Israelites “for the dead. ” According to Herodotus , 2, 36, the priests in Egypt were shaven, whereas in other places they wore their hair long. In other nations it was customary for those who were more immediately concerned to shave their heads as a sign of mourning; but the Egyptians let their hair grow both upon their head and chin when any of their relations were dead, whereas they shaved at other times.

The two other outward signs of mourning mentioned, namely, cutting off the edge of the beard and making incisions in the body, have already been forbidden in Lev 19:27-28, and the latter is repeated in Deu 14:1. The reason for the prohibition is given in Lev 21:6 - “ they shall be holy unto their God, ” and therefore not disfigure their head and body by signs of passionate grief, and so profane the name of their God when they offer the firings of Jehovah; that is to say, when they serve and approach the God who has manifested Himself to His people as the Holy One.

On the epithet applied to the sacrifices, “the food of God,” see at Lev 3:11 and Lev 3:16.

Lev 21:1-6 The priest was not to defile himself on account of a soul, i. e. , a dead person ( nephesh , as in Lev 19:28), among his countrymen, unless it were of his kindred, who stood near to him (i. e. , in the closest relation to him), formed part of the same family with him (cf. Lev 21:3), such as his mother, father, son, daughter, brother, or a sister who was still living with him as a virgin and was not betrothed to a husband (cf.

Eze 44:25). As every corpse not only defiled the persons who touched it, but also the tent or dwelling in which the person had died (Num 19:11, Num 19:14); in the case of death among members of the family or household, defilement was not to be avoided on the part of the priest as the head of the family. It was therefore allowable for him to defile himself on account of such persons as these, and even to take part in their burial.

The words of Lev 21:4 are obscure: “ He shall not defile himself בּעמּיו בּעל, i. e. , as lord (pater-familias) among his countrymen, to desecrate himself;” and the early translators have wandered in uncertainty among different renderings. In all probability בּעל denotes the master of the house or husband. But, for all that, the explanation given by Knobel and others, “as a husband he shall not defile himself on the death of his wife, his mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, by taking part in their burial,” is decidedly to be rejected.

For, apart from the unwarrantable introduction of the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, there is sufficient to prevent our thinking of defilement on the death of a wife, in the fact that the wife is included in the “kin that is near unto him” in Lev 21:2, though not in the way that many Rabbins suppose, who maintain that שׁאר signifies wife, but implicite , the wife not being expressly mentioned, because man and wife form one flesh (Gen 2:24), and the wife stands nearer to the husband than father and mother, son and daughter, or brother and sister. Nothing is proved by appealing to the statement made by Plutarch , that the priests of the Romans were not allowed to defile themselves by touching the corpses of their wives; inasmuch as there is no trace of this custom to be found among the Israelites, and the Rabbins, for this very reason, suppose the death of an illegitimate wife to be intended.

The correct interpretation of the words can only be arrived at by considering the relation of the fourth verse to what precedes and follows. As Lev 21:1-3 stand in a very close relation to Lev 21:5 and Lev 21:6, - the defilement on account of a dead person being more particularly explained in the latter, or rather, strictly speaking, greater force being given to the prohibition, - it is natural to regard Lev 21:4 as standing in a similar relation to Lev 21:7, and to understand it as a general prohibition, which is still more clearly expounded in Lev 21:7 and Lev 21:9.

The priest was not to defile himself as a husband and the head of a household, either by marrying a wife of immoral or ambiguous reputation, or by training his children carelessly, so as to desecrate himself, i. e. , profane the holiness of his rank and office by either one or the other (cf. Lev 21:9 and Lev 21:15). - In Lev 21:5 desecration is forbidden in the event of a death occurring.

