الكتاب المقدس

Expositor's Bible Commentary Leviticus 21:1 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: THE LAW OF PRIESTLY HOLINESS Leviticus 21:1-24 ; Leviticus 22:1-33 THE conception of Israel as a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, was concretely represented in a threefold division of the people, -the congregation, the priesthood, and the high priest. This corresponded to the threefold division of the tabernacle into the outer court, the holy place, and the holy of holies, each in succession more sacred than the place preceding. So while all Israel was called to be a priestly nation, holy to Jehovah in life and service, this sanctity was to be represented in degrees successively higher in each of these three divisions of the people, culminating in the person of the high priest, who, in token of this fact, wore upon his forehead the inscription, "HOLINESS TO JEHOVAH." Up to this point the law of holiness has dealt only with such obligations as bore upon all the priestly nation alike; in these two chapters we now have the special requirements of this law in its yet higher demands upon, first, the priests, and, secondly, the high priest. Abolished as to the letter, this part of the law still holds good as to the principle which it expresses, namely that special spiritual privilege and honour places him to whom it is given under special obligations to holiness of life. As contrasted with the world without, it is not then enough that Christians should be equally correct and moral in life with the best men of the world; though too many seem to be living under that impression. They must be more than this; they must be holy: God will wink at things in others which He will not deal lightly with in them. And, so, again, within the Church, those who occupy various positions of dignity as teachers and rulers of God’s flock are just in that degree laid under the more stringent obligation to holiness of life and walk. This most momentous lesson confronts us at the very opening of this new section of the law, addressed specifically to "the priests, the sons of Aaron." How much it is needed is sufficiently and most sadly evident from the condition of baptized Christendom today. Who is there that will heed it? Priestly holiness was to be manifested, first ( Leviticus 21:1-15 ), in regard to earthly relations of kindred and friendship. This is illustrated under three particulars, namely, in mourning for the dead ( Leviticus 21:1-6 ), in marriage ( Leviticus 21:7-8 ), and ( Leviticus 21:9 ) in the maintenance of purity in the priest’s family. With regard to the first point, it is ordered that there shall be no defilement for the dead, except in the case of the priest’s own family, -father, mother, brother, unmarried sister, son, or daughter. That is, with the exception of these cases, the priest, though he may mourn in his heart, is to take no part in any of those last offices which others render to the dead. This were "to profane himself." And while the above exceptions are allowed in the case of members of his immediate household, even in these cases he is specially charged ( Leviticus 21:5 ) to remember, what was indeed elsewhere forbidden to every Israelite, that such excessive demonstrations of grief as shaving the head, cutting the flesh, etc., were most unseemly in a priest. These restrictions are expressly based upon the fact that he is "a chief man among his people," that he is holy unto God, appointed to offer "the bread of God, the offerings made by fire." And inasmuch as the high priest, in the highest degree of all, represents the priestly idea, and is thus admitted into a peculiar and exclusive intimacy of relation with God, having on him "the crown of the anointing oil of his God," and having been consecrated to put on the "garments for glory and for beauty," worn by none other in Israel, with him the prohibition of all public acts of mourning is made absolute ( Leviticus 21:10-12 ). He may not defile himself, for instance, by even entering the house where lies the dead body of a father or a mother! These regulations, at first thought, to many will seem hard and unnatural. Yet this law of holiness elsewhere magnifies and guards with most jealous care the family relation, and commands that even the neighbour we shall love as ourselves. Hence it is certain that these regulations cannot have been intended to condemn the natural feelings of grief at the loss of friends, but only to place them under certain restrictions. They were given, not to depreciate the earthly relationships of friendship and kindred, but only to magnify the more the dignity and significance of the priestly relation to God, as far transcending even the most sacred relations of earth. As priest, the son of Aaron was the servant of the Eternal God, of God the Holy and the Living One, appointed to mediate from Him the grace of pardon and life to those condemned to die. Hence he must never forget this himself, nor allow others to forget it. Hence he must maintain a special, visible separation from death, as everywhere the sign of the presence and operation of sin and unholiness; and while he is not forbidden to mourn, he must mourn with a visible moderation; the more so that if his priesthood had any significance, it meant that death for the believing and obedient Israelite was death in hope. And then, besides all this, God had declared that He Himself would be the portion and inheritance of the priests. For the priest therefore to mourn, as if in losing even those nearest and dearest on earth he had lost all, were in outward appearance to fail in witness to the faithfulness of God to His promises, and His all-sufficiency as his portion. Standing here, will we but listen, we can now hear the echo of this same law of priestly holiness from the New Testament, in such words as these, addressed to the whole priesthood of believers: "He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me"; "Let