Leviticus Chapter 21
Specific Instructions for the Priests
A. Laws for Priests in General
(Leviticus 21:1–4)
“And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people: But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother, And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband, for her may he be defiled. But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.”
The Lord specifically directed Moses to address the priests, the sons of Aaron, who were chosen from the tribe of Levi for sacred service. Their unique role as mediators between God and the nation of Israel demanded a standard of holiness that exceeded that of the common people. They represented God before the people and the people before God, and therefore their lives were to reflect the holiness, purity, and separation that characterized the God they served.
This law prohibited priests from defiling themselves by contact with the dead, which was a significant act of ceremonial impurity. In Scripture, death is the most visible and sobering result of sin. A corpse represents corruption, decay, and the consequence of the fall. Thus, God’s command to His priests illustrated the necessity of spiritual separation from sin and death. The priesthood was to be associated with life, not death.
Contact with the dead brought ceremonial uncleanness, as described in Numbers 19:11–13, which says, “He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days. He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.” Therefore, to preserve the sanctity of their service, priests were not to defile themselves even by entering the same room as a dead person or stepping on a grave.
Unlike the priests of pagan religions, Israel’s priests were not involved in preparing bodies for burial, as paganism often revolved around death cults and necromancy. Yahweh’s worship centered on life, holiness, and fellowship with the living God. This separation reminded the people that the God of Israel was the God of life, not of the dead. As the Lord Jesus Himself said in Matthew 22:32, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
However, God made merciful allowance for the priest to mourn and handle the burial of his immediate family: his parents, children, siblings, or an unmarried sister. These relationships were deemed so close that the priest’s mourning was an expression of human compassion, not ceremonial compromise. The wife is not listed in the text, but the example of the prophet Ezekiel shows that she was included by implication, for in Ezekiel 24:16–17, God told the priest-prophet, “Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the desire of thine eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down. Forbear to cry, make no mourning for the dead.” Even in that unique instance, the command to Ezekiel not to mourn revealed that priests ordinarily did mourn their wives, but Ezekiel’s case was an exceptional prophetic sign.
In short, the priest was to maintain spiritual and ceremonial purity before God, keeping himself unspotted from defilement. His holy office demanded restraint, and his separation was a picture of the greater priesthood of Christ, who is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens” (Hebrews 7:26).
(Leviticus 21:5)
“They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.”
God further commanded the priests to refrain from the pagan mourning customs practiced by surrounding nations. Among the Canaanites, Egyptians, and Babylonians, mourning the dead often involved physical mutilation and ritual shaving of the head or beard. These were outward displays of grief, but they were tied to idolatry, superstition, and false religion.
The making of baldness on the head referred to the deliberate shaving of a circular patch of hair as a sign of mourning, not to natural baldness. Such customs were directly associated with idol worship and death rituals. Leviticus 19:27–28 had already forbidden the Israelites in general from such practices: “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.”
In ancient pagan cultures, it was common for mourners to shave their heads or beards, gash their skin, or tattoo themselves as acts of devotion to the dead or to their gods. The priests of Baal, for instance, “cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them” (1 Kings 18:28). These acts reflected a worldview rooted in despair and self-destruction, whereas God’s priests were to reflect life, hope, and faith in the Lord who conquers death.
The holiness of God’s priests required that their mourning differ completely from that of the heathen. Their faith was not to be expressed through violence to their own bodies or through the symbols of pagan grief, but through quiet submission to God’s will. As Paul later wrote in 1 Thessalonians 4:13, “But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.”
By forbidding these practices, God separated His priests from the pagan world and emphasized that holiness involves both inner purity and outward distinction. Their appearance and conduct were to communicate that they served the living God, not dead idols.
Summary:
Leviticus 21:1–5 lays down foundational principles of priestly holiness. The priests were to avoid defilement by contact with death and abstain from pagan mourning rituals. God demanded that His priests embody life, purity, and separation from sin and idolatry. Their conduct was a reflection of divine holiness, serving as a visible witness that the God of Israel is the source of life and holiness.
The Marriage Practices of Priests
(Leviticus 21:6–9)
“They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for they offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God; therefore they shall be holy. They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God. Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he offereth the bread of thy God: he shall be holy unto thee: for I the LORD, which sanctify you, am holy. And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.”
The holiness of the priest was to be evident not only in his ministry but in his private life, particularly in his marriage and family. The priest stood as a representative of the people before God, and as such, his moral integrity had to reflect the sanctity of the God he served. The phrase “They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God” sets the tone for this section. To profane something is to treat it as common or unholy. The priest’s personal behavior, even in marriage, could either honor or dishonor the name of God before the people. As God’s chosen servant, the priest’s conduct directly reflected upon the Lord whom he represented.