He was not to shave a bald place upon his head. According to the Chethib יקרחה is to be pointed with ה- attached, and the Keri יקרחוּ is a grammatical alteration to suit the plural suffix in בּראשׁם, which is obviously to be rejected on account of the parallel יגלּחוּ לא זקנם וּפאת. In both of the clauses there is a constructio ad sensum , the prohibition which is addressed to individuals being applicable to the whole: upon their head shall no one shave a bald place, namely, in front above the forehead, “between the eyes” (Deu 14:1).

We may infer from the context that reference is made to a customary mode of mourning for the dead; and this is placed beyond all doubt by Deu 14:1, where it is forbidden to all the Israelites “for the dead. ” According to Herodotus , 2, 36, the priests in Egypt were shaven, whereas in other places they wore their hair long. In other nations it was customary for those who were more immediately concerned to shave their heads as a sign of mourning; but the Egyptians let their hair grow both upon their head and chin when any of their relations were dead, whereas they shaved at other times.

The two other outward signs of mourning mentioned, namely, cutting off the edge of the beard and making incisions in the body, have already been forbidden in Lev 19:27-28, and the latter is repeated in Deu 14:1. The reason for the prohibition is given in Lev 21:6 - “ they shall be holy unto their God, ” and therefore not disfigure their head and body by signs of passionate grief, and so profane the name of their God when they offer the firings of Jehovah; that is to say, when they serve and approach the God who has manifested Himself to His people as the Holy One.

On the epithet applied to the sacrifices, “the food of God,” see at Lev 3:11 and Lev 3:16.

Lev 21:1-6 The priest was not to defile himself on account of a soul, i. e. , a dead person ( nephesh , as in Lev 19:28), among his countrymen, unless it were of his kindred, who stood near to him (i. e. , in the closest relation to him), formed part of the same family with him (cf. Lev 21:3), such as his mother, father, son, daughter, brother, or a sister who was still living with him as a virgin and was not betrothed to a husband (cf.

Eze 44:25). As every corpse not only defiled the persons who touched it, but also the tent or dwelling in which the person had died (Num 19:11, Num 19:14); in the case of death among members of the family or household, defilement was not to be avoided on the part of the priest as the head of the family. It was therefore allowable for him to defile himself on account of such persons as these, and even to take part in their burial.

The words of Lev 21:4 are obscure: “ He shall not defile himself בּעמּיו בּעל, i. e. , as lord (pater-familias) among his countrymen, to desecrate himself;” and the early translators have wandered in uncertainty among different renderings. In all probability בּעל denotes the master of the house or husband. But, for all that, the explanation given by Knobel and others, “as a husband he shall not defile himself on the death of his wife, his mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, by taking part in their burial,” is decidedly to be rejected.

For, apart from the unwarrantable introduction of the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, there is sufficient to prevent our thinking of defilement on the death of a wife, in the fact that the wife is included in the “kin that is near unto him” in Lev 21:2, though not in the way that many Rabbins suppose, who maintain that שׁאר signifies wife, but implicite , the wife not being expressly mentioned, because man and wife form one flesh (Gen 2:24), and the wife stands nearer to the husband than father and mother, son and daughter, or brother and sister. Nothing is proved by appealing to the statement made by Plutarch , that the priests of the Romans were not allowed to defile themselves by touching the corpses of their wives; inasmuch as there is no trace of this custom to be found among the Israelites, and the Rabbins, for this very reason, suppose the death of an illegitimate wife to be intended.

The correct interpretation of the words can only be arrived at by considering the relation of the fourth verse to what precedes and follows. As Lev 21:1-3 stand in a very close relation to Lev 21:5 and Lev 21:6, - the defilement on account of a dead person being more particularly explained in the latter, or rather, strictly speaking, greater force being given to the prohibition, - it is natural to regard Lev 21:4 as standing in a similar relation to Lev 21:7, and to understand it as a general prohibition, which is still more clearly expounded in Lev 21:7 and Lev 21:9.

The priest was not to defile himself as a husband and the head of a household, either by marrying a wife of immoral or ambiguous reputation, or by training his children carelessly, so as to desecrate himself, i. e. , profane the holiness of his rank and office by either one or the other (cf. Lev 21:9 and Lev 21:15). - In Lev 21:5 desecration is forbidden in the event of a death occurring.

