The Lord's Appointed Times: Holy Time, Sacred Assembly, Harvest, Atonement, and Covenant Remembrance

Lev 21:10-12 The high priest was to maintain a spotless purity in a higher degree still. He, whose head had been anointed with oil, and who had been sanctified to put on the holy clothes (see Lev 8:7-12 and Lev 7:37), was not to go with his hair flying loose when a death had taken place, nor to rend his clothes (see Lev 10:6), nor to go in to any dead body (מת נפשׁת souls of a departed one, i.

e. , dead persons); he was not to defile himself (cf. Lev 21:2) on account of his father and mother (i. e. , when they were dead), nor to go out of the sanctuary funeris nempe causa ( Ros .) , to give way to his grief or attend the funeral. We are not to understand by this, however, that the sanctuary was to be his constant abode, as Bähr and Baumgarten maintain (cf.

Lev 10:7). “ Neither shall he profane the sanctuary of his God, ” sc. , by any defilement of his person which he could and ought to avoid; “ for the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him ” (cf. Lev 10:7), and defilement was incompatible with this. נזר does not mean the diadem of the high priest here, as in Exo 29:6; Exo 39:30, but consecration (see at Num 6:7).

Lev 21:10-12 The high priest was to maintain a spotless purity in a higher degree still. He, whose head had been anointed with oil, and who had been sanctified to put on the holy clothes (see Lev 8:7-12 and Lev 7:37), was not to go with his hair flying loose when a death had taken place, nor to rend his clothes (see Lev 10:6), nor to go in to any dead body (מת נפשׁת souls of a departed one, i.

e. , dead persons); he was not to defile himself (cf. Lev 21:2) on account of his father and mother (i. e. , when they were dead), nor to go out of the sanctuary funeris nempe causa ( Ros .) , to give way to his grief or attend the funeral. We are not to understand by this, however, that the sanctuary was to be his constant abode, as Bähr and Baumgarten maintain (cf.

Lev 10:7). “ Neither shall he profane the sanctuary of his God, ” sc. , by any defilement of his person which he could and ought to avoid; “ for the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him ” (cf. Lev 10:7), and defilement was incompatible with this. נזר does not mean the diadem of the high priest here, as in Exo 29:6; Exo 39:30, but consecration (see at Num 6:7).

Lev 21:13-14 He was only to marry a woman in her virginity, not a widow, a woman put away, or a fallen woman, a whore (זונה without a copulative is in apposition to חללה a fallen girl, who was to be the same to him as a whore), but “a virgin of his own people,” that is to say, only an Israelitish woman.

Lev 21:13-14 He was only to marry a woman in her virginity, not a widow, a woman put away, or a fallen woman, a whore (זונה without a copulative is in apposition to חללה a fallen girl, who was to be the same to him as a whore), but “a virgin of his own people,” that is to say, only an Israelitish woman.

Lev 21:15 “ Neither shall he profane his seed (posterity) among his people, ” sc., by contracting a marriage that was not in keeping with the holiness of his rank.

Lev 21:16-18 Directions for the sons (descendants) of Aaron who were afflicted with bodily imperfections. As the spiritual nature of a man is reflected in his bodily form, only a faultless condition of body could correspond to the holiness of the priest; just as the Greeks and Romans required, for the very same reason, that the priests should be ὁλόκληροι, integri corporis ( Plato de legg.

6, 759; Seneca excerpt. controv. 4, 2; Plutarch quaest. rom. 73). Consequently none of the descendants of Aaron, “according to their generations,” i. e. , in all future generations (see Exo 12:14), who had any blemish ( mum , μῶμος, bodily fault) were to approach the vail, i. e. , enter the holy place, or draw near to the altar (in the court) to offer the food of Jehovah, viz.

, the sacrifices. No blind man, or lame man, or charum , κολοβόριν (from κολοβός and ῥίν), naso mutilus (lxx), i. e. , one who had sustained any mutilation, especially in the face, on the nose, ears, lips, or eyes, not merely one who had a flat or stunted nose; or שׂרוּע, lit. , stretched out, i. e. , one who had anything beyond what was normal, an ill-formed bodily member therefore; so that a man who had more than ten fingers and ten toes might be so regarded (2Sa 21:20).

Lev 21:16-18 Directions for the sons (descendants) of Aaron who were afflicted with bodily imperfections. As the spiritual nature of a man is reflected in his bodily form, only a faultless condition of body could correspond to the holiness of the priest; just as the Greeks and Romans required, for the very same reason, that the priests should be ὁλόκληροι, integri corporis ( Plato de legg.