those that have wives be as though they had none, and those that weep as though they wept not"; "Concerning them that fall asleep sorrow not, even as the rest, which have no hope." As Christians we are not forbidden to mourn; but because a royal priesthood to the God of life, who raised up the Lord Jesus, and ourselves looking also for the resurrection, ever with moderation and self-restraint. Extravagant demonstrations of sorrow, whether in dress or in prolonged separation from the sanctuary and active service of God, as the manner of many is, are all as contrary to the New Testament law of holiness as to that of the Old. When bereaved, we are to call to mind the blessed fact of our priestly relation to God, and in this we shall find a restraint and a remedy for excessive and despairing grief. We are to remember that the law for the High Priest is the law for all His priestly house; like Him, they must all be perfected for the priesthood by sufferings; so that, in that they themselves suffer, being tried, they may be able the better to succour others that are tried in like manner. {2Co 1:4 Heb 2:18} We are also to remember that as priests to God, this God of eternal life and love is Himself our satisfying portion, and with holy care take heed that by no immoderate display of grief we even seem before men to traduce His faithfulness and belie to unbelievers His glorious all-sufficiency. The holiness of the priesthood was also to be represented visibly in the marriage relation. A priest must marry no woman to whose fair fame attaches the slightest possibility of suspicion, -no harlot, or fallen woman, or a woman divorced ( Leviticus 21:7 ); such an alliance were manifestly most unseemly in one "holy to his God." As in the former instance, the high priest is still further restricted; he may not marry a widow, but only "a virgin of his own people" ( Leviticus 21:14 ); for virginity is always in Holy Scripture the peculiar type of holiness. As a reason it is added that this were to "profane his seed among his people"; that is, it would be inevitable that by neglect of this care the people would come to regard his seed with a diminished reverence as the separated priests of the holy God. From observing the practice of many who profess to be Christians, one would naturally infer that they can never have suspected that there was anything in this part of the law which concerns the New Testament priesthood of believers. How often we see a young man or a young woman professing to be a disciple of Christ, a member of Christ’s royal priesthood, entering into marriage alliance with a confessed unbeliever in Him. And yet the law is laid down as explicitly in the New Testament as in the Old, {1Co 7:39} that marriage shall be only "in the Lord"; so that one principle rules in both dispensations. The priestly line must, as far as possible, be kept pure; the holy man must have a holy wife. Many, indeed, feel this deeply and marry accordingly; but the apparent thoughtlessness on the matter of many more is truly astonishing, and almost incomprehensible. And the household of the priest were to remember the holy standing of their father. The sin of the child of a priest was to be punished more severely than that of the children of others; a single illustration is given ( Leviticus 21:9 ): "The daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the harlot, shall be burnt with fire." And the severity of the penalty is justified by this, that by her sin "she profaneth her father." From which it appears that, as a principle of the Divine judgment, if the children of believers sin, their guilt will be judged more heavy than that of others: and that justly, because to their sin this is added, over like sin of others, that they thereby cast dishonour on their believing parents, and in them soil and defame the honor of God. How little is this remembered by many in these days of increasing insubordination even in Christian families! The priestly holiness was to be manifested, in the second place, in physical, bodily perfection. It is written ( Leviticus 21:17 ): "Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed throughout their generations that hath a blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God." And then follows ( Leviticus 21:18-20 ) a list of various cases in illustration of this law, with the proviso ( Leviticus 21:21-23 ) that while such a person might not perform any priestly function, he should not be debarred from the use of the priestly portion, whether of things "holy" or "most holy," as his daily food. The material and bodily is ever the type and symbol of the spiritual; hence, in this case, the spiritual purity and perfection required of him who would draw near to God in the priests’ office must be visibly signified by his physical perfection; else the sanctity of the tabernacle were profaned. Moreover, the reverence due from the people toward Jehovah’s sanctuary could not well be maintained where a dwarf, for instance, or a humpback, were ministering at the altar. And yet the Lord has for such a heart of kindness; in kindly compassion He will not exclude them from His table. Like Mephibosheth at the table of David, the deformed priest may still eat at the table of God. There is a thought here which bears on the administration of the affairs of God’s house even now. We are reminded that there are those who, while undoubtedly members of the universal Christian priesthood, and thus lawfully entitled to come to the table of the Lord, may yet be properly regarded as disabled and debarred by various circumstances, for which, in many cases, they may not be responsible, from any eminent position in the Church. In the almost unrestrained insistence of many in this day for "equality," there are indications not a few of a contempt for the holy offices ordained by Christ for His Church, which would admit an equal right on the part of almost any who may desire it, to be allowed to minister