Leviticus Chapter 22
More Specific Instructions for Priests
A. Things that might defile a priest
1. (Leviticus 22:1–3) The need for ceremonial purity
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to Aaron and his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they do not profane My holy name by what they dedicate to Me: I am the Lord. Say to them: ‘Whoever of all your descendants throughout your generations, who goes near the holy things which the children of Israel dedicate to the Lord, while he has uncleanness upon him, that person shall be cut off from My presence: I am the Lord.’”
The Lord commanded Moses to instruct Aaron and his sons regarding the necessity of maintaining ceremonial purity when handling holy things. The priests were stewards of items that were consecrated to God—objects such as the altar, the table of showbread, the golden lampstand, and the altar of incense. These were not their possessions but were wholly devoted to the Lord. Thus, they were to treat them with reverence and never approach them carelessly or while ceremonially unclean. To neglect this command was to profane the holy name of God, showing irreverence toward His sanctity.
The expression “that they separate themselves” carries the idea of setting something apart for sacred use. The root word nzr, from which “Nazirite” is also derived, conveys the concept of being separated or consecrated. This instruction implied that the priests were to handle holy things with utmost caution, treating them as distinct from common or ordinary objects. In this context, “holy things” also included the portions of sacrificial meat and produce that had been dedicated to the Lord. These items were sacred and to be treated accordingly.
If a priest or any of his descendants approached the holy things while in a state of uncleanness, he would be “cut off” from God’s presence. This did not necessarily imply death, though it could, but rather exclusion from priestly service. To be cut off meant being removed from the privilege of standing before the Lord in service. The Hebrew concept parallels the phrase “to stand before someone,” used in passages such as Deuteronomy 10:8, which says, “At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister to Him and to bless in His name, to this day.” To be cut off from before someone therefore meant losing the right to serve that person.
This emphasis on purity among the priests reflected a broader spiritual truth. Under the Old Covenant, all ceremonies and rituals were symbolic, foreshadowing the ultimate reality found in Christ. As Colossians 2:16–17 says, “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” Likewise, Hebrews 10:1 explains, “For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.”
Therefore, the principle that a priest must not serve while unclean pointed to the truth that fellowship with God requires one to be cleansed and declared righteous by Him. Just as the priest had to be ceremonially pure to serve, believers under the New Covenant must be spiritually cleansed through faith in Jesus Christ. As 1 John 1:7 declares, “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.”
2. (Leviticus 22:4–8) Examples of things that might defile a priest
“Whatever man of the descendants of Aaron, who is a leper or has a discharge, shall not eat the holy offerings until he is clean. And whoever touches anything made unclean by a corpse, or a man who has had an emission of semen, or whoever touches any creeping thing by which he would be made unclean, or any person by whom he would become unclean, whatever his uncleanness may be—the person who has touched any such thing shall be unclean until evening, and shall not eat the holy offerings unless he washes his body with water. And when the sun goes down he shall be clean; and afterward he may eat the holy offerings, because it is his food. Whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it: I am the Lord.”
This passage provides practical examples of how a priest could become ceremonially defiled and therefore disqualified from handling or eating the holy things until cleansed. God required that His priests be ritually pure because they ministered before Him on behalf of the people.
The phrase “whatever man of the descendants of Aaron” clarifies that the command applied to all priests and their households, for all priests descended from Aaron. Being part of the priestly lineage was a divine privilege, yet it came with strict expectations regarding purity and conduct.
If a priest became defiled, it could occur through several circumstances. First, disease or illness could render one unclean, such as leprosy or a bodily discharge. Both represented corruption of the flesh and symbolized the defilement that sin brings to humanity. Second, uncleanness could come through contact with death—touching a corpse or anything associated with death. Death was the ultimate mark of sin’s curse, and therefore, even symbolic contact with it disqualified one temporarily from sacred service. Third, an emission of semen, though a natural bodily function, resulted in temporary impurity due to its association with the loss of life potential. Fourth, touching an unclean creature, such as a creeping thing, could likewise render one unfit for service until purified.