6, 759; Seneca excerpt. controv. 4, 2; Plutarch quaest. rom. 73). Consequently none of the descendants of Aaron, “according to their generations,” i. e. , in all future generations (see Exo 12:14), who had any blemish ( mum , μῶμος, bodily fault) were to approach the vail, i. e. , enter the holy place, or draw near to the altar (in the court) to offer the food of Jehovah, viz.

, the sacrifices. No blind man, or lame man, or charum , κολοβόριν (from κολοβός and ῥίν), naso mutilus (lxx), i. e. , one who had sustained any mutilation, especially in the face, on the nose, ears, lips, or eyes, not merely one who had a flat or stunted nose; or שׂרוּע, lit. , stretched out, i. e. , one who had anything beyond what was normal, an ill-formed bodily member therefore; so that a man who had more than ten fingers and ten toes might be so regarded (2Sa 21:20).

Lev 21:16-18 Directions for the sons (descendants) of Aaron who were afflicted with bodily imperfections. As the spiritual nature of a man is reflected in his bodily form, only a faultless condition of body could correspond to the holiness of the priest; just as the Greeks and Romans required, for the very same reason, that the priests should be ὁλόκληροι, integri corporis ( Plato de legg.

6, 759; Seneca excerpt. controv. 4, 2; Plutarch quaest. rom. 73). Consequently none of the descendants of Aaron, “according to their generations,” i. e. , in all future generations (see Exo 12:14), who had any blemish ( mum , μῶμος, bodily fault) were to approach the vail, i. e. , enter the holy place, or draw near to the altar (in the court) to offer the food of Jehovah, viz.

, the sacrifices. No blind man, or lame man, or charum , κολοβόριν (from κολοβός and ῥίν), naso mutilus (lxx), i. e. , one who had sustained any mutilation, especially in the face, on the nose, ears, lips, or eyes, not merely one who had a flat or stunted nose; or שׂרוּע, lit. , stretched out, i. e. , one who had anything beyond what was normal, an ill-formed bodily member therefore; so that a man who had more than ten fingers and ten toes might be so regarded (2Sa 21:20).

Lev 21:19 Whoever had a fracture in his foot or hand.

Lev 21:20-21 גּבּן a hump-backed man. דּק, lit. , crushed to powder, fine: as distinguished from the former, it signified one how had an unnaturally thin or withered body or member, not merely consumptive or wasted away. בּעינו תּבלּל mixed, i. e. , spotted in his eye, one who had a white speck in his eye ( Onk. , Vulg. , Saad. ), not blear-eyed (lxx). גּרב, which occurs nowhere else except in Lev 22:22 and Deu 28:27, signifies, according to the ancient versions, the itch; and ילּפת, which only occurs here and in Lev 22:22, the ring-worm (lxx, Targ .

, etc.) אשׁך מרוח, crushed in the stones, one who had crushed or softened stones; for in Isa 38:21, the only other place where מרח occurs, it signifies, not to rub to pieces, but to squeeze out, to lay in a squeezed or liquid form upon the wound: the Sept. rendering is μόνορχις, having only one stone. Others understand the word as signifying ruptured ( Vulg.

, Saad. ), or with swollen testicles ( Juda ben Karish ). All that is certain is, that we are not to think of castration of any kind (cf. Deu 23:2), and that there is not sufficient ground for altering the text into מרוח extension.

Lev 21:20-21 גּבּן a hump-backed man. דּק, lit. , crushed to powder, fine: as distinguished from the former, it signified one how had an unnaturally thin or withered body or member, not merely consumptive or wasted away. בּעינו תּבלּל mixed, i. e. , spotted in his eye, one who had a white speck in his eye ( Onk. , Vulg. , Saad. ), not blear-eyed (lxx). גּרב, which occurs nowhere else except in Lev 22:22 and Deu 28:27, signifies, according to the ancient versions, the itch; and ילּפת, which only occurs here and in Lev 22:22, the ring-worm (lxx, Targ .

, etc.) אשׁך מרוח, crushed in the stones, one who had crushed or softened stones; for in Isa 38:21, the only other place where מרח occurs, it signifies, not to rub to pieces, but to squeeze out, to lay in a squeezed or liquid form upon the wound: the Sept. rendering is μόνορχις, having only one stone. Others understand the word as signifying ruptured ( Vulg.