in the Church in holy things. But as there were dwarfed and blinded sons of Aaron, so are there not a few Christians who-evidently, at least to all but themselves - are spiritually dwarfs or deformed; subject to ineradicable and obtrusive constitutional infirmities, such as utterly disqualify, and should preclude, them from holding any office in the holy Church of Christ. The presence of such in her ministry can only now, as of old, profane the sanctuaries of the Lord. The next section of the law of holiness for the priests {Lev 22:1-16} requires that the priests, as holy unto Jehovah, treat with most careful reverence all those holy things which are their lawful portion. If, in any way, any priest have incurred ceremonial defilement, -as, for instance, by an issue, or by the dead, -he is not to eat until he is clean ( Leviticus 21:2-7 ). On no account must he defile himself by eating of that which is unclean, such as that which has died of itself, or has been torn by beasts ( Leviticus 21:8 ), which indeed was forbidden even to the ordinary Israelite. Furthermore, the priests are charged that they preserve the sanctity of God’s house by carefully excluding all from participation in the priests’ portion who are not of the priestly order. The stranger or sojourner in the priest’s house, or a hired servant, must not be fed from this "bread of God"; not even a daughter, when, having married, she has left the father’s home to form a family of her own, can be allowed to partake of it ( Leviticus 21:12 ). If, however ( Leviticus 21:13 ), she be parted from her husband by death or divorce, and have no child, and return to her father’s house, she then becomes again a member of the priestly family, and resumes the privileges of her virginity. All this may seem, at first, remote from any present use; and yet it takes little thought to see that, in principle, the New Testament law of holiness requires, under a changed form, even the same reverent use of God’s gifts, and especially of the holy Supper of the Lord, from every member of the Christian priesthood. It is true that in some parts of the Church a superstitious dread is felt with regard to approach to the Lord’s Table, as if only the conscious attainment of a very high degree of holiness could warrant one in coming. But, however such a feeling is to be deprecated, it is certain that it is a less serious wrong, and argues not so ill as to the spiritual condition of a man as the easy carelessness with which multitudes partake of the Lord’s Supper, nothing disturbed, apparently, by the recollection that they are living in the habitual practice of known sin, unconfessed, unforsaken, and therefore unforgiven. As it was forbidden to the priest to eat of those holy things which were his rightful portion, with his defilement or uncleanness on him, till he should first be cleansed, no less is it now a violation of the law of holiness for the Christian to come to the Holy Supper having on his conscience unconfessed and unforgiven sin. No less truly than the violation of this ancient law is this a profanation, and who so desecrates the holy food must bear his sin. And as the sons of Aaron were charged by this law of holiness that they guard the holy things from the participation of any who were not of the priestly house, so also is the obligation on every member of the New Testament Church, and especially on those who are in official charge of her holy sacraments, that they be careful to debar from such participation the unholy and profane. It is true that it is possible to go to an extreme in this matter which is unwarranted by the Word of God. Although participation in the Holy Supper is of right only for the regenerate, it does not follow, as in some sections of the Church has been imagined, that the Church is therefore required to satisfy herself as to the undoubted regeneration of those who may apply for membership and fellowship in this privilege. So to read the heart as to be able to decide authoritatively on the regeneration of every applicant for Church membership is beyond the power of any but the Omniscient Lord, and is not required in the Word. The Apostles received and baptised men upon their credible profession of faith and repentance, and entered into no inquisitorial cross-examination as to the details of the religious experience of the candidate. None the less, however, the law of holiness requires that the Church, under this limitation, shall to the uttermost of her power be careful that no one unconverted and profane shall sit at the Holy Table of the Lord. She may admit upon profession of faith and repentance, but she certainly is bound to see to it that such profession shall be credible; that is, such as may be reasonably believed to be sincere and genuine. She is bound, therefore, to satisfy herself in such cases, so far as possible to man, that the life of the applicant, at least externally, witnesses to the genuineness of the profession. If we are to beware of imposing false tests of Christian character, as some have done, for instance, in the use or disuse of things indifferent, we are, on the other hand, to see to it that we do apply such tests as the Word warrants, and firmly exclude all such as insist upon practices which are demonstrably, in themselves always wrong, according to the law of God. No man who has any just apprehension of Scriptural truth can well doubt that we have here a lesson which is of the highest present day importance. When one goes out into the world and observes the practices in which many whom we meet at the Lord’s Table habitually indulge, whether in business or in society, -the crookedness in commercial dealings and sharp dealing in trade, the utter dissipation in amusement, of many Church members, -a spiritual man cannot but ask, Where is the discipline of the Lord’s house? Surely, this law of holiness applies to a multitude of such cases; and it must be said that when such eat of the holy