A verse by verse commentary on Leviticus 21 dealing with the many rules for the priests such as shaving and marriage,

1. LEVITICUS 21 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Rules for Priests
1 The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the priests,
the sons of Aaron, and say to them: ‘A priest must
not make himself ceremonially unclean for any of
his people who die,
CLARKE, "There shall none be defiled for the dead - No priest shall assist in
laying out a dead body, or preparing it for interment. Any contact with the dead was
supposed to be of a defiling nature, probably because putrefaction had then taken place;
and animal putrefaction was ever held in detestation by all men.
GILL, "And the Lord said unto Moses,.... According to some Jewish writers this
was said on the day the tabernacle was set up; no doubt it was delivered at the same time
the above laws were given; and as care was taken for the purity and holiness of the
Israelites in general, it was necessary that the priests that were concerned in a more
especial manner in the service and worship of God should be holy also, and have some
instructions given them to take care and keep themselves from all defilements; and
particularly the Jewish writers observe, that this paragraph or section concerning the
priests follows upon, and is in connection with the law concerning such as have familiar
spirits, and wizards, to teach men, that in matters of doubt and difficulty they should not
have recourse to such persons, but to the priests of the Lord:
speak unto the priests, the sons of Aaron; the priests, whether elder or younger,
whether fit for service, and whether having blemishes, or not; for there are some things
which concern them, and these are sons, male children of Aaron, as the Targum of
Jonathan, and not daughters, as Jarchi and others observe; for they were not obliged to
regard the laws and rules here given:
and say unto them, there shall none be defiled for the dead among his
people; by entering into a tent or house where a dead body lay, by touching it, or by
hearing it, or attending it to the grave, or by any expressions of mourning for it, see
1

2. Num_19:11; that is, for any person in common that were of his people, that were not
nearly related to him, as in the cases after excepted; so it was a custom with the Romans,
as we are told (n), that such as were polluted by funerals might not sacrifice, which
shows that priests were not allowed to attend funerals, which perhaps might be taken
from hence; and so Porphyry says (o), that sacred persons and inspectors of holy things
should abstain from funerals or graves, and from every filthy and mournful sight.
HENRY 1-6, "It was before appointed that the priests should teach the people the
statutes God had given concerning the difference between clean and unclean, Lev_
10:10, Lev_10:11. Now here it is provided that they should themselves observe what they
were to teach the people. Note, Those whose office it is to instruct must do it by example
as well as precept, 1Ti_4:12. The priests were to draw nearer to God than any of the
people, and to be more intimately conversant with sacred things, and therefore it was
required of them that they should keep at a greater distance than others from every thing
that was defiling and might diminish the honour of their priesthood.
I. They must take care not to disparage themselves in their mourning for the dead. All
that mourned for the dead were supposed to come near the body, if not to touch it: and
the Jews say, “It made a man ceremonially unclean to come within six feet of a dead
corpse;” nay, it is declared (Num_19:14) that all who come into the tent where the dead
body lies shall be unclean seven days. Therefore all the mourners that attended the
funeral could not but defile themselves, so as not to be fit to come into the sanctuary for
seven days: for this reason it is ordered, 1. That the priests should never put themselves
under this incapacity of coming into the sanctuary, unless it were for one of their nearest
relations, Lev_21:1-3. A priest was permitted to do it for a parent or a child, for a brother
or an unmarried sister, and therefore, no doubt (though this is not mentioned) for the
wife of his bosom; for Ezekiel, a priest, would have mourned for his wife if he had not
been particularly prohibited, Eze_24:17. By this allowance God put an honour upon
natural affection, and favoured it so far as to dispense with the attendance of his
servants for seven days, while they indulged themselves in their sorrow for the death of
their dear relations; but, beyond this period, weeping must not hinder sowing, nor their
affection to their relations take them off from the service of the sanctuary. Nor was it at
all allowed for the death of any other, no, not of a chief man among the people, as some
read it, Lev_21:4. They must not defile themselves, no, nor for the high priest himself,
unless thus akin to them. Though there is a friend that is nearer than a brother, yet the
priests must not pay this respect to the best friend they had, except he were a relation,
lest, if it were allowed for one, others should expect it, and so they should be frequently
taken off from their work: and it is hereby intimated that there is a particular affection to
be reserved for those that are thus near akin to us; and, when any such are removed by
death, we ought to be affected with it, and lay it to heart, as the near approach of death
to ourselves, and an alarm to us to prepare to follow. 2. That they must not be
extravagant in the expressions of their mourning, no, not for their dearest relations,
Lev_21:5. Their mourning must not be either, (1.) Superstitious, according to the
manner of the heathen, who cut off their hair, and let out their blood, in honour of the
imaginary deities which presided (as they thought) in the congregation of the dead, that
they might engage them to be propitious to their departed friends. Even the
superstitious rites used of old at funerals are an indication of the ancient belief of the
immortality of the soul, and its existence in a separate state: and though the rites
themselves were forbidden by the divine law, because they were performed to false gods,
yet the decent respect which nature teaches and which the law allows to be paid to the
2