The Hebrew term translated “profane” carries the idea of defiling or dishonoring what is sacred. Peter-Contesse notes it may also mean “to bring disgrace on” or “to bring shame to.” The priest’s life, therefore, had to be a testimony of reverence and obedience, showing that he understood the privilege of serving the Holy One of Israel. Holiness was not limited to the sanctuary; it extended into the home, the marriage bed, and the family lineage.
The priests were reminded that they “offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God.” These duties represented the highest acts of worship, symbolizing Israel’s fellowship with God through sacrifice and offering. Because they handled sacred things — the offerings consumed by fire and the bread of the Presence (showbread) set before God — their personal purity had to correspond with the holiness of their ministry. Their role in maintaining the altar and presenting the bread, which signified fellowship and covenant communion with God, demanded that their lives be undefiled. This connection between holiness and fellowship with God is also found in 1 John 1:5–6, which says, “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.”
The phrase “bread of their God” includes not only the showbread but all the food offerings associated with the altar. In ancient Hebrew, “bread” often referred to all sustenance or food. As Matthew Poole noted, “The showbread, or rather all the other offerings besides burnt offerings, are called bread, because bread is commonly put for all food.” Since the priest partook of this food in God’s presence, it was necessary that both his body and soul be pure before the Lord.
God specifically forbade the priests to marry a woman who was a harlot, a defiled woman, or one divorced from her husband. The priest’s marriage had to mirror purity, order, and devotion — all qualities consistent with God’s own holiness. He could not marry a woman corrupted by pagan prostitution or idolatrous practices, nor one who had been previously married and divorced. This did not imply that divorce was sinful in itself for laymen in Israel, but that the elevated sanctity of the priest’s office required stricter standards. As Harrison observed, “The mention of a harlot is intended to remind the Israelites that cultic prostitution of the Canaanite variety had no place whatever in the life of the covenant community, since such behaviour would profane God’s holy name.”
The word “defiled” may simply elaborate on “harlot” — referring to one who had been ritually corrupted by pagan worship — or it may refer to any woman who had been sexually defiled, whether through immorality or violence. Peter-Contesse notes that it may describe a woman “who has been seduced or violated and therefore lost her virginity.” In either case, the priest was to marry only a virgin, symbolizing purity and exclusivity in devotion. Just as the priest was wholly devoted to the Lord, his marriage was to reflect that same exclusivity of love and faithfulness.
By prohibiting marriage to a divorced woman, God established a distinction between priests and ordinary Israelites. While divorce under certain conditions was permitted for others (Deuteronomy 24:1–4), the priest’s role as an example of God’s faithfulness to His covenant required a higher level of marital sanctity. The priest, who daily represented Israel before a holy God, was to embody God’s constancy and purity even in his home life.
The command extends beyond the priest himself to his family. “The daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” This severe penalty underscored that a priest’s household was to be holy as well. His daughter’s sin brought shame not only on herself but also on her father, whose calling was to represent the holiness of God before Israel. The burning with fire likely referred to execution followed by burning — the harshest of punishments — signifying that her sin struck at the very heart of the covenant priesthood.
This particular form of judgment reflected the gravity of her offense, for her harlotry was not merely personal immorality but a public desecration of sacred office. Pagan cults often involved temple prostitution, and if the daughter of a priest engaged in such sin, it was seen as polluting the priesthood itself. Rooker rightly notes, “A priest who would allow a prostitute to reside under his roof would not be qualified to render decisions on behalf of the covenant community.”
The same principle is echoed in the New Testament, where the qualifications for church leaders emphasize managing one’s household well. 1 Timothy 3:4–5 teaches that a bishop must be “one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” Likewise, Titus 1:6 requires that an elder be “blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.”
In both covenants, the spiritual leader’s home is a reflection of his devotion to God. The holiness of the priesthood in Leviticus anticipated the holiness required of all believers in Christ, who are now called a “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9). God still demands purity, faithfulness, and reverence from those who serve Him, for He declares, “I the LORD, which sanctify you, am holy.”
Requirements Regarding the High Priest and the Selection of Priests
(Leviticus 21:10–15) The Responsibility of the High Priest
“And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes; neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother; neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD. And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him.”