things, they "profane them"; and those who, in responsible charge of the Lord’s Table, are careless in this matter, "cause them to bear the iniquity that bringeth guilt, when they eat their holy things" ( Leviticus 21:16 ). That word of the Lord Jesus certainly applies in this case: {Mat 18:7} "It must needs be that occasions of stumbling come; but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh!" The last section of the law concerning priestly holiness {Lev 22:17-33} requires the maintenance of jealous care in the enforcement of the law of offerings. Inasmuch as, in the nature of the case, while it rested with the sons of Aaron to enforce this law, the obligation concerned every offerer, this section ( Leviticus 22:17-25 ) is addressed also ( Leviticus 22:18 ) "unto all the children of Israel." The first requirement concerned the perfection of the offering; it must be ( Leviticus 22:19-20 ) "without blemish." Only one qualification is allowed to this law, namely, in the case of the free-will offering ( Leviticus 22:23 ), in which a victim was allowed which, otherwise perfect, had something "superfluous or lacking in his parts." Even this relaxation of the law was not allowed in the case of an offering brought in payment of a vow; hence Malachi, {Mal 1:14} in allusion to this law, sharply denounces the man who "voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a blemished thing." Leviticus 22:25 provides that this law shall be enforced in the case of the foreigner, who may wish to present an offering to Jehovah, no less than with the Israelite. A third requirement ( Leviticus 22:27 ) sets a minimum limit to the age of a sacrificial victim; it must not be less than eight days old. The reason of this law, apart from any mystic or symbolic meaning, is probably grounded in considerations of humanity, requiring the avoidance of giving unnecessary suffering to the dam. A similar intention is probably to be recognised in the additional law ( Leviticus 22:28 ) that the cow, or ewe, and its young should not both be killed in one day; though it must be confessed that the matter is somewhat obscure. Finally, the law closes ( Leviticus 22:29-30 ) with the repetition of the command {Lev 7:15} requiring that the flesh of the sacrifice of thanksgiving be eaten on the same day in which it is offered. The slightest possibility of beginning corruption is to be precluded in such cases with peculiar strictness. This closing section of the law of holiness, which so insists that the regulations of God’s law in regard to sacrifice shall be scrupulously observed, in its inner principle forbids all departures in matter of worship from any express Divine appointment or command. We fully recognise the fact that, as compared with the old dispensation, the New Testament allows in the conduct and order of worship a far larger liberty than then. But, in our age, the tendency, alike in politics and in religion, is to the con-. founding of liberty and license. Yet they are not the same, but are most sharply contrasted. Liberty is freedom of action within the bounds of Divine law; license recognises no limitation to human action, apart from enforced necessity, -no law save man’s own will and pleasure. It is therefore essential lawlessness, and therefore is sin in its most perfect and consummate expression. But there is law in the New Testament as well as in the Old. Because the New Testament lays down but few laws concerning the order of Divine worship, it does not follow that these few are of no consequence, and that men may worship in all respects just as they choose and equally please God. To illustrate this matter: It does not follow, because the New Testament allows large liberty as regards the details of worship, that therefore we may look upon the use of images or pictures in connection with worship as a matter of indifference. If told that these are merely used as an aid to devotion, -the very argument which in all ages has been used by all idolaters, -we reply that, be that as it may, it is an aid which is expressly prohibited under the heaviest penal sanctions in both Testaments. We may take another present day illustration, which, especially in the American Church, is of special pertinence. One would say that it should be self-evident that no ordinance of the Church should be more jealously guarded from human alteration or modification than the most sacred institution of the sacramental Supper. Surely it should be allowed that the Lord alone should have the right to designate the symbols of His own death in this most holy ordinance. That He chose and appointed for this purpose bread and wine, even the fermented juice of the grape, has been affirmed by the practically unanimous consensus of Christendom for almost nineteen hundred years; and it is not too much to say that this understanding of the Scripture record is sustained by the no less unanimous judgment of truly authoritative scholarship even today. Neither can it be denied that Christ ordained this use of wine in the Holy Supper with the most perfect knowledge of the terrible evils connected with its abuse in all ages. All this being so, how can it but contravene this principle of the law of holiness, which insists upon the exact observance of the appointments which the Lord has made for His own worship, when men, in the imagined interest of "moral reform," presume to attempt improvements in this holy ordinance of the Lord, and substitute for the wine which He chose to make the symbol of His precious blood, something else, of different properties, for the use of which the whole New Testament affords no warrant? We speak with full knowledge of the various plausible arguments which are pressed as reasons why the Church should authorise this nineteenth-century innovation. No doubt, in many cases, the change is urged through a misapprehension as to the historical facts, which, however astonishing to scholars, is at least real and sincere. But