3. remains of our deceased friends, shows that we are not to look upon them as lost. Nor,
(2.) Must it be passionate or immoderate. Note, God's ministers must be examples to
others of patience under affliction, particularly that which touches in a very tender part,
the death of their near relations. They are supposed to know more than others of the
reasons why we must not sorrow as those that have no hope (1Th_4:13), and therefore
they ought to be eminently calm and composed, that they may be able to comfort others
with the same comforts wherewith they are themselves comforted of God. The people
were forbidden to mourn for the dead with superstitious rites (Lev_19:27, Lev_19:28),
and what was unlawful to them was much more unlawful to the priest. The reason given
for their peculiar care not to defile themselves we have (Lev_21:6): Because they offered
the bread of their God, even the offerings of the Lord made by fire, which were the
provisions of God's house and table. They are highly honoured, and therefore must not
stain their honour by making themselves slaves to their passions; they are continually
employed in sacred service, and therefore must not be either diverted from or disfitted
for the services they were called to. If they pollute themselves, they profane the name of
their God on whom they attend: if the servants are rude and of ill behaviour, it is a
reflection upon the master, as if he kept a loose and disorderly house. Note, All that
either offer or eat the bread of our God must be holy in all manner of conversation, or
else they profane that name which they pretend to sanctify.
JAMISON, "Lev_21:1-24. Of the priest’s mourning.
There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people — The obvious
design of the regulations contained in this chapter was to keep inviolate the purity and
dignity of the sacred office. Contact with a corpse, or even contiguity to the place where
it lay, entailing ceremonial defilement (Num_19:14), all mourners were debarred from
the tabernacle for a week; and as the exclusion of a priest during that period would have
been attended with great inconvenience, the whole order were enjoined to abstain from
all approaches to the dead, except at the funerals of relatives, to whom affection or
necessity might call them to perform the last offices. Those exceptional cases, which are
specified, were strictly confined to the members of their own family, within the nearest
degrees of kindred.
K&D 1-6, "The priest was not to defile himself on account of a soul, i.e., a dead
person (nephesh, as in Lev_19:28), among his countrymen, unless it were of his kindred,
who stood near to him (i.e., in the closest relation to him), formed part of the same
family with him (cf. Lev_21:3), such as his mother, father, son, daughter, brother, or a
sister who was still living with him as a virgin and was not betrothed to a husband (cf.
Eze_44:25). As every corpse not only defiled the persons who touched it, but also the
tent or dwelling in which the person had died (Num_19:11, Num_19:14); in the case of
death among members of the family or household, defilement was not to be avoided on
the part of the priest as the head of the family. It was therefore allowable for him to
defile himself on account of such persons as these, and even to take part in their burial.
The words of Lev_21:4 are obscure: “He shall not defile himself ‫יו‬ ָ‫מּ‬ַ‫ע‬ ְ‫בּ‬ ‫ל‬ַ‫ע‬ ַ‫,בּ‬ i.e., as lord
(pater-familias) among his countrymen, to desecrate himself;” and the early translators
have wandered in uncertainty among different renderings. In all probability ‫ל‬ַ‫ע‬ ַ‫בּ‬ denotes
the master of the house or husband. But, for all that, the explanation given by Knobel
3