These examples illustrate that impurity was not always moral but ceremonial. Violations of these rules did not permanently disqualify a man from the priesthood. The unclean priest remained so only until evening, after which he would be considered clean again upon washing. The instruction “shall not eat the holy offerings unless he washes his body with water” emphasizes that a ritual washing was required for restoration. The washing symbolized cleansing from impurity and renewed readiness for service before the Lord.
“When the sun goes down he shall be clean” points to a new beginning. The Jewish day began at sunset, so the transition from evening to night symbolized a fresh start. The priest, after following the proper purification procedures, could resume eating from the offerings—the portion allotted to him as his sustenance. This daily rhythm of defilement, cleansing, and renewal beautifully foreshadowed God’s continual mercy toward His people. As Lamentations 3:22–23 declares, “Through the Lord’s mercies we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not. They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness.” Each day, God’s people could begin anew in purity before Him.
The instruction “whatever dies naturally or is torn by beasts he shall not eat” reiterates a law already given to all Israel in Leviticus 17:15–16, which says, “And every person who eats what died naturally or what was torn by beasts, whether he is a native of your own country or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. Then he shall be clean. But if he does not wash them or bathe his body, then he shall bear his guilt.” For the priest, this prohibition carried even greater weight, as his defilement would not only affect himself but also the sanctity of his service before God. The priests, as the spiritual representatives of Israel, were to model holiness and separation from impurity in every detail of life.
3. (Leviticus 22:9) Summary of the command for ritual purity among the priests
“They shall therefore keep My ordinance, lest they bear sin for it and die thereby, if they profane it: I the Lord sanctify them.”
This verse serves as a solemn summary of the previous instructions. The priests were required to “keep My ordinance,” referring to the ceremonial duties and regulations given by God concerning holiness and purity. Failure to observe these could result in severe consequences, including death, as divine judgment for profaning what was holy.
The phrase “lest they bear sin for it and die thereby” reveals the gravity of priestly responsibility. Those who ministered before God were accountable for honoring His holiness in both their actions and condition. This punishment was appropriate given their greater understanding of God’s commands and their elevated role in leading the nation spiritually. Their sin was not merely personal but had national implications, as it represented a direct affront to the sanctity of the worship system God had established.
The declaration “I the Lord sanctify them” reminds the priests that their holiness was not self-generated. It was God who set them apart for His service and consecrated them for His own purpose. Their calling was both an honor and a sacred duty. With that privilege came accountability, echoing the principle expressed by Jesus in Luke 12:47–48: “And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.”
Therefore, the holiness of the priests was a reflection of the holiness of the God they served. To dishonor His ordinances was to treat lightly the very God who sanctified them. Every regulation concerning purity pointed back to this central truth: that the Lord is holy, and those who serve Him must also be holy in all their conduct (1 Peter 1:15–16).
4. (Leviticus 22:10–13) Only the priest and his household could eat of the offerings
“No outsider shall eat the holy offering; one who dwells with the priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat the holy thing. But if the priest buys a person with his money, he may eat it; and one who is born in his house may eat his food. If the priest’s daughter is married to an outsider, she may not eat of the holy offerings. But if the priest’s daughter is a widow or divorced, and has no child, and has returned to her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat her father’s food; but no outsider shall eat it.”
The holy offerings belonged to the Lord, and the priest’s share of those offerings was reserved strictly for the priest and his immediate household. No outsider, visitor, or hired worker was permitted to eat of these sacred portions. The holy food symbolized fellowship with God and participation in His covenant blessings, and therefore could only be shared by those who were within the priestly family.
The Lord’s command that “no outsider shall eat the holy offering” emphasized that only those in covenantal relationship with Him through the priestly household could partake. The term “outsider,” sometimes translated “layman,” referred to anyone outside the priestly line, even if they were Israelites (as seen in Exodus 29:33, Numbers 3:10, 38, and Numbers 18:4, 7). A visitor dwelling temporarily in the home or a hired servant employed for wages was not considered part of the priest’s family and therefore could not partake of the holy things.
However, those who were part of the priest’s permanent household, including those “bought with his money” or “born in his house,” were permitted to eat. In ancient Israel, a servant purchased into a household was considered part of that family’s covenantal covering. Such servants were not merely property but were incorporated into the household structure and could participate in its privileges. This distinction reveals that slavery under the Mosaic Law was far different from later forms of slavery that were abusive and dehumanizing. Adam Clarke noted that under the Law of Moses, slaves were often instructed in the true faith and treated as part of the family, enjoying spiritual privileges denied to outsiders or temporary workers. He contrasted this with the hypocrisy of later so-called Christian societies that justified cruel slavery while ignoring the moral and spiritual principles of Scripture.