whenever any, admitting the facts as to the original appointment, yet seriously propose, as so often of late years, to improve on the Lord’s arrangements for His own Table, we are bold to insist that the principle which underlies this part of the priestly law of holiness applies in full force in this case, and cannot therefore be rightly set aside. Strange, indeed, it is that men should unthinkingly hope to advance morality by ignoring the primal principle of all holiness, that Christ, the Son of God, is absolute and supreme Lord over all His people, and especially in all that pertains to the ordering of His own house! We have in these days great need to beseech the Lord that He may deliver us, in all things, from that malign epidemic of religious lawlessness which is one of the plagues of our age; and raise up a generation who shall so understand their priestly calling as Christians, that, no less in all that pertains to the offices of public worship, than in their lives as individuals they shall take heed, above all things, to walk according to the principles of this law of priestly holiness. For, repealed although it be as to the outward form of the letter, yet in the nature of the case, as to its spirit and intention, it abides, and must abide, in force unto the end. And the great argument also, with which, after the constant manner of this law, this section closes, is also, as to its spirit, valid still, and even of greater force in its New Testament form than of old. For we may now justly read it in this wise: "Ye shall not profane My holy name, but I will be hallowed among My people: I am the Lord that hallow you, that have redeemed you by the cross, to be your God." The Expositor's Bible Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron. Leviticus 21 Sacred relationship demands sanctity of life W. H. Jellie. If there is one fact more notably emphasised than another in this address to priests, it is this: their — I. ABSOLUTE AND INDESTRUCTIBLE RELATIONSHIP. Every son of Aaron was a "priest." Of this union with Aaron it is observable that — 1. It results from a living relationship. By birth he was connected with Aaron, a lineal descendant of God's high priest. And no truth is more a truism than that every Christian is by birth-relationship connected with Christ — the moment he is quickened and becomes a believing and a living soul, he is a "priest unto God." By no process of spiritual development or self-culture or studied effort does the convert to Christ become a "priest"; he is that by virtue of his living relationship to the High Priest: for as all the sons of Aaron were priests, so are all the sons of God through their connection with Christ. 2. The relationship is inalienable and indestructible. Conduct is not the basis of relationship with Christ, but life. A son of Aaron may be defiled "for the dead" (ver. 2), yet he did not thereby cease to be related to Aaron. If we were only priests to God as our conduct was faultless, who could stand? We are all unclean; defile ourselves continuously with "the dead," the guilty and contaminating things of earth. But "our life is hid with Christ in God"; and by virtue of that life-union we remain priests. 3. Imperfections of nature and character do not sever relationship. A "blemish," deformity of body, prove a disqualification for ministry, but did not destroy association with Aaron. Yes; there is exclusion from high and honoured services in consequence of irremediable defect and fault; and Christians with incurable weakness of disposition, worldliness of sympathy, infirmities of character, vacillation of purpose, are thereby set aside from honour in the Church and highest ministries for their Lord; yet still the relationship to Christ continues, for it is a birth-relationship, based upon a life-union with Jesus. But though relationship is absolute and indestructible — II. PRIVILEGE IS DEPENDENT AND CONDITIONAL. 1. Defilement is a disqualification for near fellowship and highest enjoyment of the priestly relationship.. Contact with "the dead" was forbidden; it excluded the priest from the service of God until cleansed anew and so reinstated. All contamination works disqualification, therefore "touch not, taste not, handle not." A priestly life should be pure. 2. Defect is a disqualification for highest service for our Lord.(1) Physical deformities even now form a natural barrier to the loftiest offices in the Church of Christ. Not unfitting the sufferer for many lowlier and less public ministries; for sacred grace is not dependent upon physical "form and comeliness."(2) Defects of character, of mental and moral constitution, also exclude from loftiest stations and services in the Christian kingdom. They are a barrier to such positions in the Church as require noblest qualities of character: for eminence gives influence; and he who moves in the public gaze must be free from such weaknesses of will, or principle, or conduct as would lay him open to inconstancy. ( W. H. Jellie. ) Holy unto their God Holy priests S. R. Aldridge, B. A. I. THE HONOURABLE POSITION OF THE PRIESTS. 