Leviticus 21
PATthe eleventh chapter, which are here briefly repeated, to enforce the observation of the foregoing precepts against such incestuous marriages as other nations allowed; their law not permitting them so much as to cat such meat as those nations did; but to account many things, which they freely used, unclean and abominable. Ye shall not make yourselves abominable, &c] See chap. xi. 43. Which I have separated from yon, as unclean.] Forbidden you to eat; and thereby separated you from all other people. Which had this intention in it (among others already mentioned), that this nation, from whom the Messiah was to spring, might be kept pure and sincere; free from all mixture with strange people; unto which nothing contributed more efficaciously (as an excellent person hath observed) than the difference of meat, w r hich made it riot easy for them to contract acquaintance, much less friendship, with other nations. And truly, unless the people from whom the Messiah was to come, had been kept separate from all other nations, cither all hope of him would have been lost, or many in every country, to the great hurt and destruction of mankind, would have pretended to be the person: whereas, by keeping them a" people distinct by themselves, it came to pass that all countries thereabouts were filled with a report, that the Lord of the world should come out of Judea: see Joh. Wagenseil. Confut. Carm. Lipman. p. 554, &c. know the rabbinical reasons, why the mother is here put before the father, and ver. 31. the father before the mother, with such-like things, he niay consult Simeon de Muis in his Varia Sacra, p. 356, &c.: For the crown of the anointing oil of his God is iipon him.’]’* Some supply the word and between crown and anointing oil; and so make two reasons why he should distinguish himself from all other men: first, because the^ holy crown, as it is called, (Exod. xxix/6.) which had holiness to the Lord engraven on it, (Exod. xxviii. 36.) was set upon his head; and his head also was anointed with the lioly oil, (Exod. xxx. 25. 30.) whereby he was, in a special manner, consecrated to the service of the Most High. But there is no need of this, for the anointing oil itself was that which sanctified him to his office, and was poured on him, after the holy crown was set on his head; (Lev. viii. 9. 12.) and so these words may be translated, the consecration (for so the Hebrew word nezer signifies) of the anointing oil of his God is upon him. That is, he must remember he is solemnly devoted unto my ministry by that anointing; and therefore must not leave it to attend any other. I am the Lord.] Whose servant he is by a peculiar obligation. UFON LEVITICUS. Or be scurvy, or scabbed.] One of these wordssignifies a dry scurf or scab, the other a purulent. Or hath his stones broken.] Is bursten, or hath a rupture, as some expound it. The LXX. translate it Movopx*c; which Procopius Gazacus understands an hermaphrodite. Ver. 21- No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh, &c.].This seems to confirm what was observed before, (ver. 17.) that any other blemish, besides these here particularly mentioned, made a man incapable to officiate at the altar. And, in the first place, the Hebrew doctors reckon five in the ears, besides the want of them: an example of which Josephus gives in the story of Hyrcanus the high-priest, whose ears Antigonus cut off, that, if he should return again, he might not resume his office, (lib. i. de Bello Jud. cap. 11.) He hath a blemish.] This general repetition is a farther confirmation, that all apparent blemishes of the same kind with these here particularly named, excluded them from ministering at the altar. And there being some of them that were permanent, or perpetual (as they speak), and others that were transient, which remained but for a time; no man that had a blemish, though only of the latter sort, was to minister at the altar till it was gone. He shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.] i. e. The offerings made by fire beforementioned, which are here plainly represented as the meat that was served up to his table, (See ver. 6.) * If any of thenrdid presume to offer at the altar, there were different effects of their contumacy, according to the different sorts of their blemishes, which the Hebrew doctors divide into three classes, as I observed ver. 17. If any man having a blemish of the first sort ministered, it profaned the very sacrifice which he offered, and he was to be scourged. The second sort did not vitiate the sacrifice, but the priest was to undergo the forenamed punishment. The third sort was so inconsiderable, that neither of these effects followed, upon his ministering who was blemished by them; as Mr. Selden observes, (Iib.ii. de Success, in Poritif. cap. 5. p. 234.)