The text further mentions the priest’s daughter, who could eat of the offerings only while she remained part of her father’s household. If she married a man outside the priestly line, she no longer had access to the priestly food, because her allegiance and identity became tied to another family. Yet if she became widowed or divorced, had no children, and returned home, she regained her original standing under her father’s protection. She could again eat of the holy offerings, as she did in her youth. This restoration illustrated God’s fairness and compassion, ensuring provision for a woman in need.
This passage highlights that holiness extended beyond the individual priest to his entire household. Everyone who shared in his provision was to be considered under his sanctification. In a broader spiritual sense, the New Testament applies a similar principle to those who belong to Christ, the great High Priest. Those united with Him are sanctified by His holiness, just as 1 Corinthians 7:14 teaches: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.” Holiness, then, affects all who dwell within the household of faith.
5. (Leviticus 22:14–16) Restitution for the accidental eating of the holy offering
“And if a man eats the holy offering unintentionally, then he shall restore a holy offering to the priest, and add one-fifth to it. They shall not profane the holy offerings of the children of Israel, which they offer to the Lord, or allow them to bear the guilt of trespass when they eat their holy offerings; for I the Lord sanctify them.”
This section provides instruction for restitution when someone accidentally ate a holy offering. Because these offerings were consecrated to God, they were not to be treated casually. Even an unintentional violation required correction. The offender was required to restore the offering to the priest and add one-fifth (twenty percent) as restitution, just as outlined in Leviticus 5:16, Leviticus 6:5, and Leviticus 27:13–15. This additional payment demonstrated repentance and respect for the sacred nature of what belonged to God.
The text specifies, “If a man eats the holy offering unintentionally,” implying that this concerned an outsider or someone not authorized to partake. Such cases were accidental, not rebellious, and therefore restitution, not judgment, was required. The principle still reinforced the sanctity of the Lord’s offerings. To handle holy things lightly, even by mistake, was to fail to recognize the holiness of God.
Matthew Henry observed that this restitution requirement reminds us that sin, whether deliberate or unintentional, carries consequences that must be addressed. As John Trapp aptly wrote, “All the water in Jordan, and the ceremonies in Leviticus, cannot cleanse a man so long as the polluted thing remains in his hand.” True repentance involves both confession and restitution when possible, demonstrating a heart that honors the holiness of God.
The closing phrase, “For I the Lord sanctify them,” underscores the theological foundation of these commands. It is God Himself who sanctifies both the priests and the offerings. Therefore, His people were to treat the offerings with reverence and maintain clear distinctions between the holy and the common. These laws preserved the sanctity of Israel’s worship and reminded the nation that holiness flows from the character of God, not from man’s efforts.
B. Examples of Unacceptable Sacrifices
1. (Leviticus 22:17–21) The principle — offerings must be made without blemish or defect
“And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to Aaron and his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: “Whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, who offers his sacrifice for any of his vows or for any of his freewill offerings, which they offer to the Lord as a burnt offering—you shall offer of your own free will a male without blemish from the cattle, from the sheep, or from the goats. Whatever has a defect, you shall not offer, for it shall not be acceptable on your behalf. And whoever offers a sacrifice of a peace offering to the Lord, to fulfill his vow, or a freewill offering from the cattle or the sheep, it must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it.”’”
The Lord extended His command concerning sacrificial purity beyond the priests to all Israel. Whether a person was an Israelite by birth or a stranger living among them, the same requirement applied: any offering brought to the Lord must be without blemish or defect. Every sacrifice, whether for a vow or a freewill offering, had to reflect the holiness of the One to whom it was presented. The principle was clear: only what was whole, complete, and unblemished was worthy of the Lord.
The text specifies that the sacrifice must be “a male without blemish from the cattle.” This was not the first time such a standard was given. Earlier, in Exodus 12:5 regarding the Passover lamb, the Lord commanded, “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats.” Likewise, Leviticus 1:3 says, “If his offering is a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it of his own free will at the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the Lord.” The priests were therefore responsible to ensure that every animal offered in sacrifice met this divine standard.