4. and others, “as a husband he shall not defile himself on the death of his wife, his mother-
in-law and daughter-in-law, by taking part in their burial,” is decidedly to be rejected.
For, apart from the unwarrantable introduction of the mother-in-law and daughter-in-
law, there is sufficient to prevent our thinking of defilement on the death of a wife, in the
fact that the wife is included in the “kin that is near unto him” in Lev_21:2, though not in
the way that many Rabbins suppose, who maintain that ‫ר‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ signifies wife, but implicite,
the wife not being expressly mentioned, because man and wife form one flesh (Gen_
2:24), and the wife stands nearer to the husband than father and mother, son and
daughter, or brother and sister. Nothing is proved by appealing to the statement made
by Plutarch, that the priests of the Romans were not allowed to defile themselves by
touching the corpses of their wives; inasmuch as there is no trace of this custom to be
found among the Israelites, and the Rabbins, for this very reason, suppose the death of
an illegitimate wife to be intended. The correct interpretation of the words can only be
arrived at by considering the relation of the fourth verse to what precedes and follows.
As Lev_21:1-3 stand in a very close relation to Lev_21:5 and Lev_21:6, - the defilement
on account of a dead person being more particularly explained in the latter, or rather,
strictly speaking, greater force being given to the prohibition, - it is natural to regard
Lev_21:4 as standing in a similar relation to Lev_21:7, and to understand it as a general
prohibition, which is still more clearly expounded in Lev_21:7 and Lev_21:9. The priest
was not to defile himself as a husband and the head of a household, either by marrying a
wife of immoral or ambiguous reputation, or by training his children carelessly, so as to
desecrate himself, i.e., profane the holiness of his rank and office by either one or the
other (cf. Lev_21:9 and Lev_21:15). - In Lev_21:5 desecration is forbidden in the event
of a death occurring. He was not to shave a bald place upon his head. According to the
Chethib ‫ה‬ ָ‫ח‬ ְ‫ר‬ ְ‫ק‬ִ‫י‬ is to be pointed with ‫ָה‬- attached, and the Keri ‫חוּ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ְ‫ק‬ִ‫י‬ is a grammatical
alteration to suit the plural suffix in ‫ם‬ ָ‫ֹאשׁ‬ ‫ר‬ ְ‫,בּ‬ which is obviously to be rejected on account
of the parallel ‫חוּ‬ֵ‫ַלּ‬‫ג‬ְ‫י‬ ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬ ‫ָם‬‫נ‬ ָ‫ק‬ְ‫ז‬ ‫ת‬ ַ‫א‬ ְ‫.וּפ‬ In both of the clauses there is a constructio ad
sensum, the prohibition which is addressed to individuals being applicable to the whole:
upon their head shall no one shave a bald place, namely, in front above the forehead,
“between the eyes” (Deu_14:1). We may infer from the context that reference is made to
a customary mode of mourning for the dead; and this is placed beyond all doubt by
Deu_14:1, where it is forbidden to all the Israelites “for the dead.” According to
Herodotus, 2, 36, the priests in Egypt were shaven, whereas in other places they wore
their hair long. In other nations it was customary for those who were more immediately
concerned to shave their heads as a sign of mourning; but the Egyptians let their hair
grow both upon their head and chin when any of their relations were dead, whereas they
shaved at other times. The two other outward signs of mourning mentioned, namely,
cutting off the edge of the beard and making incisions in the body, have already been
forbidden in Lev_19:27-28, and the latter is repeated in Deu_14:1. The reason for the
prohibition is given in Lev_21:6 - “they shall be holy unto their God,” and therefore not
disfigure their head and body by signs of passionate grief, and so profane the name of
their God when they offer the firings of Jehovah; that is to say, when they serve and
approach the God who has manifested Himself to His people as the Holy One. On the
epithet applied to the sacrifices, “the food of God,” see at Lev_3:11 and Lev_3:16.
CALVIN, "Verse 1
4

5. 1.Speak unto the priests. All these things which follow tend to the same end, i.e., that
the priests may differ from the rest of the people by notable marks, as if separated
from ordinary men; for special purity became those who represented the person of
Christ. It seems, indeed, as if God here gave precepts respecting small and
unimportant things; but we have elsewhere said that the legal rites were as it were
steps by which the Israelites might ascend to the study of true holiness. The
declaration of Paul indeed was always true, that “bodily exercise profiteth little,” (1
Timothy 4:8;) but the use of the ancient shadows under the Law must be estimated
by their end. Although, therefore, the observation of the things which are now
treated of did not of itself greatly please God, yet inasmuch as it had a higher
tendency, it was sinful to make light of it. Now though the priests were thus
admonished that holiness was to be cultivated by them with peculiar diligence, as
the sanctity of their office required; yet the principal design of God was to set forth
the image of perfect holiness which was at length beheld in Christ. The first law
contains a prohibition of mourning, absolutely and without exception as regarded
the high priest, and as regarded the sons of Aaron with certain specified
restrictions; for although God elsewhere forbids the people generally to imitate the
custom of the Gentiles in excessive mourning, yet here he requires something more
of the priests, viz., that they should abstain even from ordinary mourning, such as
was permitted to others. This prohibition indeed was again repeated, as we shall see,
arising from an actual occurrence; for when Nadab and Abihu, who had offered
incense with strange fire, were consumed with fire from heaven, God allowed them
to be mourned for by all the people, except the priests; (185) but on this occasion the
general law was again ratified afresh, lest the priests should pollute themselves by
mourning for the dead; except that there mourning was forbidden even for a
domestic loss, that they might acquiesce in God’s judgment, however sad it might
be. For by these means they were impeded in the discharge of their duties; because
it was not lawful for mourners to enter the sanctuary. Therefore God threatens
them with death, unless they should restrain their grief even for the death of a near
relative But this (as is elsewhere said) is a rare virtue, so to repress our feelings
when we are deprived of our brothers or friends, as that the bitterness of our grief
should not overcome our resignation and composure of mind. In this way, therefore,
the exemplary piety of the priests was put to the proof. Besides, abstinence from
mourning manifests the hope of the blessed resurrection. Therefore the priests were
forbidden to mourn for the dead, in order that the rest of the people might seek for
consolation in their sorrow from them. (186) This was truly and amply fulfilled in
Christ, who although He bore not only grief, but the extreme horror of death, yet
was free from every stain, and gloriously triumphed over death; so that the very
recollection of His cross wipes away our tears, and fills us with joy. Now when it is
said, “They shall not profane the name of their God;” and in the case of the high
priest, “neither shall he go out of the sanctuary;” this reason confirms what; I have
just stated, that mourning was forbidden them, because it prevented them from the
discharge of their duties; for their very squalidness would have in some sense defiled
God’s sanctuary, in which nothing unseemly was to be seen; and being defiled too,
they could not intercede as suppliants for the people. God then commands them to
5