Leviticus 21:1
JX.ND the Lord said unto Moses; Speak unto the priests. This law about the priests, perhaps, follows that last mentioned (ver. 27- of the foregoing chapter), to shew unto whom they should resort, and of whom they should inquire, viz. of the priests; who should always be ready for any priestly office, and for common conversation. The sons of Aaron J] His daughters were not concerned in the following prohibitions; because they had nothing to do in offering sacrifices; as Maimonides observes, More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 47. There shall none be defiled for the dead.] By touching the dead body, or coming (as the Hebrews say) within four cubits of it, or entering into the house where it lay (though it were to take care of the funeral), or by following the corpse to the grave, or making any mourning for the dead: because by these things they were legally polluted for no less than seven days, (Numb. xix. 11.14.) and, consequently, unfit for the service of God, and for conversation with their neighbours; who had the greater reverence also for them, when they saw their dignity to be so great, that they were not permitted to perform such offices as others were obliged unto. For this, no doubt, was intended very much to put an honour upon the priesthood: as it was also inother nations, particularly among the Romans, who would not have their Pohtifex to look upon a funeral, as Bochart observes out of Seneca, (Hieroz. par. i. lib. iii. cap. 4.) and the Flamen Dialis might not go into the place where the coffin was. For which reason, as Servius tells us, (ad lib. iii. iEneid.) they “ordered a bough of a cypress-tree to be stuck at the door of the house where a dead body lay, that the high-priest might not ignorantly go into it. It appears also by Plato, that it was thus likewise among the Greeks. For he would have the priests, of both sexes, to accompany one that had discharged the office of a censor well, unto his grave when he was buried, as unto a pure funeral (o>c tcaOaptvovTi r(£ ra^y?7r£<T&ai); but for this, he says, they must ask leave of Apollo, (lib. xii. de Legibus, p. 947.) See Porphyrins de Abstin. lib. ii. sect 50.. Among his people.] The Jews are so critical, as, from the word beammo,’ among his people, to gather, that if a man did not die among his people, but in a strange country, where there was nobody to take care of his funeral, “and see him buried, a priest might do it himself, rather than his body should lie above ground.‘Ver. 2. But for his kin that is near unto him.] Here is an exception to the general rule; because it would have been very hard to restrain natural affection from carrying them to their parents, and children, and brethren, and sisters, when they died. Which cases would not often happen, as Maimonides observes in the place before alleged; and they are particularly named, that there might be no mistake, nor any colour to extend this indulgence to relations more remote. t For his mother, and his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother.] If any have a mind to
Leviticus 21:3
And for his sister a virgin. I see no reason why it should be restrained to his whole sister, both by father’s and mother’s side (as some of the Hebrew doctors would have it); for, that his half-sister, by either of them, was nigh unto him (as it here follows), it appears by the law about incestuous marriages, (chap, xviii. 9.) Which hath had no husband.’] To take care of her funeral, which her brother therefore, though a priest, might. It is commonly observed, that there is no mention here of his wife. But Maimonides, with great reason, thinks it was lawful for him to mourn for her; but it was needless to mention her, who, by the law of God, was dearer to him than father or mother. And there is this argument for it: that Ezekiel, who was a priest, is forbidden, by a special command, to mourn for his wife, which otherwise he would have done, (ch. xxiv. 16, &c.) Vcr. 4. But he shall not defile himself being a chief man among his people.’] But though he might defile himself for such very near relations, yet he might not for the greatest man in the nation, who was not so near of kin to him. This seems to me to be the easiest and the most natural sense of this verse, by adding the particle lamed (which in the two foregoing verses is put before mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and sister) to Baalyi.e. chief man (as we translate it); nothing being more usual than to omit such a particle, which yet must be understood when it hath been often before mentioned. And thus the Vulgar Latin understands it; and the sense is the same, if we take it as our translation seems to intend it: But he shall not defile himself (for any other), being a chief man, &c. As for the marginal translation, I can see no ground for it: and there must be a greater supplement, by adding for his wife; which one cannot well think is here forbidden, as I observed on the foregoing verse. They also who translate it, a chief rider shall not defile himself, &c. have still less reason, the whole discourse in this place being concerning the priests. To profane himself] He himself, in sacred offices, being the greatest person, would have been profaned, i. e. rendered a common man, if he had mourned for any butthose whom nature had very closely linked him unto. Vcr. 5. They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.] Though they were allowed to mourn for some persons, yet for none after this manner: that is, according to the custom of certain places in Chaldca, as Aben Ezra glosses upon these words. And he might have added also, of the Egyptians; among whose ceremonies we find this in aftertimes, and it is likely it had been very ancient. For Jul. Firmicus tells us, in the heginning of his book, that in their annual lamentations of Osiris, they wctc wont " to shave their heads, that they, might bewail the miserable misfortune of their king, by depriving themselves of the ornament of hair,” &c And he adds, that they did tear their flesh, and cut open the scars of their old wounds, &c. where Johan.Wouver observes the same out of several other authors. And Plutarch, in his book of Superstition, saith, they generally used in mourning to be shaven; whereas the Hebrews let their hair grow: (see chap. x. 6. xix. 27.)