, Saad. ), or with swollen testicles ( Juda ben Karish ). All that is certain is, that we are not to think of castration of any kind (cf. Deu 23:2), and that there is not sufficient ground for altering the text into מרוח extension.

Lev 21:22-23 Persons afflicted in the manner described might eat the bread of their God, however, the sacrificial gifts, the most holy and the holy, i.e., the wave-offerings, the first-fruits, the firstlings, tithes and things laid under a ban (Num 18:11-19 and Num 18:26-29), - that is to say, they might eat them like the rest of the priests; but they were not allowed to perform any priestly duty, that they might not desecrate the sanctuary of the Lord (Lev 21:23, cf. Lev 21:12).

Lev 21:22-23 Persons afflicted in the manner described might eat the bread of their God, however, the sacrificial gifts, the most holy and the holy, i.e., the wave-offerings, the first-fruits, the firstlings, tithes and things laid under a ban (Num 18:11-19 and Num 18:26-29), - that is to say, they might eat them like the rest of the priests; but they were not allowed to perform any priestly duty, that they might not desecrate the sanctuary of the Lord (Lev 21:23, cf. Lev 21:12).

Lev 21:24 Moses communicated these instructions to Aaron and his sons.

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:1-16 Reverence for Things Sanctified. - The law on this matter was, (1) that no priest who had become unclean was to touch or eat them (Lev 22:2-9), and (2) that no one was to eat them who was not a member of a priestly family (Lev 22:10-16).

Lev 22:17-20 Acceptable Sacrifices. - Lev 22:18-20. Every sacrifice offered to the Lord by an Israelite or foreigner, in consequence of a vow or as a freewill-offering (cf. Lev 7:16), was to be faultless and male, “for good pleasure to the offerer” (cf. Lev 1:3), i.e., to secure for him the good pleasure of God. An animal with a fault would not be acceptable.

Lev 22:17-20 Acceptable Sacrifices. - Lev 22:18-20. Every sacrifice offered to the Lord by an Israelite or foreigner, in consequence of a vow or as a freewill-offering (cf. Lev 7:16), was to be faultless and male, “for good pleasure to the offerer” (cf. Lev 1:3), i.e., to secure for him the good pleasure of God. An animal with a fault would not be acceptable.

Lev 22:17-20 Acceptable Sacrifices. - Lev 22:18-20. Every sacrifice offered to the Lord by an Israelite or foreigner, in consequence of a vow or as a freewill-offering (cf. Lev 7:16), was to be faultless and male, “for good pleasure to the offerer” (cf. Lev 1:3), i.e., to secure for him the good pleasure of God. An animal with a fault would not be acceptable.

Lev 22:17-20 Acceptable Sacrifices. - Lev 22:18-20. Every sacrifice offered to the Lord by an Israelite or foreigner, in consequence of a vow or as a freewill-offering (cf. Lev 7:16), was to be faultless and male, “for good pleasure to the offerer” (cf. Lev 1:3), i.e., to secure for him the good pleasure of God. An animal with a fault would not be acceptable.

Lev 22:21-22 Every peace-offering was also to be faultless, whether brought “to fulfil a special (important) vow” (cf. Num 15:3, Num 15:8 : פּלּא, from פּלא to be great, distinguished, wonderful), or as a freewill gift; that is to say, it was to be free from such faults as blindness, or a broken limb (from lameness therefore: Deu 15:21), or cutting (i.e., mutilation, answering to חרוּם Lev 21:18), or an abscess (יבּלת, from יבל to flow, probably a flowing suppurating abscess).

Lev 22:21-22 Every peace-offering was also to be faultless, whether brought “to fulfil a special (important) vow” (cf. Num 15:3, Num 15:8 : פּלּא, from פּלא to be great, distinguished, wonderful), or as a freewill gift; that is to say, it was to be free from such faults as blindness, or a broken limb (from lameness therefore: Deu 15:21), or cutting (i.e., mutilation, answering to חרוּם Lev 21:18), or an abscess (יבּלת, from יבל to flow, probably a flowing suppurating abscess).

Lev 22:23 As a voluntary peace-offering they might indeed offer an ox or sheep that was רקלוּט שׂרוּע, “stretched out and drawn together,” i.e., with the whole body or certain limbs either too large or too small; but such an animal could not be acceptable as a votive offering.