1. They are sanctioned by God, consecrated to His especial service, they bear His stamp upon them, wear His livery, and receive of the honour that belongs to Him. 2. They perform the high function of offering the bread of God. This phrase included not only the placing of the shewbread in the sanctuary, but also the presentation to God of the various sacrifices which become the materials for His glory and praise. The enlarged priesthood of the New Testament, embracing the whole body of believers in Christ Jesus, are similarly dedicated to sacred office. They present spiritual sacrifices, they "showforth the excellences of Him who called them out of darkness into His marvellous light." II. HONOUR INVOLVES OBLIGATION AND RESTRICTION. Many acts permissible to the people were not so to the priests. They were evidently to be models of holiness in their persons, families, and social relationships. Men like the idea of occupying posts of dignity, but do not sufficiently realise the responsibilities thence accruing. We are always more anxious to get than to give; sinecure livings are at too high a premium of estimation. III. PERFECT HOLINESS IMPLIES BEAUTY, LIFE, AND JOY. It is in opposition to disfigurement, death, and sorrow. How different this conception of holiness from that of gloom and moroseness which many entertain. Let young people know that God loves pretty children, and handsome men and women, when the glory of the Spirit is thus reflected in the outer person; He delights in the vigour and innocent mirth of the young, and in the happy enthusiasm, the lively rejoicing of their elders, when these are the outcome of righteousness and devoted service. The imperfection of this present state is evident in the fact that holiness does not mean exemption from anxiety and tribulation. It sometimes appears as if the most faithful children of God were visited with heaviest chastisements. We are assured of a future state where these contradictions shall be removed. The ideal shall not only be approximated, but attained to; "death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying, nor pain any more: the first things are passed away," symbolical and ascriptional righteousness shall give place to real perfect holiness; in the presence of God there shall be fulness of joy. ( S. R. Aldridge, B. A. ) Personal requirements of the priests J. A. Seiss, D. D. It is a truth which ought ever to be before the minds of those who minister in holy things, and deeply graven on their hearts, that righteousness of life and consistency in private conduct is the most vital element of a preacher's power. Let his ordination, his talents, his attainments, his eloquence, be what they may, without a life corresponding to his teachings he is only "as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." Actions speak louder than words. Character is more eloquent than rhetoric. What a man is always has more weight than what he says. And in the same proportion that an unholy life weakens a minister's influence, does uprightness, fidelity, and consistency, enhance it. A truly honest and good man, whatever his sphere, will always have weight. However people may revile his profession, they always feel rebuked in his presence, and pay homage to him in their secret souls. There is might in virtue. It tells upon a man in spite of him. It strikes at once into the heart and conscience. And when a minister has a pure and spotless life to sustain his profession, he becomes a host in strength. Jehovah says of His priests, "They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God." "He that ruleth among men must be just, ruling in the fear of the Lord." But the law prescribes for the domestic relations and social surroundings of the priest as well as for his personal perfections. Upon this point also it becomes a minister to be particular. I. The ancient priest was REQUIRED TO BE PHYSICALLY PERFECT. Otherwise he could not be a fit representative of that perfect humanity which was found in our Saviour. He was required to be without bodily blemish, that Israel might know what sort of a Priest Messiah to expect. Their eyes were to be directed to Jesus as one "altogether lovely." II. The ancient priest was REQUIRED TO BE PROPERLY AND PURELY MATED. As a type of Christ in all other respects, so was he also in his espousals. The Lamb is not alone. He has His affianced bride — His holy Church. He hath chosen her as a chaste virgin — as one whom "the daughters saw and blessed." Not a divorced woman — not a vile offender — not an unclean thing — is the Church of Jesus. And the priest's wife had to be pure to typify these pure espousals of the Lamb, and the excellencies of that Church which He has chosen for His everlasting bride. III. It was required of the ancient priest THAT HIS CHILDREN SHOULD BE PURE. The transgression of his daughter degraded him from his place. It is one of the demands laid upon Christian pastors to have "faithful children that are not accused of riot, nor unruly." The reason is obvious. A minister's family, as well as himself, is made conspicuous by the very nature of his office. Their misdeeds are specially noticed by the world, and readily laid to his charge. Any unholiness in them operates as a profanation of his name. It is so much taken from his power. The Holy Ghost therefore calls upon him to "rule well his own house, having his children in subjection." But the law was typical. It relates to Christ and His Church. It points to the fact that everything proceeding from His union with His people is good and pure. IV. There are other requirements which were made of the ancient priests, both in the twenty-first and twenty-second chapters, which I will sum up under the general name of HOLINESS. They were not to defile themselves with the dead, or by eating improper food, or by contact with the unclean, or by irreverence towards the holy things. They were to be very particular about all the laws, and to devote themselves to their office as men anointed of God. In one word, they were to be holy; that is, whole, entire, complete, fully separated from all forbidden, and fully consecrated to what was commanded. This was necessary for personal and official reasons; but especially for the high priest as a type of Christ. It was a requirement to shadow forth the character of Jesus, and the sublime wholeness and consecration which were in Him. Men have despised and desecrated the sanctity of everything else related to religion; but when they came to the character of Jesus, their hands grew powerless, their hearts failed, their utterance choked, and they turned aside in reverent awe of a goodness and majesty which could not be gainsaid. Infidelity itself has freely and eloquently confessed to His matchless excellence. Paine disavows "the most distant disrespect to the moral