Leviticus 21:6
They shall be holy unto their God. Attend to their office, unto which they are peculiarly consecrated; and not, without great necessity, be at any time unfitted for it. u; d.„ And not prof ane the name of their God.] By doing as the common people did; or rendering themselves incapable to minister unto the Lord; as they were when they were any way defiled. For the offering of the Lord made by fire.] They attend upon his altar, where the burnt-offerings, peace-ofFerings, and all the rest were offered… And the bread of their God y do they offer.]The word and is not in the Hebrew, and the sense will be clearer if it be left out: the offering of the Lord made by fire, being called the bread of their God, i. e. his meat, or food.. For the altar was his table; and what was burnt thereon was in the nature of his provision: which in the Scripture language is comprehended under the name of bread. So Solomon Jarchi saith, whatsoever may be eaten is called bread, (ses chap. Hi. 11.) Thus/n«7is called bread, Jer. xi. 19. and milk, Prov. xxvii. 27. and honey, 1 Sam. xiv. 28. And therefore no wonder the sacrifices are here. called by that name, and by Malachi his meat or food, (chap. Hi. 12.) Which phrase is used, as the author of Sepher v Cosri well observes, to keep up the notion that God dwelt gloriously, aridkepthouse among them, (par. ii. cap. 26.)
Leviticus 21:7
TJiey shall not take a wife that is a whore. AH incestuous marriages were as much forbidden priests as any other men. But besides, here are three sorts of persons whom it was unlawful for a common priest to marry, though there was ho kindred between them. The first is a whore/ whereby the Hebrew doctors understand, not only one that was a common prostitute, but one that was not an Israelite, or an Israelitish woman, with whom a man, had lain, whom it was unlawful for her to marry. Which comprehends not only all such as are forbidden in the eighteenth chapter of this book; but those also in Deut. xxiii. 2, 3. (See Selden de Successionibus, lib.ii. cap. 2. et.3. and Uxor. Ilebraica, lib. i. cap. 7. lib. iii. cap. 23.) Or profane.] A woman was accounted so (as he shews in the same place) who was either descended from such a person, as is beforementioned; or who was born of such a conjunction, as is here forbidden to a priest. And there are those who think it may be understood of one that had been consecrated to a false deity; whom she served with the use of her body, which she exposed to the worshippers of that deity: who, though she afterwards repented,. and became good, yet a priest was not to marry her, no mors] than an ordinary whore. But the simplest meaning of these three seems to be, that they should not marry one that had prostituted her body, or that had been any way vitiated, though against her will; or was of suspected chastity; or (as it follows) was divorced from her husband. Neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband.] For commonly women were put away for some fault, as Abarbinel notes; and were presumed not to be such as a priest should desire. To the same purpose Procopius Gazceus. A priest, saith he, should not only, fly from manifest evils, as fornication, but.decline whatsoever may blemish his fame: now a woman that is put away. [chap. xxr> by her husbandries under a suspicion of something that is bad. For which reason (as Mr. Selden observes in thd place abovenamed), a priest might not marry her, whom her husband’s brother refused to marry after his death. For lie is holy unto his God.] Consecrated, after a special manner, to the service of the Divine Majesty; and therefore was not to dishonour his priesthood by such marriages as were not of good reputation. If he did, ho was not to be suffered to minister, until he had given such a wife a bill of divorce; as Maimonidcs saith in Biath Ifamikdasch, cap. 6. An example of which there was in Manasseh, the brother of Jadua the high-priest; who, marrying, contrary to the law, the daughter of Sanballat the Samaritan, was commanded either to pul her away, or not to come to the altar. (Sec Scldcn, lib. ii. dc Succcssionc in Pontificatum, cap. G. p. 238.)
