Leviticus 22 — Tyndale Study Notes
Lev.21.1-22.33
This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase I am the Lord who makes . . . holy (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.
Lev.22.2-6
The priest’s portions of the sacred offerings were regarded as “most holy” (see 2:3) and were not to come into contact with anything unclean (11:1–15:33). Accordingly, any descendant of Aaron who was unclean was forbidden to eat this food.
Lev.22.5
In Leviticus, the Hebrew word sherets always denotes an unclean small animal that swarms on land or in water (5:2; 11:10, 20-21, 23, 29, 31, 41-44).
Lev.22.9
will die for violating my instructions: As in 10:1-3. The temptation to offer improper offerings persisted throughout Israel’s history until after the Exile (Mal 1:6-9).
Lev.22.11
The only male outside the priest’s family who could eat the priest’s share was the priest’s slave. He would have no other food if this provision were denied him.
Lev.22.14-16
Similar to provisions for the guilt offering, a common person who accidentally ate the priestly portion had to repay 120 percent (see 5:14-16). However, the offering of a ram was not required in this case.
Lev.22.15
An Israelite who ate the “most holy” priestly portion as if it were common food would defile it.
Lev.22.18
Apparently individuals could present a whole burnt offering instead of a peace offering if they desired (see 1:3).
Lev.22.21
A peace offering could function in several ways: as a thanksgiving offering, an offering to fulfill a vow, or a voluntary offering (see 3:1-17).
Lev.22.23
The requirements for the voluntary offering were more lenient, allowing the use of a deformed animal. Fulfilling a vow, however, still required an animal that was not maimed or diseased. In no case would God accept a sacrifice that could not be eaten by a person or that was not a whole animal.
Lev.22.27
Leaving a newborn animal with its mother for seven days allowed time to determine the animal’s health (see Exod 22:30).
Lev.22.28
on the same day: There are several possible explanations for this command, although none is certain: (1) Senseless slaughtering would leave nothing of the herd; (2) it would be inhumane to slaughter the young and the mother at the same time; or (3) it would be too similar to pagan worship rites, where the newborn animal was cooked in the milk of its slain mother (see Exod 23:19).