Chapter 21
Leviticus 21:1-4 - This law seems to reduce the number of people who would become ceremonially unclean in the instance of death. People outside the family were not to become involved in handling the body. When a person was made unclean, there were certain offerings and ceremonies he would have to go through. This would cost money and time for both the unclean and the priests on duty. Rather than "clog" the system unnecessarily, it seems the Lord is trying to contain the uncleanness. It is not a sin to become unclean, but there is a purification that must be undertaken after the fact.
Leviticus 21:5 - These were practices of pagan priests. When the Lord says, "...nor make any cuts in their flesh" (NASB), that phrase "any cuts" is an adjectival intensifier, which can be translated more emphatically than the NASB as "any cuts at all" or "not a single cut."
Leviticus 21:6 - The phraseology of this verse is different than one might expect based on the English rendering. The English translations tend to homogenize (or smooth out) variations in the Hebrew text, which makes it more readable, but it also loses the significance of the original Hebrew. That is why it is important to learn the original languages or to read the writings of people who know them. Back to the verse:
"They shall be holy..." In Hebrew, the word "holy" is thrown forward to the front of the sentence to give emphasis on the fact that God expects the priests to be different. "They shall not profane (or pollute) the name of their God." There is a heavy accent mark over "profane", which is meant to indicate to the reader to pause slightly and let the listener feel the gravity of what is to be said. Then there is a major break after "name of their God," which splits the sentence in two parts and gives the most emphasis on not profaning the name of the Lord. The last part of this verse is best rendered, "because the offerings of God (which is the bread of their God) they are bringing near, and they are holy." In the beginning, God calls the priests holy. At the end, He calls the offerings holy.
You can see from how I translated the verse that I understand "offerings of God" and "bread of God" to be equative. That is, I believe Moses is saying the offerings the priests bring are like bread to God. I don't believe he is referring to the "show bread" that was offered as another type of offering to God. I cannot find another instance of the phrase "the bread of their God" in the Bible outside of this chapter (except one in the next chapter 22:25). I believe Moses is saying that your sacrifices are to God what bread is to humanity.
Leviticus 21:7 - The NASB renders it: "They shall not take a woman profaned by harlotry." The Hebrew is a little more precise than that. It reads more literally, "A woman [who is] a harlot or a profaned [woman], they will not take." The word for "harlot" is a noun, so it cannot be translated as "harlotry". By harlot, Moses means a promiscuous woman (for money or not). The main idea in view is a woman who *willingly* gave herself up. By profaned, Moses means a woman who *unwillingly* was "ravished". For example, Tamar was raped by her half brother (2 Sam 13). She would be unavailable for marriage to a priest, but she could be married by any other Israelite, as with a harlot (see Hosea).
Priests were also not allowed to marry a divorced woman. At the time, there was a great stigma against a woman that was divorced (not a man though). It was a cultural thing. A man could divorce his wife for any reason at all. (Commentator John Gill tells us that many times adultery was feigned as a reason.) But usually, a divorced woman had a suspicious shadow cast over her.
By these commands, the Lord is trying to protect the priests from being wrapped up in any scandals, either real or imagined. Their lives were to be protected from unnecessary strife so they could focus more fully on the Lord and their duties. There were eleven other tribes these women could marry from, so the Lord was not reducing significantly the number of eligible men.
Another point to be made is that the primary reason for prohibiting the marriage was to prevent scandal. One might think that these women who were profaned or harlots or divorced were somehow made irreversibly unclean. That is not true. They could be made clean, even under the mosaic law.
Thus, women today who have been divorced, sold themselves, or have been "profaned" should not faint at this verse. Furthermore, these regulations should not be imposed on modern-day ministers of the Gospel. Moses says, "Tell Aaron and his sons..." (Lev 22:2). These laws were specifically intended for the Levitical priesthood. Though the principle does have wisdom to be applied today: Servants of the Lord should steer clear of any appearance of scandal.