Leviticus 21:8
Thou shalt sanctify him therefore. This seems to be spoken to Moses, and to all that should succeed him in the supreme authority, that they should take care the priests should not marry with such persons; or if they did, not be suffered to minister in the priest’s office till they had put them away. Accordingly we find, that, to keep the priesthood pure, and to avoid all suspicion of any such pollution, the names of the priest’s parents were carefully preserved in the genealogical tables, as we learn from Ezra ii.G2. Nehemiah vii. G4. (See Selden de Succession, in Pontif. lib.ii. cap. 3. Uxor. Hebr. lib.i. cap. 7.) For he offereth the bread of thy God.] Ministereth at the altar. (See ver. G.) He shall be holy unto thee.’] Keep himself pure, that ho may not be unfit to offer sacrifice for the people, as need shall require. For I the Lord which sanctify you am holy.] I, who have taken you to be my peculiar people, excel in all perfections; and therefore require persons of extraordinary sanctity to minister unto me.
Leviticus 21:9
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore. The Hebrew doctors understand this of one married, at least espoused. So Aben Ezra and R. Sol. Jarchi say expressly, " Our rabbiris confess, with one mouth, that one not espoused is not concerned in this law.” (Sec Scldcn, lib. i. Uxor. Hebr. cap. G. and lib. iii. cap. 23. p. 488.) Sheprofaneth her father.] She was doubly guilty: first, in profaning> i.e. dishonouring herself; who, being the daughter of such ah eminent person, committed such a heinous crime; and secondly, in dishonouring her father, whose reputation hereby suffered. She shall be burnt with fire.] Which was the sorest punishment among the Jews, (see chap.xx. 14.) and was not inflicted upon other persons, in this case, (who were barely stoned, Deut. xxii. 14.) but only upon the daughter of a priest, frdm whom greater virtue was expected. But if the witnesses of this fact were convicted of perjury by other credible witnesses, produced by the woman or her father, then both her husband who accused her, and those false witnesses, suffered the same punishment that she should have done. (Sec Selden, lib. iii. Uxor. Heb. cap. 1. p. 321.) Ver. JO. lie that is the high-priest among his brethren.] Hitherto the laws given in this c&sie concern the common priest: now follow those by which the high-priest was to govern himself, who was uw’er peculiar laws more strict than the rest. Upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, &c.] He having a peculiar consecration different from the rest, by pouring the holy oil upon his head, and clothing him with the most glorious robes, (sco diap. viii. 7,8,&c.)was in all reason to distinguish himself, more than the rest of the priests, from common men. And that is consecrated.] In the Hebrew the words are, whose hand is filled; as it was with the fat and the right shoulder of the ram of consecration, &c. by which he was hallowed to minister in the priest’s office, (Exod. xxix. To put on the garments.] To be high-priest. Shall not uncover his head.] Rather, shall not let his hair grow neglected without trimming; as the manner was, in token of mourning. So Onkelos and Jonathan, and a great many more: (Selden, lib. ii. de Succcssione in Pontificatum, cap. 5. p. 235.) and what I have noted upon the tenth chapter of this book, ver. G.. Nor fend his clothes.] Another token of mourning which he was to forbear; though the Talmudists will have it, that he might rend his garments at the bottom, about his feet, but not at the top, down to his breast; as P. Cunaeus observes out of Mass. Horajoth, lib.ii. de Hep. Hebr. cap. 3. Before his anointing and consecration, and putting on the holy garments, it was not unlawful for him to attend the funeral of his father; and therefore Eleazar was present when Aaron died, (Numb, xx.) being as yet in a lower ministry, and not completely advanced to the office of highpriest, but only declared Aaron’s successor by putting on his garments. (See chap. x. G.)
Leviticus 21:11
Neither shall he go in to any dead body; nor defile himself for his father, oY for his mother. He might not go into the house, where the body of his father or mother lay dead, (which >vas pefmitted to the inferior priests, yer. 2, 3.) and, consequently, he was not to make any external signs of mourning for son or daughter, brother or sister.