God rejected the notion of giving Him leftovers, cast-offs, or inferior animals. He had every right to demand the best from His people, for He Himself is perfect in holiness. As Deuteronomy 17:1 declares, “You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God a bull or sheep which has any blemish or defect, for that is an abomination to the Lord your God.” To bring a defective gift before the Almighty was not merely careless; it was insulting. As Rooker observed, “To bring a defective gift to a superior would not only be ludicrous but insulting.”
Adam Clarke summarized the law’s intent by saying, “In the service of God, according to the law, neither an imperfect offering nor an imperfect offerer could be admitted.” The standard for approaching God was absolute perfection because He is perfectly holy. Yet this standard, while impossible for sinful man to meet, served as a continual reminder that perfection could only be fulfilled in the coming Redeemer.
Unfortunately, during the time of Jesus, this principle was corrupted by greed and hypocrisy. The religious leaders and priests, exploiting the sacrificial system, would sometimes disqualify animals for minor or fabricated imperfections. This manipulation forced worshipers to buy pre-approved animals at inflated prices within the temple precincts. Jesus exposed and condemned this corruption when He drove out the money changers, saying, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of thieves” (Matthew 21:12–13).
The phrase “a male without blemish” also implies distinctions among offerings. For the burnt offering, the requirement was always male, representing strength and leadership. However, females were acceptable in certain offerings, such as the peace offering (Leviticus 3:1) and sin offering (Leviticus 4:32; 5:6), showing that the type of sacrifice determined the specific requirements.
The Lord then repeated, “Whatever has a defect, you shall not offer, for it shall not be acceptable on your behalf.” The prophet Malachi later rebuked Israel for disregarding this command: “You offer defiled food on My altar. But say, ‘In what way have we defiled You?’ By saying, ‘The table of the Lord is contemptible.’ And when you offer the blind as a sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? Offer it then to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you favorably? says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:7–8). God made it clear that offering anything less than the best was an act of dishonor and contempt toward Him.
The command concludes, “It must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it.” The Hebrew term translated “perfect” means complete, whole, sound, or unimpaired. It is the opposite of defective. This word choice signifies not only physical completeness but moral and spiritual integrity. God was teaching His people that only what was whole and uncorrupted was worthy to be presented before Him.
This requirement pointed forward to the perfection of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Every unblemished lamb and spotless bull sacrificed under the Law foreshadowed the ultimate, flawless sacrifice that Christ would offer. He alone met every condition of divine holiness. Jesus was perfect in His divine and human nature, sinless in His motives, flawless in His obedience, and complete in His sacrifice for sin. As Hebrews 9:14 declares, “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”
Peter also affirmed this truth in 1 Peter 1:18–19, saying, “Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” Christ’s perfect nature and sacrifice fulfilled in reality what the Levitical law portrayed in symbol.
2. (Leviticus 22:22–23) Specific blemishes from a birth defect or disease to be rejected
“Those that are blind or broken or maimed, or have an ulcer or eczema or scabs, you shall not offer to the Lord, nor make an offering by fire of them on the altar to the Lord. Either a bull or a lamb that has any limb too long or too short you may offer as a freewill offering, but for a vow it shall not be accepted.”
The Lord here provided a list of specific physical blemishes and diseases that would disqualify an animal from being offered upon His altar. The standard of perfection continued—every offering to God had to be physically whole, healthy, and sound. These were not arbitrary rules; each detail served to teach Israel about the holiness and perfection of God, and the purity required to approach Him.
The command included animals that were blind, broken, or maimed—defects that might occur at birth or through injury. Likewise, animals suffering from ulcers, eczema, or scabs were excluded. These ailments rendered the animal unfit because they represented corruption and decay. The sacrifice had to symbolize moral and spiritual purity; therefore, any visible imperfection spoiled the picture of divine holiness.
Peter-Contesse notes that six distinct defects are listed here, though some Hebrew terms are difficult to define precisely. Yet the exact medical distinctions are secondary to the moral principle: nothing diseased, deformed, or defiled could be offered to a holy God. The requirement called Israel to present their best, not their blemished or unworthy offerings.