Leviticus 21:8 - The priests are to be "set apart" by the people. And they are to be set apart from the rest of the people. They are dedicated to the task of serving God. We also see another reference to "bread of our God."
Not only were the people to set apart the priests but they were to consider them as holy (one who is set apart). In other words, don't forget that they are different than the rest of the Israelites. The last part of the verse is the last phase of what appears to be a cycle: People set apart a priest --> priest serves God --> as he serves God, he helps the Lord to --> set apart the people.
Leviticus 21:9 - As with verse 7, by "harlot" (NASB) Moses means any sexually promiscuous woman (whether it involves money or not). The key is that she willingly engages in sexual intercourse outside of marriage. When this woman is the daughter of a priest, there is a special punishment prescribed for her: She is to be burned alive. The Bible does not specify whether she is married, betrothed (as good as married, but not technically), or single. A punishment is already prescribed for an unmarried, un-betrothed woman who engages in sexual activity in Deut 22:20-21: She is to be stoned to death. The same punishment holds for a married or betrothed woman. The purpose of this verse is to prescribe a different punishment for promiscuity by a daughter of a priest: Burned alive, which is a more terrible way to die. The reason for a greater punishment, it is supposed, is because of the shame and disgrace she has brought on her father as a priest. She has opened him up to ridicule and scandal. His reputation will be marred for ever, and his ability to serve the people in such a capacity will be severely diminished.
Leviticus 21:10 - These are regulations for the high priest. NASB obscures the significance of the original Hebrew (though it does give a literal translation in the margin). The Hebrew reads, "Whose hands have been filled." This is a reference to the consecration ceremony prescribed in Exodus 29:22-25. Different parts of offerings were to be put in the hands of the high priest. Thus, his "hands have been filled."
Leviticus 21:12 - It is supposed that this regulation concerns leaving the temple on account of the dead. He may certainly not leave the temple while on duty. It was acceptable for the High Priest to leave the temple at night to go back to his home. He had an apartment, however, in the temple itself.
Leviticus 21:13 - While polygamy was accepted at this time, the High Priest was not permitted more than one wife. Bishops or overseers, as Paul teaches in the New Testament, should be husbands of only one wife also (1 Tim 3:2).
Leviticus 21:15 - The concern about "his seed" or children was that if the High Priest were to marry a woman with a bad reputation, his children might be reproached and unfit to succeed him in his office.
Leviticus 21:16-24 - These verses are concerned with blemishes of the priests themselves. As you have read, there are many with physical deformities that are excluded from service. There are a couple things to note: (1) Exclusion from service did not mean exclusion from eating the priestly food (vs. 22). The Hebrew wording is significant. Directly after "he may not offer the bread of His God" comes "[but] he may eat the bread of His God." Thus we see how careful the Lord is to give the deformed encouragement that though they may not serve God directly, they may directly benefit from Him; (2) Most of these defects would shorten the life-expectancy of the person. The Lord is careful to choose people that are capable of giving a full lifetime of service. It would be an added hardship to train someone in a duty only to have him die unexpectedly leaving a vacancy to be hastily filled; (3) Matthew Henry sees no problem with God choosing the best fit for service and excluding those with deformities; (4) The priests were representatives of God, and since humanity is so apt to judge by appearances, God was ensuring no insult may be cast on Him or His servants; (5) Some are only temporary injuries: broken limbs, scabs, or eczema, in which case the exclusion is only temporary; (6) Other deformities would limit the capabilities of a man to perform a meaningful function, such as blindness, dwarfness, etc. To work around the deformed men's limitations would be an added burden to the rest, and it would cause problems in the very strict division of labor. The conclusion is that God is not unjust to exclude those with deformities. We see Him withholding service rights with one hand and yet giving the same blessings of service with the other.
Those with "blemishes" were not to be idle. According to Jewish writers, these men, while not permitted to do priestly duties, they were employed in the wood storage rooms (separating worm-eaten wood from the altar wood) and in other duties in service of the priests and tabernacle.