Leviticus 21:12
Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary. If he was there when he heard of the death of his father or mother, he was not to stir out from thence till he had finished his ministry. (See chap, x.7.) For he had a little house (after the temple was built) within the precincts of it, where he commonly remained all the day-time, which was called lischcath colten gadol, the parlour of the high-priest: as Cuneeus observes out of Mass. Middoth, lib.ii. deRepub. Hebr. cap. 3. At night he went to his own dwelling-house, which was in Jerusalem, and no where else; there he might perform all the offices of a mourner, except those which are here forbidden; and the people came to comfort hiin (as Maimonides relates in his treatise on this subject), and, sitting upon the ground, while he sat in his chair at the funeral feast, they said, Let us be thy expiation (r. e. let all the grief that is on thee fall upon us); unto which he answered, Blessed be ye from heaven; as their words are reported in Sanhedrin, cap. 2. n. 1. Nor profane the sanctuary of his God.] By preferring his affection to the dead, before the service of God in the sanctuary: or, by returning thither to his ministry, when he had been defiled by the dead; which had been a great profanation: for he that touched a dead body was unclean seven days, (Numb. xix. 11, 12.)
Leviticus 21:13
And he shall take a wife. From the word wife, in the singular number, theTalmudists generally conclude, that polygamy was not allowed to the high-priest, who was to have but one wife at a time, though other men were permitted to have more. (See Selden, lib. ii. de Successione in Pontif. cap. 2. p. 207. and Uxor. Hebraica, lib. i. cap. 8.) If he did take another, he was to give a bill of divorce to one of them before the great day of expiation; or else he w r as incapable to perform the offices of it; as P. Cunaeus observes in the place forenamed out of Joma. But if his wife died, it was not unlawful for him to marry again, as Tertullian fancied from this very place, (lib. de Monogam. cap. 7. and Exhort, ad Cast. cap. 7.) In her virginity.] And not so much as espoused to any other person. Nor was any sort of virgin thought fit for his wife, but only one that was newly come out of her minority, and had not yet attained to her full puberty; as Maimonides explains the sense of their ancient doctors. See Selden, lib. i. Uxor. Hebr. 7. where he observes also, that this is to be understood of the high-priest after he was in his office; for if he had married a widow before he was high-priest, he was to keep her, and not put her away when he was advanced to it. But there are those who imagine this law obliged all the common priests, who were to marry none but virgins; as they are persuaded from Ezek. xliv. 22. And no less a man than Hugo Grotius seems to be of this opinion, both here and in his book de Jure Belli et Pacis, (lib. ii. cap. 5. n. 9.) in his Annotata to that section. But the" Hebrew doctors are all of a contrary mind, and so are Josephus and Philo; as Mr. Selden observes, in his Addenda to the seventh chapter of his first book Uxor. Hebr. and lib. ii. de Success, in Pontif. cap. 2 f p. 208. And so Cunoeus also in the place forenamed, speaking of this very Jaw, " Non enim Sacerdotibus posita eadem lex fuit; quippe viduam illi rite duxerunt," &c. But above all, a later most learned writer, Job. Wagenseil, hath largely confuted this opinion, in which he hath shewn Grotius was singular; for, besides that Ezekiel there supposes they might marry the widow of a priest, it is evident both from Jewish and Christian interpreters, that the state of things under the law is not to be measured by what the prophet Ezekiel saith concerning the future temple and priests: but, as Kimchi himself saith upon this place, “if this verse must be expounded of every priest, it relates to the greater sanctity of the future temple:” for the law at first undoubtedly was, that none but the high-priest was confined to marry a virgin. What Grotius alleges out of Josephus to prove his assertion, he hath shewn, with due respect to so great a man, doth him no service. (See his Annotata ad Mischna Sota, cap. 4i p. 557, &c.)