He was not to shave a bald place upon his head. According to the Chethib יקרחה is to be pointed with ה- attached, and the Keri יקרחוּ is a grammatical alteration to suit the plural suffix in בּראשׁם, which is obviously to be rejected on account of the parallel יגלּחוּ לא זקנם וּפאת. In both of the clauses there is a constructio ad sensum , the prohibition which is addressed to individuals being applicable to the whole: upon their head shall no one shave a bald place, namely, in front above the forehead, “between the eyes” (Deu 14:1).

We may infer from the context that reference is made to a customary mode of mourning for the dead; and this is placed beyond all doubt by Deu 14:1, where it is forbidden to all the Israelites “for the dead. ” According to Herodotus , 2, 36, the priests in Egypt were shaven, whereas in other places they wore their hair long. In other nations it was customary for those who were more immediately concerned to shave their heads as a sign of mourning; but the Egyptians let their hair grow both upon their head and chin when any of their relations were dead, whereas they shaved at other times.

The two other outward signs of mourning mentioned, namely, cutting off the edge of the beard and making incisions in the body, have already been forbidden in Lev 19:27-28, and the latter is repeated in Deu 14:1. The reason for the prohibition is given in Lev 21:6 - “ they shall be holy unto their God, ” and therefore not disfigure their head and body by signs of passionate grief, and so profane the name of their God when they offer the firings of Jehovah; that is to say, when they serve and approach the God who has manifested Himself to His people as the Holy One.

On the epithet applied to the sacrifices, “the food of God,” see at Lev 3:11 and Lev 3:16.

Lev 21:1-6 The priest was not to defile himself on account of a soul, i. e. , a dead person ( nephesh , as in Lev 19:28), among his countrymen, unless it were of his kindred, who stood near to him (i. e. , in the closest relation to him), formed part of the same family with him (cf. Lev 21:3), such as his mother, father, son, daughter, brother, or a sister who was still living with him as a virgin and was not betrothed to a husband (cf.

Eze 44:25). As every corpse not only defiled the persons who touched it, but also the tent or dwelling in which the person had died (Num 19:11, Num 19:14); in the case of death among members of the family or household, defilement was not to be avoided on the part of the priest as the head of the family. It was therefore allowable for him to defile himself on account of such persons as these, and even to take part in their burial.

The words of Lev 21:4 are obscure: “ He shall not defile himself בּעמּיו בּעל, i. e. , as lord (pater-familias) among his countrymen, to desecrate himself;” and the early translators have wandered in uncertainty among different renderings. In all probability בּעל denotes the master of the house or husband. But, for all that, the explanation given by Knobel and others, “as a husband he shall not defile himself on the death of his wife, his mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, by taking part in their burial,” is decidedly to be rejected.

For, apart from the unwarrantable introduction of the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, there is sufficient to prevent our thinking of defilement on the death of a wife, in the fact that the wife is included in the “kin that is near unto him” in Lev 21:2, though not in the way that many Rabbins suppose, who maintain that שׁאר signifies wife, but implicite , the wife not being expressly mentioned, because man and wife form one flesh (Gen 2:24), and the wife stands nearer to the husband than father and mother, son and daughter, or brother and sister. Nothing is proved by appealing to the statement made by Plutarch , that the priests of the Romans were not allowed to defile themselves by touching the corpses of their wives; inasmuch as there is no trace of this custom to be found among the Israelites, and the Rabbins, for this very reason, suppose the death of an illegitimate wife to be intended.

The correct interpretation of the words can only be arrived at by considering the relation of the fourth verse to what precedes and follows. As Lev 21:1-3 stand in a very close relation to Lev 21:5 and Lev 21:6, - the defilement on account of a dead person being more particularly explained in the latter, or rather, strictly speaking, greater force being given to the prohibition, - it is natural to regard Lev 21:4 as standing in a similar relation to Lev 21:7, and to understand it as a general prohibition, which is still more clearly expounded in Lev 21:7 and Lev 21:9.