6. remain pure and clear from all defilement, lest they should be compelled to desert
their office, and to leave the sanctuary, of which they were the keepers. Moreover,
we learn that the fulfillment of this figure was in Christ, from the reason which is
immediately added: viz., because the holy oil is on the head of the high priest;
whereby God intimates that it is by no means right that His glory and dignity should
be profaned by any pollution.
As to the words themselves; first, greater liberty is granted to the rest of the
posterity of Aaron, than to the high priest; but only that they should mourn for
their father, mother, children, their own brothers, and unmarried sisters. Lest
ambition should carry them further, they are expressly forbidden to put on
mourning even upon the death of a prince. Nor can we doubt but that the mourning
was improper which God permitted to them out of indulgence; but regard was had
to their weakness, lest immoderate strictness might drive them to passionate excess;
yet God so spared them as still to distinguish them from the multitude. To “defile”
one’s-self, (as we have elsewhere seen,) is equivalent to putting on mourning for the
dead, celebrating the funeral rites, or going to the burial; because the curse of God
proclaims itself in the death of man, so that a corpse infects with contagion those by
whom it is touched; and again, because it must needs be that where lamentation is
indulged, and as it were excited, the affection itself must burst out into impatience.
As to the prohibition to make “baldness,” this was not allowed even to the rest of the
people; but God expressly forbids it to the priests, in order to keep them under
stricter restraint. With regard to the high priest, something greater seems to be
decreed besides the exceptions, that he “shall not uncover his head, nor rend his
clothes:” which is still enjoined elsewhere on the sons of Aaron. But here what
would be allowable in others is condemned in the high priest; and it was surely
reasonable that he should present a peculiar example of moderation and gravity;
and therefore the dignity of his office, in which he was superior to others, is called to
mind, that he may acknowledge his obligations to be so much the greater. This is
indeed the sum, that since the priesthood is the holiness of God, it must not be mixed
up with any defilements.
COFFMAN, "All of Israel was expected to be holy unto the Lord, but this and the
following chapter (Leviticus 22) are concerned with the special holiness that
pertained to the priests of the sanctuary and especially to the high priest. Each of
the three paragraphs of this chapter "closes with the formula `I am the Lord your
(their) sanctifier.' The only other place in Leviticus (except for three similar
paragraph closings in Leviticus 22) where this clause is used is in Leviticus
20:28."[1] Here, we shall follow the usual paragraphing found in the ASV.
The reason underlying the absolute requirement of holiness on the part of God's
priests was stated thus by Unger, "They demonstrate the importance of separating
from sin on the part of Christians."[2] This is indeed a large subject, and the apostle
Peter addressed it frequently in his writings. The key words of this whole section in
Leviticus, "Ye shall be holy, for I am holy" were applied to Christians" (1 Peter
1:16). "Ye are a holy priesthood ... to offer up spiritual sacrifices ... Ye are a royal
6

7. priesthood ..." (1 Peter 2:5,9). (See the full comment on this analogy in Volume 10 of
this commentary series, en loco.)
In the first half of the 20th century, critics delighted to talk about what they called
"the composite nature" of this chapter, relating it to their impossible theories about
"many sources" for the Pentateuch. Dummelow, for example, summarized these: (1)
interchange of the singular and plural pronouns; (2) interchange of the second and
third persons; (3) the use of various headings; and (4) the use of two titles for the
priests, namely, "sons of Aaron," and "seed of Aaron."[3] All such variations are
characteristic of the Sacred Scriptures, and the critical emphasis on such things has
largely disappeared. They certainly do NOT represent anything untrustworthy
regarding the Bible.
"And Jehovah said unto Moses, speak unto the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say
unto them, There shall none defile himself for the dead among his people; except for
his kin, that is near to him, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and
for his daughter, and for his brother, and for his sister a virgin, that is near unto
him, that hath had no husband; for her may he defile himself. He shall not defile
himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself. They shall not
make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their
beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh. They shall be holy unto their God, and
not profane the name of their God; for the offerings of Jehovah made by fire, the
bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy. They shall not take a
woman that is a harlot, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from
her husband: for he is holy unto his God: Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he
offereth the bread of thy God: he shall be holy unto thee; for I Jehovah, who
sanctify you, am holy. And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by
playing the harlot, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."
Note that the change to the second person in Leviticus 21:8 is due to the direction of
the instruction to the people to honor their priests, for he offered the bread of "thy
God," that is, the God of all Israel. Similar requirements account for other
variations here also.
Many have expressed wonder that the priest's wife was NOT mentioned here as
being entitled to mourning by the priest, but, as Allis said: "She is `one flesh' with
her husband (Genesis 2:24), and to mention her would be superfluous.[4] Of course,
therefore, the priest could mourn for his wife. No, she was not of his near kin, but
was closer than any kin, even closer than father or mother.
COKE, "Leviticus 21:1. Speak unto the priests, the sons of Aaron— Respecting the
general notion of defilement from dead bodies, we refer to Numbers 19:11; Numbers
19:22.—The priests, on account of their function, are ordered to have no concern
with dead bodies; i.e. not to touch them, prepare them for burial, be present at their
funeral, or come into the tents where they are; since thus they would be legally
defiled, and unfit for the duties of their office: yet, in the case of near relations, they
7