For believers today, the principle applies in a spiritual sense. The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 12:1–2, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” As Christians, we are called to offer ourselves to God as living sacrifices, and this passage in Leviticus illustrates what such an offering should look like.
A living sacrifice should not be blind but should see clearly the goodness and majesty of God. It should not be broken or divided in heart but wholly dedicated to Him. It should not be maimed or inactive, but strong and ready to serve with every faculty devoted to His glory. Nor should it be ulcered or scabbed, representing a life corrupted by sin and fleshly decay. As Charles Spurgeon powerfully exhorted, “Would God that the best of our lives, the best hours of the morning, the best skill of our hands, the best thoughts of our minds, the very cream of our being, were given to our God!”
The law allowed certain exceptions. A bull or a lamb with a limb too long or too short could still be offered as a freewill offering, since this type of offering was voluntary and expressive of gratitude, not specifically for atonement or to fulfill a vow. The distinction underscores that God made room for generosity in worship but maintained higher standards for offerings connected with sin and covenant obligations.
Peter-Contesse observes that the Hebrew word translated “bull” (shor) can refer to either a male or female animal, depending on the context. Therefore, the verse encompasses any acceptable livestock, provided it met the physical requirements God set forth.
3. (Leviticus 22:24–25) Blemishes from castration to be rejected
“You shall not offer to the Lord what is bruised or crushed, or torn or cut; nor shall you make any offering of them in your land. Nor from a foreigner’s hand shall you offer any of these as the bread of your God, because their corruption is in them, and defects are in them. They shall not be accepted on your behalf.”
This passage addresses another category of disqualifying defects—those resulting from castration or mutilation. An animal that was bruised, crushed, torn, or cut in its reproductive organs could not be offered to God. The act of castration, whether deliberate or accidental, violated the symbol of life and wholeness that the sacrificial system represented.
While the New King James Version uses general terms such as “bruised or crushed,” many translations make the meaning clearer. The New American Standard Bible (1995) reads, “Also anything with its testicles bruised or crushed or torn or cut, you shall not offer to the Lord, or sacrifice in your land.” This direct rendering reveals that the text forbids offering any animal that had been sterilized or physically damaged in that manner. Most modern translations follow this interpretation.
The command extended beyond Israel itself: “Nor from a foreigner’s hand shall you offer any of these.” The Israelites were not permitted to purchase or receive castrated animals from Gentiles and then offer them to God. The reason is given plainly—“because their corruption is in them.” God would not accept what was mutilated, corrupted, or defective, regardless of its source. His standard of holiness was not to be lowered or compromised for convenience or trade.
This law emphasized that the offerings brought before God were to reflect life, vitality, and completeness. Castration, representing a mutilation of the God-created order, symbolized sterility and brokenness, things that had no place in an offering meant to represent wholeness and fruitfulness. God’s altar was to be a place of purity and perfection, never defiled by human manipulation or imperfection.
This standard again foreshadowed the ultimate perfection of Christ, who offered Himself “without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19). His sacrifice was not marred by any imperfection, physical or moral, but was wholly acceptable to the Father. In Him, the symbols of the old covenant found their complete and eternal fulfillment.
4. (Leviticus 22:26–30) When animals may be offered as sacrifices
“And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: ‘When a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall be seven days with its mother; and from the eighth day and thereafter it shall be accepted as an offering made by fire to the Lord. Whether it is a cow or ewe, do not kill both her and her young on the same day. And when you offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Lord, offer it of your own free will. On the same day it shall be eaten; you shall leave none of it until morning: I am the Lord.’”
This section gives additional guidance concerning the timing and treatment of sacrificial animals, again emphasizing that worship offered to God must reflect both reverence and compassion. The law’s concern was not only theological but moral, guarding Israel from cruelty and from adopting pagan rituals associated with idolatry.
The command that a sacrificial animal must be at least eight days old reflects both divine wisdom and mercy. “From the eighth day and thereafter it shall be accepted as an offering” indicates that the newborn animal had to be given time to gain strength, remain with its mother, and become viable. Offering an animal before this time would not only be needless cruelty but might have resembled pagan practices that glorified fertility and death. Pagan cultures often sacrificed newborn animals (and even children) to invoke the favor of false gods. God’s law made it unmistakable that His worship was distinct from such barbaric customs.