The priest was not to defile himself as a husband and the head of a household, either by marrying a wife of immoral or ambiguous reputation, or by training his children carelessly, so as to desecrate himself, i. e. , profane the holiness of his rank and office by either one or the other (cf. Lev 21:9 and Lev 21:15). - In Lev 21:5 desecration is forbidden in the event of a death occurring.

He was not to shave a bald place upon his head. According to the Chethib יקרחה is to be pointed with ה- attached, and the Keri יקרחוּ is a grammatical alteration to suit the plural suffix in בּראשׁם, which is obviously to be rejected on account of the parallel יגלּחוּ לא זקנם וּפאת. In both of the clauses there is a constructio ad sensum , the prohibition which is addressed to individuals being applicable to the whole: upon their head shall no one shave a bald place, namely, in front above the forehead, “between the eyes” (Deu 14:1).

We may infer from the context that reference is made to a customary mode of mourning for the dead; and this is placed beyond all doubt by Deu 14:1, where it is forbidden to all the Israelites “for the dead. ” According to Herodotus , 2, 36, the priests in Egypt were shaven, whereas in other places they wore their hair long. In other nations it was customary for those who were more immediately concerned to shave their heads as a sign of mourning; but the Egyptians let their hair grow both upon their head and chin when any of their relations were dead, whereas they shaved at other times.

The two other outward signs of mourning mentioned, namely, cutting off the edge of the beard and making incisions in the body, have already been forbidden in Lev 19:27-28, and the latter is repeated in Deu 14:1. The reason for the prohibition is given in Lev 21:6 - “ they shall be holy unto their God, ” and therefore not disfigure their head and body by signs of passionate grief, and so profane the name of their God when they offer the firings of Jehovah; that is to say, when they serve and approach the God who has manifested Himself to His people as the Holy One.

On the epithet applied to the sacrifices, “the food of God,” see at Lev 3:11 and Lev 3:16.

Lev 21:1-6 The priest was not to defile himself on account of a soul, i. e. , a dead person ( nephesh , as in Lev 19:28), among his countrymen, unless it were of his kindred, who stood near to him (i. e. , in the closest relation to him), formed part of the same family with him (cf. Lev 21:3), such as his mother, father, son, daughter, brother, or a sister who was still living with him as a virgin and was not betrothed to a husband (cf.

Eze 44:25). As every corpse not only defiled the persons who touched it, but also the tent or dwelling in which the person had died (Num 19:11, Num 19:14); in the case of death among members of the family or household, defilement was not to be avoided on the part of the priest as the head of the family. It was therefore allowable for him to defile himself on account of such persons as these, and even to take part in their burial.

The words of Lev 21:4 are obscure: “ He shall not defile himself בּעמּיו בּעל, i. e. , as lord (pater-familias) among his countrymen, to desecrate himself;” and the early translators have wandered in uncertainty among different renderings. In all probability בּעל denotes the master of the house or husband. But, for all that, the explanation given by Knobel and others, “as a husband he shall not defile himself on the death of his wife, his mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, by taking part in their burial,” is decidedly to be rejected.

For, apart from the unwarrantable introduction of the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, there is sufficient to prevent our thinking of defilement on the death of a wife, in the fact that the wife is included in the “kin that is near unto him” in Lev 21:2, though not in the way that many Rabbins suppose, who maintain that שׁאר signifies wife, but implicite , the wife not being expressly mentioned, because man and wife form one flesh (Gen 2:24), and the wife stands nearer to the husband than father and mother, son and daughter, or brother and sister. Nothing is proved by appealing to the statement made by Plutarch , that the priests of the Romans were not allowed to defile themselves by touching the corpses of their wives; inasmuch as there is no trace of this custom to be found among the Israelites, and the Rabbins, for this very reason, suppose the death of an illegitimate wife to be intended.