Lev 22:24 Castrated animals were not to be sacrificed, nor in fact to be kept in the land at all. מעוּך compressus , θλιβίας, an animal with the stones crushed; כּתוּת contusus , θλασίας, with them beaten to pieces; נתוּק avulsus , σπάδων, with them twisted off; כּרוּי excisus , τομίας or ἐκτομίας, with them cut off. In all these different ways was the operation performed among the ancients (cf .

Aristot. hist. an. ix. 37, 3; Colum . vi. 26, vii. 11; Pallad . vi. 7). “And in your land ye shall not make,” sc. , וגו מעוּך, i. e. , castrated animals, that is to say, “not castrate animals. ” This explanation, which is the one given by Josephus ( Ant . iv. 8, 40) and all the Rabbins, is required by the expression “in your land,” which does not at all suit the interpretation adopted by Clericus and Knobel , who understand by עשׂה the preparation of sacrifices, for sacrifices were never prepared outside the land.

The castration of animals is a mutilation of God’s creation, and the prohibition of it was based upon the same principle as that of mixing heterogeneous things in Lev 19:19.

Lev 22:25-26 Again, the Israelites were not to accept any one of all these, i.e., the faulty animals described, as sacrifice from a foreigner. “ For their corruption is in them, ” i.e., something corrupt, a fault, adheres to them; so that such offerings could not procure good pleasure towards them. - In Lev 22:26-30 three laws are given of a similar character.

Lev 22:25-26 Again, the Israelites were not to accept any one of all these, i.e., the faulty animals described, as sacrifice from a foreigner. “ For their corruption is in them, ” i.e., something corrupt, a fault, adheres to them; so that such offerings could not procure good pleasure towards them. - In Lev 22:26-30 three laws are given of a similar character.

Lev 22:27 A young ox, sheep, or goat was to be seven days under its mother, and could only be sacrificed from the eighth day onwards, according to the rule laid down in Exo 22:29 with regard to the first-born. The reason for this was, that the young animal had not attained to a mature and self-sustained life during the first week of its existence. This maturity was not reached till after the lapse of a week, that period of time sanctified by the creation.

There is no rule laid down in the law respecting the age up to which an animal was admissible in sacrifice. Bullocks , i. e. , steers or young oxen of more than a year old, are frequently mentioned and prescribed for the festal sacrifices (for the young ox of less than a year old is called עגל; Lev 9:3), viz. , as burnt-offerings in Lev 23:18; Num 7:15, Num 7:21, Num 7:27, Num 7:33, Num 7:39.

; Num 8:8; Num 15:24; Num 28:11, Num 28:19, Num 28:27; Num 29:2, Num 29:8, and as sin-offerings in Lev 4:3, Lev 4:14; Lev 16:3; - sheep (lambs) of one year old are also prescribed as burnt-offerings in Lev 9:3; Lev 12:6; Lev 23:12; Exo 29:38; Num 6:14; Num 7:17, Num 7:21, Num 7:27, Num 7:33, Num 7:39. , Num 28:3, Num 28:9, Num 28:19, Num 28:27; Num 29:2, Num 29:8, Num 29:13, Num 29:17.

, as peace-offerings in Num 7:17, Num 7:23; Num 29:35. , and as trespass-offerings in Num 6:12; also a yearling ewe as a sin-offering in Lev 14:10 and Num 6:14, and a yearling goat in Num 15:27. They generally brought older oxen or bullocks for peace-offerings (Num 7:17; Num 23:29.) , and sometimes as burnt-offerings. In Jdg 6:25 an ox of seven years old is said to have been brought as a burnt-offering; and there can be no doubt that the goats and rams presented as sin-offerings and trespass-offerings were more than a year old.

Lev 22:28-30 The command not to kill an ox or sheep at the same time as its young is related to the law in Exo 23:19 and Deu 22:6-7, and was intended to lay it down as a duty on the part of the Israelites to keep sacred the relation which God had established between parent and offspring. - In Lev 22:29, Lev 22:30, the command to eat the flesh of the animal on the day on which it was offered (Lev 7:15; Lev 19:5-6) is repeated with special reference to the praise-offering.

Lev 22:28-30 The command not to kill an ox or sheep at the same time as its young is related to the law in Exo 23:19 and Deu 22:6-7, and was intended to lay it down as a duty on the part of the Israelites to keep sacred the relation which God had established between parent and offspring. - In Lev 22:29, Lev 22:30, the command to eat the flesh of the animal on the day on which it was offered (Lev 7:15; Lev 19:5-6) is repeated with special reference to the praise-offering.