Leviticus 21:14
A widow. This was peculiar to the higli-priest, that, besides other’women which no priest might marry, he alone is forbidden to marry a widow.; as the same learned person there shews is the sense of all the Hebrew writers. And Moses Kotzenses observes, that by a widow is to be understood, not only a woman that had been married; but if she had. been merely espoiised, it was unlawfulfor the high-priest to take her for his wife: and by the high-priest, he saith, is to be understood, not only the successor of Aaron, but he also that was anointed to the war; which seems to be stretching of the word beyond its meaning, though the word widow may be allowed to comprehend one only espoused, whom he might not marry, though she had been espoused to his predecessor. Or a divorced woman.] No, nor the wife of his brother that died without issue; which others were bound to marry, but he was not. Or profane.] The word chalalah was explained before^‘ver. 7. w r hich, according to the Jews, signifies a woman born of such a person as a priest is prohibited to marry; as, if the high-priest had taken a widow, and had a daugh* ter by her, that child was profane, and might not be married, though avirgin, by a succeeding high-priest. And so of the rest. (See Buxtorf. de Sponsal. et Divort. p. 37, 38.) " Or a harlot.] See ver. 7. But he shall take a virgin of his own people.] He was commanded before to marry none but a virgin; and now he is further limited to a virgin of Israel; for he doth not mean one of his own tribe, there beiug instances to the contrary, of a high-priest marrying into the royal tribe, (2 Chron. xxii. 11.)
Leviticus 21:15
Neither shall he profane his seed among his people. Many think this refers to what goes before, that he should not debase his family by such mixtures as have been mentioned; but I rather think it to be a new precept (as the Vulgar Latin takes it), that as he might marry none but of his own people, i. e. an Israelite; so among his people he should not match with a vulgar person, but with one nobly bom; for that was the way to preserve the dignity: of the priestly office, at which all these precepts aim. For I the Lord do sanctify him.] I have separated him to myself, for a special and most holy service; for which reason he was to distinguish himself from other men, even in his marriage, to make them the more reverence the Lord whom he served. Upon this account it was, that many constitutions were made by the elders, forbidding him what was allowed to’ other people; whereby they intended to advance his honour. For instance, he was forbidden to go into the public baths, or to feasts. If he would visit any that mourned, he was to be attended by other priests. He was obliged to cut his hair every week, but never to shave with a razor; to be in the* sanctuary every day, and to go home not above twice in a day; to havo but one wife at a time; and going into the temple to have three other priests with him, &c. So Maimonides in Cele Mikdash, cap. 8. 3M Microsoft® [chap. XXI.
Leviticus 21:16
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Upon, this occasion God gave some other precepts concerning the priests, who were to wait upon him in his house and at his table.
Leviticus 21:17
Speak unto Aaron, saying. Having forbidden such marriages as would have been a dishonour to the* priesthood, had they been permitted, he now forbids any to serve at his altar, who had the least blemish in his body; for that would have disparaged his Divine service. Whoever he be of thy seed.] Whether high-priest or the common priests. In their generations.] In future ages as well as the present. Tltat hath any blemish.] From these general words the Hebrew doctors conclude, that not only the particular blemishes afterward mentioned made them incapable to minister, but all other whatsoever which appeared in the body; of which these here named are but a specimen or example. So Maimonides in Biath Hamikdasch, whose words are, " the blemishes expressed in the law, are propounded for examples of the rest;" which they reckon to be in all one hundred and forty-two, accounting only those which openly appeared, and not those which w T ere inward, in the kidneys, bladder, or bowels; because there are no examples of such in the particulars which here follow. They are divided by the doctors into three classes: such as made beasts unfit to be offered, (chap. xxii. 20.) as well as priests unfit to minister; of which sort they reckon fifty. And such as only made priests incapable to minister; of which sort they reckon ninety. And such as only made men look illfavouredly; which were but two. (See Mr. Selden, lib. ii. de Succcssione in Pontific. cap. 5.) Let him not approach.] Unto the altar. To offer the bread of his God.] i. e. To sacrifice. (See ver. 0. and chap. iii. 2.)