character of Jesus Christ." Rousseau is struck with admiration at His excellence. "What sweetness, what purity in His manner! What an affecting gracefulness in His delivery! What sublimity in His maxims! What profound wisdom in His discourses l What presence of mind, what subtlety, what truth in His replies! How great the command of His passions! Where is the man, where the philosopher, who could so live, and so die, without weakness and without ostentation?... Yea, if Socrates lived and died like a sage, Jesus lived and died like a God." What would man be without Christ — without His holy life? In Him, and in Him alone, earth rises into communion with heaven, and light shines in upon our benighted humanity. V. There is yet one particular in the requirements concerning the ancient priests to which I will refer. It is said of the high priest, "HE SHALL NOT UNCOVER," &c. ( Leviticus 21:10-12 ). That is to say, he was not to allow any natural sympathies to interfere with the pure and proper discharge of the duties of his high office. Some have regarded this as a coldness and harshness thrown around the old priesthood, which has nothing to correspond to it in the Christian system. I do not so understand it. The very reverse is the truth. The high priest was a great religious officer for the entire Jewish nation. He belonged more to the nation than to his family or himself. It would therefore have been a most heartless thing to allow a little natural domestic sympathy and affection to set aside all the great interests of the Hebrew people. So far from throwing a chilliness around the high priesthood, it gave to it a warmth and zeal of devotion, and showed an outbreathing of heart upon the spiritual wants of the congregation, superior to the love of father or mother. And it was meant to shadow forth a precious truth: viz., that Christ, as our High Priest, consecrated all His highest, warmest, and fullest sympathies in His office. He loved father and mother, and was properly obedient to them; but when it came to the great duties of His mission, the interests of a perishing world were resting upon His doings, and He could not stop to gratify domestic sympathies. Rising then above the narrow circle of carnal relationships, "He stretched forth His hand toward His disciples, and said, Behold My mother and My brethren!" His sympathies are those of the spirit, and not of the flesh. ( J. A. Seiss, D. D. ) Any blemish. Blemishes affect service, not sonship C. H. Mackintosh. — To be a child of God is one thing; to be in the enjoyment of priestly communion and priestly worship is quite another. This latter is, alas! interfered with by many things. Circumstances and associations are allowed to act upon us by their defiling influence. We are not to suppose that all Christians enjoy the same elevation of walk, the same intimacy of fellowship, the same felt nearness to Christ. Alas! alas! they do not. Many of us have to mourn over our spiritual defects. There is lameness of walk, defective vision, stunted growth; or we allow ourselves to be defiled by contact with evil, and to be weakened and hindered by unhallowed associations. In a word, as the sons of Aaron, though being priests by birth, were, nevertheless, deprived of many privileges through ceremonial defilement and physical defects; so we, though being priests unto God by spiritual birth, are deprived of many of the high and holy privileges of our position by moral defilement and spiritual defects. We are shorn of many of our dignities through defective spiritual development. We lack singleness of eye, spiritual vigour, whole-hearted devotedness. Saved we are through the free grace of God, on the ground of Christ's perfect sacrifice. "We are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus"; but, then, salvation is one thing, communion is quite another. Sonship is one thing, obedience is quite another. These things should be carefully distinguished. The section before us illustrates the distinction with great force and clearness. If one of the sons of Aaron happened to be "broken-footed, or broken-handed," was he deprived of his sonship? Assuredly not. Was he deprived of his priestly position? By no means. It was distinctly declared, "He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy." What, then, did he lose by his physical blemish? He was forbidden to tread some of the higher walks of priestly service and worship. "Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar." These were very serious privations; and though it may be objected that a man could not help many of these physical defects, that did not alter the matter. Jehovah could not have a blemished priest at His altar, or a blemished sacrifice thereon. Both the priest and the sacrifice should be perfect. Now we have both the perfect priest and the perfect sacrifice in the Person of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. ( C. H. Mackintosh. ) He shall eat the bread of his God. Leviticus 21:22 The Divine banquet H. Bonar, D. D. It is not easy to say whether the words, "bread of his God," refer generally to the sacrifices and offerings, or specially to the "shewbread." We take them as pointing to the latter; as, indeed, in any interpretation of the expression, the shewbread must be included, if not mainly intended. It was called the "shewbread"; or, more properly, "the bread of the presence"; the bread that stood on the King's table, and in the King's presence; the bread which was therefore intimately connected with Him who is called "the Angel of the Presence" ( Isaiah 62:9 ); the bread which was associated with Him whose "presence" went with Israel whithersoever they went ( Exodus 33:14 ). I. IT IS PROVIDED BY GOD. AS in carrying out His purpose in the old creation, He provided every fruit-bearing tree for man, so, in accomplishing the new creation, He has supplied the "food convenient." He has made the provision for His house; and He has also blessed it. For