The position of the high priest carried an extraordinary level of responsibility and sanctity before God. This man stood as the supreme representative of Israel in divine service, symbolizing the nation’s access to God. Among all the sons of Aaron, the high priest was “the one on whose head the anointing oil was poured” and who was “consecrated to put on the garments.” These words recall Exodus 28:1–30, where the high priest’s sacred vestments and anointing were described in great detail. His ministry was to model God’s holiness more completely than any other man in Israel.
The title “high priest” (haccohen haggadol) appears here for the first time in Scripture. Adam Clarke notes that the title literally means “that priest, the great one,” signifying his preeminence among the priesthood. Though all priests served as mediators between God and the people, the high priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). This exclusive privilege demanded unparalleled purity and devotion.
The high priest was forbidden to “uncover his head” or “rend his clothes.” Both actions were traditional symbols of grief or mourning in Israel. When Jacob believed Joseph to be dead, he “rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days” (Genesis 37:34). Likewise, Joshua and the elders of Israel “rent their clothes” when they were defeated at Ai (Joshua 7:6). However, the high priest was prohibited from such displays of sorrow, even for his own father or mother. His life was to be an uninterrupted symbol of divine holiness and service.
This restriction demonstrates a hierarchy of holiness within Israel. As Rooker explains, there were three ascending degrees of sanctity: the people, the priests, and the high priest — just as the tabernacle had three corresponding zones of holiness: the outer court, the Holy Place, and the Most Holy Place. The high priest, as the holiest man in the holiest nation, was to embody the holiness of the innermost sanctuary where the presence of God dwelt.
To “uncover the head” meant to let one’s hair hang loose in disarray, a common sign of grief. To “rend the clothes” expressed anguish and despair. These gestures were incompatible with the dignity of the high priest’s calling, for he was to stand continually as a representative of life, hope, and divine order. When the high priest at Jesus’ trial tore his garments in outrage at the Lord’s words (Matthew 26:65), he violated this very command, ironically disqualifying himself by that act of hypocrisy.
The high priest was also forbidden to go near any dead body or defile himself through contact with death — even for his parents. Unlike the other priests, who could defile themselves for the burial of their closest kin (Leviticus 21:2–3), the high priest had to maintain absolute separation from death. His anointing symbolized the presence and life of God, and death had no part in that sacred representation. God declared, “for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him.” The Hebrew word for “crown” (nezer) is the same word used for “Nazirite,” referring to one who is set apart to God. The high priest’s anointing marked him as permanently consecrated; he was to live in continual awareness of the divine presence.
Furthermore, he was not to “go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God.” This instruction reinforced that his service was constant, his separation total. Even in the midst of personal tragedy, the high priest was not permitted to abandon his sacred duty or defile the sanctuary with the impurity of death. The holiness of his calling superseded all human ties and emotions. This illustrates the principle that God’s servants must place divine calling above all earthly concerns, a theme later reflected in the words of Jesus: “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37).
The high priest’s marriage was also strictly regulated: “He shall take a wife in her virginity.” While ordinary priests were forbidden to marry harlots, defiled women, or those divorced from their husbands, the high priest’s standard was higher still. He could not marry a widow. His wife had to be a virgin of his own people — that is, a pure, unmarried woman from among Israel. This purity of marriage symbolized the covenant faithfulness between God and His people, typifying Christ’s relationship to His spotless bride, the Church. As Paul wrote in Ephesians 5:27, “That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”
The high priest’s home was to mirror the holiness of the sanctuary. His wife, like the tabernacle itself, was to be undefiled, wholly devoted to her husband and to God. A marriage to a widow or divorced woman might have been lawful for others, but for the high priest it symbolically conflicted with his role as a figure of God’s eternal covenant, which is pure, undivided, and faithful.
Lastly, the Lord declared, “Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him.” This refers to the moral and spiritual integrity of his descendants. The high priest was not only to preserve his own holiness but to ensure that his children were raised in purity, not corrupted by paganism or idolatrous practices. To “profane” his seed would mean to allow his lineage to become unfit for priestly service or to associate them with idolatrous worship. His home life, therefore, was an extension of his sacred office.
In the broader theological sense, the high priest foreshadows Jesus Christ, our eternal High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5:1–11). Unlike Aaron’s descendants, who were imperfect and bound by death, Christ’s priesthood is perfect, unending, and based on His sinless life. He never needed to separate Himself from death ceremonially, for He triumphed over it by His resurrection. As Hebrews 7:26–27 says, “For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”
Ministering Priests Must Be Free from Physical Defects
(Leviticus 21:16–24)
“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them. And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.”