Leviticus 21:18
For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish. Though never so wise or pious.. lie shall not approach.] He makes it a standing law, that no man that had a blemish should come to minister unto him at his altar. And a reasonable law it was, approved by pagans themselves; for it is the very first qualification which Plato requires in him who was to be made a priest, that he should be oXojcXijpoe teal yvntnog, &c. perfect in all his parts, and not a bastard; and that he should be born of honest parents, who had lived without the blemish of murder, or any other impiety, (lib. vi. de Legibus, p. 759.) And such a law there was among the ancient Romans: sacerdos integer sit, that a priest should be entire in all his parts*. Which Seneca mentioning (Controv. iv. 2.) explains it by the example of Metellus, who, losing his eyes, by adventuring to snatch the Palladium out of the flames, when the temple of Vesta was burnt, was denied the priesthood; for, though ho had done great service, which did him great honour, yet their opinion was, that " Sacerdos non integri corporis, quasi mali ominis res, vitandus est:" a priest who wanted any part of his body, teas to be avoided, as a thing that boded ill: for thus it was in sacrifices, and therefore they thought, with much more reason it should be so in the priests that offered them. (See Dilherrus Disput. Academ. torn. ii. p. 187, &c.) A blind man, or a lame.] Such natural defects which befal us without or against our will, as Procopius Gazacus observes, are not to be imputed to us as any fault: and therefore ho thinks such vices in tho mind as answer to these blemishes in the body, are here intended by Moses; yet he could not but acknowledge, that if we will follow the literal sense (which no doubt is meant by these words), it is not becoming to see a man perform priestly, offices, who hath any visible blemish in his body; for in-, stance, that halts, or cannot walk unless he have one to lead him. But Moses, he still thinks, had a respect to. higher matters, viz. to all the good qualities that St. Paul, requires in a bishop; and therefore by a blind man he understands one without knowledge; and by a lame, one that walks not uprightly. in the w T ays of God’s commandments.. Such accommodations are so easy, that I need not take further notice of them. Or he that hath aflat nose.] In the two first words, blind, or lame, there was no difficulty; but the word harum (which, we translate hath a flat nose) is not so plain; yet the Hebrews generally agree it signifies one, the upper part of whose nose was so depressed, that the two eyebrows seemed to meet, and to be but one; as Bochartus observes out of R. Solomon, in his Canaan, (lib. i. cap. 33. p. 655.) Or any thing superfluous.] The Hebrew word saraa sige nifies any member. disproportionate to the rest; but more especially (as their doctors take it) the inequality of those members that are pairs: as, when one of a man’s eyes, or ears, or legs, was bigger than the other.
Leviticus 21:19
Or a man that is broken-footed. .Though a man. did not halt, yet, if his foot was so broken, that it looked deformed, he was incapable to minister to the Divine Majesty; because it rendered him contemptible in the eyes of the people; at least not so graceful, as the servants of the Most High were to be. Or broken-handed.] Any fracture in the hand made a man more remarkably unfit than the foregoing blemish; because by this part all the Divine offices were to be per-, formed.
Leviticus 21:20
~Or crook-backed. The Hebrew word gibben properly signifies bunch-backed: whether the bunch came from the luxation of the backbone, or from a swelling in the flesh. Or a dwarf] Who, besides that he looked despicably, was notable to reach up to the altar. The marginal translation may be justified from the Hebrew, for dak in that language signifies lean, or slender: but then the meaning must be, one whose flesh was wasted by a consumption. The Vulgar took it for one blear-eyed: and the LXX. also thought it signified some disease in the eyes, if the Complutensian edition be right, where this word is translated fyijAoe rove 6
Leviticus 21:22
He shall eat of the bread of his God. But, though such a priest might not offer any sacrifice, yet he might eat with his brethren of that part of the sacrifices which was given to thein for their portion, which no man in his uncleanness might do. Therefore these natural infirmities were not legal impurities, but only incapacities (as we speak) which disabled them for their office. Here again the sacrifices are represented as the provision made for the Divine Majesty. (See ver. G. 21.) Both of the most holy. 7 ] Such were the meat-offerings, (chap. ii. 3. vi. 17.) the sin-offerings, (chap. vi. 25, 26.) and the trespass-offerings, (chap, vii.l.) Seelchap. xiv.13. The shew-bread also was a most holy thing; and all such were to be eaten only by the males of the priest’s family, in the holy place, (Numb, xviii. 9 — 11, &c.) And of the holy.] Such were the wave-breast and the heave-shoulder of the peace-offerings, (chap. vii_. 35. and x. 14.) and the first-fruits, and the tithes. But, though the peace-offerings of particular persons were among the less holy things, yet the peace-offerings of the whole congregation were most holy. (See chap, xxiii. 20.)