the sustaining the life which He imparts, He provides the food required. II. IT IS PREPARED BY GOD HIMSELF. Moses, as representing God, prepared the twelve loaves; and God Himself has prepared the better bread, the flesh of the Son of Man. "A body hast Thou prepared Me." In the history of the birth, the life, the sorrows, the hardships, the blood-shedding, the death of the incarnate Son of God, we have a description of the way it, which the "shewbread" or "presence-bread" of the Church was prepared, according to God's own method, for our everlasting food. III. IT IS GIVEN TO US BY GOD. God causes it to be provided for us; nay, He prepares it Himself; and then having thus provided and prepared it, He gives it: "God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son" ( John 3:16 ); "The bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give," &c. IV. WHO THEY ARE WHO FEAST ON IT. Perhaps the answer to such a question will be — God's priesthood, His Church. Nor would this be incorrect; yet it would be defective. No doubt this heavenly bread is for them, just as the tree of life was for Adam, or the Temple shewbread was for the sons of Aaron. But it is so specially called "the bread of our God"; and the table on which it is set is so specially God's own table; and the place where it is to be eaten is so manifestly the royal banquet-hall of heaven, that we come to the conclusion that God Himself is partaker of this feast as well as we. The King, sitting at His own table, in His own festal chamber, not only feeds His guests, bat Himself partakes of that which is set before them. Israel's various sacrifices and offerings of all kinds were the various dishes set upon the great Temple table; each of them full of meaning; each of them containing that which would satisfy and comfort; every one of them setting forth some part of the glorious fulness of the God-man, as the true food of souls; and all of them together representing that complete and blessed feast of "fat things" partaken of by God and His redeemed, in some measure now, but hereafter to be more fully enjoyed at the great marriage-supper in the New Jerusalem, when that shall be fulfilled, so long realised but in parts and fragments, "I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me" ( Revelation 3:20 ). ( H. Bonar, D. D. ) The bread of God S. H. Kellogg, D. D. It was an ancient heathen notion that in sacrifice food was provided for the deity in order thus to show him honour. And, doubtless, in Israel, ever prone to idolatry, there were many who rose no higher than this gross conception of the meaning of such words. Thus, in Psalm 50:8-15 , God sharply rebukes Israel for so unworthy thoughts of Himself, using language at the same time which teaches the spiritual meaning of the sacrifice, regarded as the "food" or "bread" of God.... Of which language the plain teaching is this. If the sacrifices are called in the law "the bread of God," God asks not this bread from Israel in any material sense, or for any material need. He asks that which the offerings symbolise; thanksgiving, loyal fulfilment of covenant engagements to Him, and that loving trust which will call on Him in the day of trouble. Even sol Gratitude, loyalty, trust! this is the "food of God," this the bread which He desires that we should offer, the bread which those Levitical sacrifices symbolised. For even as man, when hungry, craves food, and cannot be satisfied without it, so God, who is Himself Love, desires our love, and delights in seeing its expression in all those offices of self-forgetting and self-sacrificing service in which love manifests itself. This is to God even as is food to us. Love cannot be satisfied except with love returned; and we may say, with deepest humility and reverence, the God of love cannot be satisfied without love returned. Hence it is that the sacrifices, which in various ways symbolize the self-offerings of love and the fellowship of love, are called by the Holy Ghost "the food" or "bread of God." And yet we must, on no account, hasten to the conclusion, as many do, that therefore the Levitical sacrifices were only intended to express and symbolise the self-offering of the worshipper, and that this exhausts their significance. On the contrary, the need of infinite love for this "bread of God" cannot be adequately met and satisfied by the self-offering of any creature, and, least of all, by the self-offering of a sinful creature, whose very sin lies just in this, that he has fallen away from perfect love. The symbolism of the sacrifice as "the food of God," therefore, by this very phrase, points toward the self-offering in love of the eternal Son to the Father, and in behalf of sinners for the Father's sake. It was the sacrifice on Calvary which first became, in innermost reality, that "bread of God," which the ancient sacrifices were only in symbol. It was this, not regarded as satisfying Divine justice (though it did this), but as satisfying the Divine love; because it was the supreme expression of the perfect love of the incarnate Son of God to the Father, in His becoming "obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross." ( S. H. Kellogg, D. D. ).

21:1-24 Laws concerning the priests. - As these priests were types of Christ, so all ministers must be followers of him, that their example may teach others to imitate the Saviour. Without blemish, and separate from sinners, He executed his priestly office on earth. What manner of persons then should his ministers be! But all are, if Christians, spiritual priests; the minister especially is called to set a good example, that the people may follow it. Our bodily infirmities, blessed be God, cannot now shut us out from his service, from these privileges, or from his heavenly glory. Many a healthful, beautiful soul is lodged in a feeble, deformed body. And those who may not be suited for the work of the ministry, may serve God with comfort in other duties in his church.