8. were allowed the usual custom of mourners, Leviticus 21:2-3. What we render for
the dead, is ‫נפשׁ‬ nepesh, a word often used for the animal frame, either with or
without life; see Genesis 2:7.
BENSON, "Leviticus 21:1. Speak unto the priests — The next laws concerned the
behaviour and personal qualifications of the priests, and were intended to denote
the dignity, and preserve the honour of the holy function. There shall none be
defiled for the dead — None of the priests shall touch the dead body, or assist at his
funeral, or eat at the funeral feast. The reason of this law is evident, because by such
pollution they were excluded from converse with men, to whom, by their function,
they were to be serviceable upon all occasions, and from the handling of holy things.
And God would hereby teach them, and in them all successive ministers, that they
ought entirely to give themselves to the service of God. Yea, to renounce all
expressions of natural affection, and all worldly employments, so far as they are
impediments to the discharge of their holy services.
ELLICOTT, "1 And the Lord said unto Moses.—The laws about the purity and
holiness of the Jewish community, and of every individual lay member, enacted in
Leviticus 11:1 to Leviticus 20:27, are now followed by statutes respecting the purity
and holiness of the priesthood who minister in holy things in behalf of the people,
and who, by virtue of their high office, were to be models of both ceremonial and
moral purity.
Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron.—Moses is ordered to communicate these
statutes to the priests as the sons of Aaron. The peculiar phrase “the priests the sons
of Aaron,” which only occurs here—since in all other six passages in the Pentateuch
it is the reverse, “the sons of Aaron the priests” (see Leviticus 1:5; Leviticus 1:8;
Leviticus 1:11; Leviticus 2:2; Leviticus 3:2; Numbers 10:8; Note on Leviticus 1:5), is
designed to inculcate upon them the fact that they are priests by virtue of being the
sons of Aaron, and not because of any merit of their own, and that they are to
impress the same sentiments upon their issue. This fact, moreover, as the authorities
during the second Temple remark, imposes upon the priests the duty of bringing up
their children in such a manner as to make them morally and intellectually fit to
occupy this hereditary office. They also deduce from the emphatic position of the
term “priests,” that it only applies to those of them who are fit to perform their
sacerdotal duties, and not to the disqualified priests (see Leviticus 21:15).
There shall none be defiled for the dead.—
Better, He shall not defile himself for a dead person; that is, the priest is not to
contract defilement by contact with the body of any dead person. What constitutes
defilement is not specified, but, as is often the case, was left to the administrators of
the Law to define more minutely. Accordingly, they enacted that not only touching a
dead body, but coming within four cubits of it, entering the house where the corpse
lay, entering a burial place, following to the grave, or the manifestation of mourning
for the departed, pollutes the priest, and consequently renders him unfit for
8

9. performing the services of the sanctuary, and for engaging in the services for the
people. This they deduced from Numbers 19:11-16. The Egyptian priests were
likewise bound to keep aloof from “burials and graves, from impure men and
women.” The Romans ordered a bough of a cypress-tree to be stuck at the door of
the house in which a dead body was lying, lest a chief priest should unwittingly
enter and defile himself.
Among his people—That is, among the tribes or people of Israel, the Jewish
community (see Deuteronomy 32:8; Deuteronomy 33:3, &c.). Hence the authorities
during the second Temple concluded that when the corpse is among the people
whose duty it is to see to its burial, the priest is forbidden to take part in it; but
when a priest, or even the high priest, finds a human body in the road where he
cannot call on any one to bury it, he is obliged to perform this last sacred office to
the dead himself. When it is borne in mind how much the ancient Hebrews thought
of burial, and that nothing exceeded their horror than to think of an unburied
corpse of any one belonging to them, this humane legislation will be duly
appreciated
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMMENTARY, "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
9

10. 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
10

11. 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. {2 Corinthians 1:4 Hebrews
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, {1 Corinthians 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.
11