Leviticus 21:23
Only he shall not go in unto the veil. He was not to enter into the sanctuary to bum incense, or to trim the lamps, &c., *. Digitized b$ Nor come nigh unto the altar.] No, nor go to the altar of burnt-offering, which was in the court of the Lord’s house; but he was to sit in the wood-room, where he was employed in picking out all the wood which had any worms in it, that it might be laid aside, and not carried to the altar, as Maimonides and others relate. He had also another employment. (See chap. xiii. 2.) If any man were so presumptuous, or so forgetful, as to minister notwithstanding the manifest blemish which was upon him, he fell under censure, and was punished according to the degree of his fault, as I observed before, (ver. 21.) out of Mr. Selden-, who hath, in the place there mentioned/ handled this more accurately than I thought it needful for me to do. Tltat he profane not my sanctuary.] That he might not make others think meanly of the service of God; and consequently of God himself; who would have men, in their greatest perfection, minister unto him, to preserve in people’s minds a sense of his most excellent being, unto whom they ministered. For which reason all the foregoing prohibitions were given against marrying such persons as had been vitiated, &c. and against mourning for the dead, that they might not profane the name of their God, (v. 6.) by doing as vulgar people did, or making themselves incapable to minister unto God, as they were when they were defiled. And thus Maimonides discourses upon this subject: (More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 45.) " God c6mmanded his ministers should wear precious apparel, and that none should be admitted to the ministry who had any defect in his body; nay, they who were deformed and ill-favoured were excluded; because the vulgar do not judge according to men’s true worth or beauty (which lie in the soul), but according to their outward appearance, in the comeliness of their bodies, and the richness of their garments; and therefore the end of all these things was, that God’s house might be had in due honour and reverence." My sanctuaries.] This word, in the plural number, relates to the two parts of the sanctuary; the court where the altar of burnt-offering stood (which was a holy place) and that which was properly called the sanctuary, wherein the altar of incense was; into neither of which a priest that had any blemish might enter; as was said before. For I the Lord do sanctify them.] I have set apart both those places for my service; and therefore, no man with a blemish shall be admitted into them, to perform any holy office there; yet they might come into the court, to eat with their brethren, of holy things, but not in their priestly garments, which it was not lawful for them to use. *
Leviticus 21:24
And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel. They were all acquainted with these laws, becarse they were all concerned the service of God should be administered acceptably unto him.
And ye shall be holy unto me, for I the Lord am holy. See chap. xi. 44. xix. 2. and ver. 7. of this chapter. *. And have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine J] The very difference of meats which they used, was a token that God had separated them from.other people, to be subject to such rites and laws as he ordained: and hereby also. they were so. severed from others, as to be kept from the most familiar conversation with them (which is at meals), and thereby they were preserved from the danger of being’seduced to the worship of strange gods.
A man also, or a iuoman f that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, &c. Theconsulting such persons is forbidden, chap. xix. 31. and the penalty added yer. G. of this chapter: and here the persons themselves who were proved to have a familiar spirit, or to be a wizard (what they are, see there), are condemned to the heaviest punishment; which was by being stoned to death. For which severity Maimonides gives this reason: “Because it is the very scope of the whole law to root out idolatry, and abolish the very name of it. And therefore God ordered magicians to be stoned, because, without doubt, they are idolaters; though in a manner peculiar and different from the vulgar. " And the greater part of such evil arts being practised by women, (which is the ground, he thinks, of that law, Exod. xii. 18.) towards whom men arc naturally pitiful: therefore Moses saith in this place,, A man also, or woman, that hath a familiar spirit, &c. like to which we find in no precept, not about the profanation of the sabbath; but in this case it was necessary expressly to mention tvomen as well as men; because of men’s natural tenderness and clemency towards women.” Thus he, More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 37. Procopius Gazacus’s gloss on these words is very pious, but something fanciful; ** He that is hardened like a stone to virtue, deserves to be stoned. For magic commits murders, digs up sepulchres, disturbs the souls of men. For magicians, arc men who corrupt human nature."