Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a running sore, or scurvy, or scabbed, you shall not offer these to the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them on the altar to the LORD.
Jump to: Barnes • Benson • BI • Calvin • Cambridge • Clarke • Darby • Ellicott • Expositor's • Exp Dct • Gaebelein • GSB • Gill • Gray • Haydock • Hastings • Homiletics • JFB • KD • Kelly • KJT • Lange • MacLaren • MHC • MHCW • Parker • Poole • Pulpit • Sermon • SCO • TTB • WES • TSK
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)Blind.—Whether totally blind or only of one eye. This blemish also disqualified the priest for the service at the altar (see Leviticus 21:18).
Or broken.—Better, broken-limbed (see Exodus 22:9), extending to the head, ribs, &c.
Or maimed.—This was regarded in the time of the second Temple to describe a blemish in the eyebrow. Hence the Chaldee version translates it “one whose eye-brows are fallen off.” It would thus correspond to the defect which unfitted the priest for ministering at the altar.
Or having a wen.—According to the Jewish canonists this denotes a disease of the eyes. Hence the Chaldee version translates it “one whose eyes are smitten with a mixture of white and black,” thus corresponding to the blemish which unfits the priest mentioned in Leviticus 21:19.
Or scurvy or scabbed.—These are exactly the same two defects specified with regard to the priests (see Leviticus 21:20).
Ye shall not offer these unto the Lord.—Though he must not offer animals with such blemishes, and though the man who vowed them for the sanctuary was beaten with stripes, yet the animals thus sanctified were no more his, he had to redeem them according to valuation, and with the money purchase another oblation.Leviticus 21:19; Deuteronomy 15:21.
a male without blemish—This law (Le 1:3) is founded on a sense of natural propriety, which required the greatest care to be taken in the selection of animals for sacrifice. The reason for this extreme caution is found in the fact that sacrifices are either an expression of praise to God for His goodness, or else they are the designed means of conciliating or retaining His favor. No victim that was not perfect in its kind could be deemed a fitting instrument for such purposes if we assume that the significance of sacrifices is derived entirely from their relation to Jehovah. Sacrifices may be likened to gifts made to a king by his subjects, and hence the reasonableness of God's strong remonstrance with the worldly-minded Jews (Mal 1:8). If the tabernacle, and subsequently the temple, were considered the palace of the great King, then the sacrifices would answer to presents as offered to a monarch on various occasions by his subjects; and in this light they would be the appropriate expressions of their feelings towards their sovereign. When a subject wished to do honor to his sovereign, to acknowledge allegiance, to appease his anger, to supplicate forgiveness, or to intercede for another, he brought a present; and all the ideas involved in sacrifices correspond to these sentiments—those of gratitude, of worship, of prayer, of confession and atonement [Bib. Sac.].
or having a wen: or full of warts, as others; the Targum of Jonathan is, whose eyes are smitten with a mixture of white and black; and so Gersom interprets it of a like defect in the eye, in the white of the eye; for he says, if it was in the black or pupil of the eye, the eye would be blind:
or scurvy or scabbed: the same of those in men; See Gill on Leviticus 21:20,
ye shall not offer these unto the Lord; any creatures defective in any of these instances; three times this is said, as Jarchi observes, to make them careful concerning the sanctification of them, and concerning the slaying of them, and concerning the sprinkling of their blood:
nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the Lord; a burnt offering on the altar of burnt offering, or burn the fat of them upon it.Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the LORD.
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)22. The definitions of what constitutes a blemish may be compared with those of Leviticus 21:18 ff. ‘Broken ‘here is from the same root as that so rendered in Leviticus 21:19; ‘maimed’ is lit. cut, mutilated; ‘a wen’ means a running sore, or ulcer.Leviticus 5:16). - In the concluding exhortation in Leviticus 22:15 and Leviticus 22:16, the subject to יחלּלוּ (profane) and השּׂאוּ (bear) is indefinite, and the passage to be rendered thus: "They are not to profane the sanctified gifts of the children of Israel, what they heave for the Lord (namely, by letting laymen eat of them), and are to cause them (the laymen) who do this unawares to bear a trespass-sin (by imposing the compensation mentioned in Leviticus 22:14), if they eat their (the priests') sanctified gifts." Understood in this way, both verses furnish a fitting conclusion to the section Leviticus 22:10-14. On the other hand, according to the traditional interpretation of these verses, the priesthood is regarded as the subject of the first verb, and a negative supplied before the second. Both of these are arbitrary and quite indefensible, because Leviticus 22:10-14 do not refer to the priests but to laymen, and in the latter case we should expect אליהם ישׂאוּ רלא (cf. Leviticus 22:9) instead of the unusual אותם השּׂאוּ.
LinksLeviticus 22:22 Interlinear
Leviticus 22:22 Parallel Texts
Leviticus 22:22 NIV
Leviticus 22:22 NLT
Leviticus 22:22 ESV
Leviticus 22:22 NASB
Leviticus 22:22 KJV
Leviticus 22:22 Bible Apps
Leviticus 22:22 Parallel
Leviticus 22:22 Biblia Paralela
Leviticus 22:22 Chinese Bible
Leviticus 22:22 French Bible
Leviticus 22:22 German Bible