12. 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
12

13. 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 {Leviticus 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
13

14. 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: {Matthew 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 {Leviticus 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, {Malachi 1:14} in allusion to this law, sharply denounces
14

15. 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 {Leviticus 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
15

16. 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."
TRAPP, "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:
Ver. 1. There shall none be defiled for the dead.] This holy abstinence of the priests
in matter of mourning, marriage, &c., figured the transcendent holiness of Christ:
the devils could call him that Holy One of God. [Mark 1:24] It taught also both
ministers and people, who are "a kingdom of priests"; (1.) Well to govern their
16

17. passions, and to be patterns of patience; (2.) Ever to keep such a Sabbath of spirit,
that by no dead works, or persons dead in trespasses and sins, they be hindered in
the discharge of their duties of either calling.
WHEDON, " 1. Be defiled — Contract ceremonial impurity and disqualification for
the priestly offices by entering the tent or house where there is a dead body.
Numbers 19:14.
For the dead — Literally, “for a soul” in the sense of “person,” the word “dead”
being understood. See Numbers 5:2, note.
Verses 1-6
THE PRIESTS’ MOURNING FOR THE DEAD, Leviticus 21:1-6.
The call to the priesthood and the holy anointing do not make the priests less
human, nor eradicate the tender sensibilities which bind man to his fellow. Yet to
preserve the dignity of the office, and to impress upon the priest the idea that his
chief duties are to God and not to man, he is cut off from all acts of formal
mourning except for those who are closely bound to him by the ties of blood. Since
bodily deformities are often the results of sin in the parent or in the individual, and
are, moreover, suggestive of moral failings, dwarfs and persons maimed and
crippled were to be kept from the sacred office.
Verses 1-16
HOLINESS IN THE PRIESTS, Leviticus 21:1 to Leviticus 22:16.
Jehovah, having given general statutes to conserve the purity of Israel, now
proceeds to legislate for the priests, whose character and conduct are so intimately
connected with his declarative glory. The mass of men must very largely obtain their
conception of the moral character of God from the moral character of those who
minister at his altars and are supposed to be in his favour. A pure religion cannot be
promulgated by an impure priesthood. Hence these words were ever ringing in the
ears of the sons of Aaron: “Be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord.” Since a
man’s family is in a sense a part of his personality, especially among the Hebrews,
(Joshua 7:24, note,) and reflects his character, the requirement of holiness extends
to his wife and children, in which particular the offices of deacon and elder or
bishop in the New Testament are strikingly similar to the Levitical priesthood. See 1
Timothy 3.
PETT, "Chapter 21. Instructions Concerning The Maintenance of the Holiness of
the Priests.
Having laid down the basic principles behind the covenant as regards the people
17

18. and their holiness, Moses now turns again to the priests. In so doing we remind
ourselves of the pattern around which Leviticus is built. It began with the laws
relating to sacrifice (chapters 1-7), continued with the consecration of the priests
(8-10), which was then followed by the laws of cleanness and uncleanness for the
people (chapters 11-15), leading up to the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). This was
then followed by the laws of ritual and moral holiness for the people chapters
17-20), which is now followed by instructions re the maintenance of the holiness of
the priests (chapters 21-22), a reversal of the order in the first part, which will then
be followed by laws relating to the ritual requirements on the nation with regard to
times and seasons (chapters 23-25). It is of a basic chiastic construction. Leviticus 26
then closes off with the blessings and curses which were a normal ending to
covenants around the time of Moses in 2nd millennium BC, and Leviticus 27 is a
postscript in respect of vows.
The sections concerning the people are thus sandwiched within the ministry of the
priests. The priesthood is given responsibility for them, and their holiness is
therefore of prime importance.
This is brought out here in that this section is divided into subsections by the phrase
“For I am Yahweh, Who sanctifies them,” or similar (Leviticus 21:8; Leviticus
21:15; Leviticus 21:23; Leviticus 22:9; Leviticus 22:16; Leviticus 22:32), stressing
the exceptional importance of the fact that the priests must be holy (although they
are not the only ones - Leviticus 20:8). They are God’s specially set apart ones, set
apart to holiness.
As Christians we too are His priests (1 Peter 1:5; 1 Peter 1:9; Revelation 1:6) and
sanctified by Him so that our lives too might be pure and clean, and might reveal
His praise and glory. We too therefore must ensure that we avoid all that might
defile us.
Verses 1-7
The Priests Must Not Defile Themselves Unless Absolutely Necessary.
The priesthood was the essential link between Yahweh and His people. They were
therefore to be especially careful in the maintenance of holiness so that they might
fulfil their functions before a holy God. Great was their privilege, but great the
demands made on them. Humanly speaking the holiness of God’s people depended
on them.
The Requirements for Exceptional Holiness For the Priesthood (Leviticus 21:1-7).
A). Avoidance of Contact With The Dead (Leviticus 21:1-4).
Especially must they avoid coming in contact with death. To come in contact with a
dead body was to become unclean for seven days (Numbers 19:11-13), for as has
18