The correct interpretation of the words can only be arrived at by considering the relation of the fourth verse to what precedes and follows. As Lev 21:1-3 stand in a very close relation to Lev 21:5 and Lev 21:6, - the defilement on account of a dead person being more particularly explained in the latter, or rather, strictly speaking, greater force being given to the prohibition, - it is natural to regard Lev 21:4 as standing in a similar relation to Lev 21:7, and to understand it as a general prohibition, which is still more clearly expounded in Lev 21:7 and Lev 21:9.

The priest was not to defile himself as a husband and the head of a household, either by marrying a wife of immoral or ambiguous reputation, or by training his children carelessly, so as to desecrate himself, i. e. , profane the holiness of his rank and office by either one or the other (cf. Lev 21:9 and Lev 21:15). - In Lev 21:5 desecration is forbidden in the event of a death occurring.

He was not to shave a bald place upon his head. According to the Chethib יקרחה is to be pointed with ה- attached, and the Keri יקרחוּ is a grammatical alteration to suit the plural suffix in בּראשׁם, which is obviously to be rejected on account of the parallel יגלּחוּ לא זקנם וּפאת. In both of the clauses there is a constructio ad sensum , the prohibition which is addressed to individuals being applicable to the whole: upon their head shall no one shave a bald place, namely, in front above the forehead, “between the eyes” (Deu 14:1).

We may infer from the context that reference is made to a customary mode of mourning for the dead; and this is placed beyond all doubt by Deu 14:1, where it is forbidden to all the Israelites “for the dead. ” According to Herodotus , 2, 36, the priests in Egypt were shaven, whereas in other places they wore their hair long. In other nations it was customary for those who were more immediately concerned to shave their heads as a sign of mourning; but the Egyptians let their hair grow both upon their head and chin when any of their relations were dead, whereas they shaved at other times.

The two other outward signs of mourning mentioned, namely, cutting off the edge of the beard and making incisions in the body, have already been forbidden in Lev 19:27-28, and the latter is repeated in Deu 14:1. The reason for the prohibition is given in Lev 21:6 - “ they shall be holy unto their God, ” and therefore not disfigure their head and body by signs of passionate grief, and so profane the name of their God when they offer the firings of Jehovah; that is to say, when they serve and approach the God who has manifested Himself to His people as the Holy One.

On the epithet applied to the sacrifices, “the food of God,” see at Lev 3:11 and Lev 3:16.

Lev 21:7 Their marriage and their domestic life were also to be in keeping with their holy calling. They were not to marry a whore (i. e. , a public prostitute), or a fallen woman, or a woman put away (divorced) from her husband, that is to say, any person of notoriously immoral life, for this would be irreconcilable with the holiness of the priesthood, but (as may be seen from this in comparison with Lev 21:14) only a virgin or widow of irreproachable character.

She need not be an Israelite, but might be the daughter of a stranger living among the Israelites; only she must not be an idolater or a Canaanite, for the Israelites were all forbidden to marry such a woman (Exo 34:16; Deu 7:3).

Lev 21:8 “ Thou shalt sanctify him therefore, ” that is to say, not merely “respect his holy dignity” ( Knobel ), but take care that he did not desecrate his office by a marriage so polluted. The Israelites as a nation are addressed in the persons of their chiefs. The second clause of the verse, “ he shall be holy unto thee, ” contains the same thought. The repetition strengthens the exhortation.

The reason assigned for the first clause is the same as in Lev 21:6; and that for the second, the same as in Lev 20:8, Lev 20:26; Exo 31:13, etc.

Lev 21:9 The priests’s family was also to lead a blameless life. If a priest’s daughter began to play the whore, she profaned her father, and was to be burned, i.e., to be stoned and then burned (see Lev 20:14). כּהן אישׁ, a man who is a priest, a priest-man.