The prohibition “do not kill both her and her young on the same day” also separated Israel’s worship from the cruel and superstitious rituals of Canaan. To kill both mother and offspring on the same day could have been perceived as a magical act in pagan fertility rites. Instead, the Lord’s command promoted a spirit of tenderness and restraint. Adam Clarke observed, “The precept was certainly intended to inculcate mercy and tenderness of heart; and so the Jews understood it. When it is necessary to take away the lives of innocent animals for the support of our own, we should do it in such a way as not to blunt our moral feelings; and deplore the necessity, while we feel an express gratitude to God for permission to do it.”
This law reminded Israel that even in sacrifice, compassion was required. They were never to treat life as cheap or expendable. The term “ewe” here, as Peter-Contesse notes, likely refers to either a sheep or a goat, encompassing both primary forms of acceptable livestock for offering.
The next command, “When you offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Lord, offer it of your own free will,” highlighted that thanksgiving offerings were to be completely voluntary. God did not want empty gestures or mechanical rituals; He desired genuine gratitude from the heart. A thanksgiving sacrifice was one of joyful praise and acknowledgment of God’s goodness. It had to be offered freely and sincerely, for only then could it be truly acceptable before the Lord.
The instruction that the sacrifice be eaten on the same day reinforced this principle of freshness and wholehearted devotion. “On the same day it shall be eaten; you shall leave none of it until morning: I am the Lord.” The thanksgiving offering involved three portions—the part burned before God on the altar, the priest’s portion, and the remaining meat shared by the offerer and his household in a sacred meal. This meal symbolized communion with God, His priests, and His people. By requiring it to be eaten on the same day, God ensured that His people celebrated His goodness without carelessness or excess. Nothing was to be left over to decay or to be used for ordinary purposes. It was an act of fellowship that belonged wholly to the Lord, reminding Israel that gratitude toward God must be complete and immediate, not partial or delayed.
This principle remains true for believers today: genuine thanksgiving must be offered willingly, promptly, and with a pure heart. As Psalm 50:14–15 says, “Offer to God thanksgiving, and pay your vows to the Most High. Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify Me.”
5. (Leviticus 22:31–33) Summary
“Therefore you shall keep My commandments, and perform them: I am the Lord. You shall not profane My holy name, but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel. I am the Lord who sanctifies you, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the Lord.”
This closing section provides a solemn and comprehensive summary of the entire chapter. God reminded Israel—and especially the priests—of the reasons they were to obey His commandments and uphold the sanctity of His worship. Four reasons stand out in His declaration:
Because of who God is: “I am the Lord.” This was the central affirmation of Israel’s faith. Yahweh was not a tribal deity among many gods but the one true and living God. His authority alone established the moral and spiritual order for His people.
Because of what He is: “My holy name.” The holiness of God demanded reverence in all things, especially in worship. To profane His name—by neglect, hypocrisy, or irreverence—was to show contempt for His very character. Matthew Poole rightly noted, “Neither shall ye profane My holy name; either by despising Me and My command yourselves, or by giving others occasion to profane them.”
Because of what He is doing: “I am the Lord who sanctifies you.” God Himself was the source of their holiness. The priests and people were not holy by nature or by ritual alone but by God’s gracious act of sanctification. Everything about their worship and service was a response to His redemptive work.
Because of what He has done: “Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God.” Their deliverance from bondage was both a historical fact and a theological foundation. It was the proof of God’s faithfulness, love, and power. Israel owed their obedience to Him not merely because He commanded it but because He had redeemed them.
This verse embodies the covenant relationship between God and His people. It begins and ends with the statement “I am the Lord,” underscoring the unchanging nature of His authority. His holiness was to be reflected in their conduct, and their obedience was to flow from gratitude for His redemption.
G. Campbell Morgan insightfully remarked, “Jehovah is the God of holiness because He is essentially the God of love.” His holiness is not cold or distant; it is the expression of divine love that desires purity and fellowship with His people. Therefore, the priests’ careful attention to purity, compassion, and obedience in the sacrificial system was not mere ceremony—it was the reflection of a God whose holiness is both righteous and relational.