19. been apparent in the laws of uncleanness death was the opposite of all that Yahweh
stood for. He was Lord of life. This would render a priest inoperative over that
period.
He was thus totally to avoid all contact with the dead, in order to prevent himself
from being ‘defiled’. He was not free to do as he would. He was ‘holy’. Contact with
the dead was a major source of uncleanness for a man. It lasted seven days. So the
stress on the need to avoid this uncleanness, includes within it the idea that they
should avoid all lesser uncleanness (as will be demonstrated later). They were ever
to remain clean. The only exception was where close family relationships made it
necessary
Leviticus 21:1-3
‘And Yahweh said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to
them, None shall defile himself for the dead among his people, except for his kin,
who is near to him, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his
daughter, and for his brother, and for his sister a virgin, who is near to him, who
has had no husband, for her may he defile himself.”
So the priest was to avoid all contact with the dead apart from near kin. These
comprised father, mother, son, daughter, brother or a virgin sister who has no one
else responsible for her. Where she was married the latter was her husband’s
responsibility. For these he could be responsible for their mourning and burial. This
both emphasises proper respect for close kin, and the need for continuing purity in
all other cases. There is no mention of his wife. This is quite usual (compare Exodus
20:10). That she was included would be assumed. She was of one flesh with him.
PULPIT, "PART III. SECTION IV. THE UNCLEANNESS AND
DISQUALIFICATION OF PRIESTS.
EXPOSITION
The two remaining chapters of this division of the book (Leviticus 21:1-24, Leviticus
22:1-33) deal with the ease of defilements attaching to the priesthood, over and
above those which affect other men, whether ceremonial (Leviticus 21:1-6, Leviticus
21:10-12; Leviticus 22:1-9) or moral (Leviticus 21:7-9, Leviticus 21:13-15); with the
physical defects disqualifying men of the priestly family from ministering at the
altar (Leviticus 21:16-21); with the privilege of eating of the holy things (Leviticus
22:10-13); ending with the injunction that the sacrificial victims, no less than the
priests who sacrificed them, should be unblemished and perfect of their kind.
Leviticus 21:1-6
The first paragraph refers to ceremonial uncleanness derived to the priest from his
family relations. The priest may not take part in any funeral rites, the effect of
19

20. which was legal defilement, except in the case of the death of his father, mother, son,
daughter, brother, and unmarried sister. These are all that appear to be mentioned.
But what, then, are we to understand regarding his wife? Was the priest allowed to
lake part in mourning ceremonies for her or not? It is thought by some that her case
is met by Leviticus 21:4, But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his
people, to profane himself. The literal translation of this verse is. He shall not be
defiled, a lord (haul) among his people. The word baal, or lord, is commonly used in
the sense of husband. The clause, therefore, may be understood to forbid the priest
to mourn for his wife, being rendered, He shall not defile himself as an husband (i.e;
for his wife) among his people. This, however, is something of a forced rendering.
The words arc better understood to mean, He shall not defile himself as a master of
a house among his people; that is, he may not lake part in the funeral rites of slaves
or other members of the household, which ordinarily brought defilement on the
master of a house. Then is the priest forbidden to mourn for his wife? This we can
hardly believe, when he might mourn for father and mother, son and daughter,
brother and sister. Nor is it necessary to take this view. For the case of the wife is
covered by the words. For his kin, that is near unto him.… he may be defiled. The
wife, being so closely attached to the husband, is not specifically named, because
that was not necessary, but is included under the expression, his kin, that is near
unto him, just as daughter, grandmother, niece, and wife's sister, are covered by the
phrase, "near of kin," without being specifically named in Leviticus 18:1-30 (see
note on Leviticus 16:18). Even when mourning is permitted, the priest is to use no
excessive forms of' it, still less any that have been used by idolaters. They shall not
make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their
beard (see Le Leviticus 19:27), nor make any cuttings in their flesh (see Le Leviticus
19:28). And the reason why they are to avoid ceremonial uncleanness in some cases,
and to act with sobriety and gravity in all, is that they are dedicated to God, to offer
the offerings of the Lord made by fire, the bread of their God; that is, the sacrifices
which are consumed by the fire of the altar symbolizing the action of God (see note
on Le Leviticus 3:11).
BI 1-24, "Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron.
Sacred relationship demands sanctity of life
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
20

21. 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” (Lev_
21:2), 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
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.
21

22. 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
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.”
22

23. 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. (Lev_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
23

24. 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
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.)
24