The Lord here establishes that all priests who minister before Him must be without physical defect or blemish. The reason was not that God despised those who were disabled or imperfect in body, but that the priesthood served as a living symbol of perfection, holiness, and the separation of sin from God’s presence. The physical purity of the priest was meant to represent moral and spiritual wholeness before the Holy One of Israel. Thus, while such a man could not officiate in temple service, he was not excluded from the covenant community or the blessings of God.
The Lord’s instruction begins with solemn authority: “Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.” The “bread of his God” refers to the offerings that were presented upon the altar — sacrifices that symbolized fellowship and communion with God. The priest who offered them stood as a mediator between God and man, and his service therefore had to be free from visible imperfection. This outward standard reflected an inward truth — that those who serve God must come before Him with hearts purified from the blemish of sin.
Every animal sacrificed upon the altar was required to be without blemish, as in Leviticus 1:3 which states, “If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.” Likewise, Leviticus 3:1 declares, “If his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD.” The same principle that applied to the sacrifices applied also to the priests who offered them. God’s holiness demanded wholeness in both the offering and the offerer.
This principle ultimately finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. He is both the perfect sacrifice and the perfect High Priest. The Apostle Peter wrote of Him in 1 Peter 1:19, “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” And the author of Hebrews testifies of His perfection in Hebrews 7:26: “For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.” Christ perfectly fulfills what these Levitical standards only symbolized — He is both the flawless offering and the sinless mediator.
The text provides a detailed list of physical conditions that disqualified a priest from serving at the altar: blindness, lameness, disfigurement, broken limbs, hunchback, dwarfism, defective eyes, skin disease, or mutilation. These twelve physical defects, as Rooker notes, “comprise the most comprehensive discussion on the subject of defects in the Bible.” The list was not intended to demean those afflicted with such conditions but to teach Israel that God’s service must reflect His perfection and glory. The outward defect symbolized inward imperfection.
The word translated “dwarf” may also mean a person who is emaciated or sickly, as Peter-Contesse explains. These restrictions ensured that those who ministered in the sanctuary presented a visible image of wholeness, mirroring the perfection of God’s holiness. Yet this physical requirement was always secondary to the spiritual lesson — that no man can truly approach God unless made whole within by His sanctifying grace.
The command that “only he shall not go near the veil” clarified the scope of these restrictions. Peter-Contesse explains that “the expression ‘come near the veil’ means to go into the first part of the sanctuary to put bread on the table, to light the lamps, and to burn incense to God.” Thus, the disqualified priest could not perform ritual service within the holy places, though he remained part of the priestly order. This restriction safeguarded the sanctity of the tabernacle, ensuring that nothing imperfect would symbolically mar the worship that pointed to divine perfection.
An interesting historical note is provided by Rooker: during the inter-testamental period, Antigonus mutilated the high priest Hyrcanus II by cutting off his ears so that, according to this law, he would be permanently disqualified from holding the high priesthood again. This act, though wickedly political, shows how strictly the Jewish people still regarded the Levitical code even in later centuries.
Despite these restrictions, the Lord’s mercy is evident in His statement: “He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.” Although a priest with physical defects could not perform the sacrifices, he was still entitled to partake of the holy food from the offerings. This provision ensured that those afflicted were not cut off from their share in the blessings and sustenance of the priesthood. They were still counted among God’s servants and part of His covenant family.
This grace is captured in the phrase “his God.” The Lord was still the personal God of the priest with a defect. His physical limitations did not separate him from divine fellowship, only from specific ceremonial duties. As Matthew Trapp beautifully noted, “Our involuntary weaknesses shall not debar us from benefit by Christ.” The principle extends spiritually to all believers today: though we are imperfect and blemished in many ways, we are accepted in Christ, the perfect Priest who ministers on our behalf.
In this way, the holiness laws of Leviticus reveal both God’s uncompromising standard and His gracious provision. The requirement of perfection in the priesthood teaches that sinful man cannot approach a holy God apart from the perfect Mediator. Yet the inclusion of the blemished priest in the covenant community demonstrates that God’s mercy extends even to the weak and broken.
Summary:
Leviticus 21:16–24 establishes that priests with physical defects were prohibited from officiating at the altar or entering the sanctuary, symbolizing that only what is whole and pure may stand before God. However, these men were not rejected; they still belonged to the covenant and partook of the priestly provisions. This law pointed forward to Jesus Christ, the perfect and sinless High Priest, whose perfect sacrifice reconciled all who are spiritually blemished.