25. 2 except for a close relative, such as his mother or
father, his son or daughter, his brother,
GILL, "But for his kin that is near unto him,.... For such he might be defiled and
mourn, or be where they were, and take care of, and attend their funerals: this clause
some take to be general, of which the particulars follow, as Aben Ezra; but others take it
to be the first particular excepted, and instanced in, and intends his wife; for it may be
rendered, as by some, "for his flesh", or "the rest of him" (p), the other part of himself,
his wife, which is his other self, and one flesh with him; and so Jarchi and others
observe, there is no flesh of his, but his wife; and if she is not intended here, she is not
expressed elsewhere, though must be supposed, because it is allowed the priest to defile
himself for other relations not so near; and it is plain from the case of Ezekiel, that a
priest might mourn for his wife, Eze_24:15; he being forbid it, shows his case to be an
extraordinary one, and that ordinarily it was admitted, otherwise there would have been
no need of a particular prohibition of him:
that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his
daughter, and his brother; R. Alphes adds (q), "and his wife"; these being all near
relations, and for whom natural affection would lead and oblige him to mourn, and show
a concern for their death, and to take care of their funeral. This is to be understood of
common priests; for as for the high priest, he might not mourn, or be concerned for
either of these.
BENSON, "Leviticus 21:2. Near to him — Under which general expression his wife
seems to be comprehended, though she be not expressed. And hence it is noted as a
peculiar case, that Ezekiel, who was a priest, was forbidden to mourn for his wife,
Ezekiel 24:16, &c. These exceptions God made in condescension to human infirmity;
because in such cases it was very hard to restrain the affections. But this allowance
concerns only the inferior priests, not the high-priest.
ELLICOTT, " (2) But for his kin, that is near unto him.—There are, however, seven
exceptions to the general rule. According to the administrators of the Law during
the second Temple, the phrase, “his kin that is near unto him,” or rather, “his flesh
that is near unto him” (comp. Leviticus 18:6 with Genesis 2:24), denotes “wife.”
Hence the Chaldee version of Jonathan renders it, “but for a wife who is of kin to
his flesh.”
25

26. For his mother, and for his father.—This is the second of the three instances in the
Bible where the mother is mentioned before the father (see Leviticus 19:3). The
Jewish canonists, who call attention to this unusual phrase, account for it by saying
that she is placed first because the son’s qualifications for the priesthood depend
more upon his having a good mother (see Leviticus 21:7). This will be readily
understood when it is borne in mind that the regulations about the woman whom a
priest was allowed to marry during the second Temple were of the most stringent
nature, and that the slightest infringement of them disqualified the son for
performing sacerdotal functions. Thus the daughter of a foreigner or of a released
captive was forbidden to the priest, and when a city was besieged and taken by the
enemy all the wives of the priests had to be divorced for fear lest they had suffered
violence.
TRAPP, "Leviticus 21:2 But for his kin, that is near unto him, [that is], for his
mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his
brother,
Ver. 2. And for his brother.] The high priest might not for any of these, [Leviticus
21:10-11] nor might Eleazar and Ithamar for their dead brethren Nadab and Abihu,
[Leviticus 10:6] because in that case, mourning might have seemed murmuring.
WHEDON, " 2. His kin, that is near — The nearness, or “remainder of flesh,”
includes all within the first degree of consanguinity, and a portion of the kin within
the second. By a glance at the table at the end of chap. xviii it will be seen that of the
second degree of consanguinity the grandparent, the grandchild, and the married
sister are not to be mourned for, while all the kindred by marriage, whatever the
degree, even the wife, are prohibited to the priest for mourning, if we adopt the
exclusive interpretation. The case of Ezekiel, the prophet-priest, in Ezekiel 24:16-18,
who was expressly forbidden to exhibit the customary tokens of mourning for his
deceased wife, would seem to prove that the wife was not excluded in the law of
priestly mourning. Keil argues that the wife is included in the near of kin from the
fact that she is pronounced to be of “one flesh” with her husband.
Genesis 2:24. Yet we confess that this verse has every appearance of an exhaustive
and exclusive catalogue.
3 or an unmarried sister who is dependent on him
since she has no husband—for her he may make
himself unclean.
26

27. GILL, "And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him,.... That is, his sister by
both father's and mother's side, as Aben Ezra; though, according to Gersom, his sister by
his father's side, and not by his mother's side, is meant; but, according to Alphes, by his
mother's side: perhaps this may signify not nearness of kin, which is expressed by being
his sister, but nearness of place, for, being unmarried, she remained unto her death in
her father's house:
which hath had no husband; neither betrothed to one, for then she would have been
nigh to her husband, and not her brother, and therefore he might not pollute himself for
her, as Gersom observes; nor married to him, for such an one he might not defile
himself, even though she might have been rejected or divorced by her husband, as the
same writer says:
for her may he be defiled; for a pure virgin that had never been betrothed nor
married to a man, and had never departed from her father's house, and so had no
husband to mourn for her, and take care of her funeral, and so for all the rest before
mentioned; and which Jarchi says is a command, and not a bare sufferance or allowance,
but what he ought and was obliged to do; and so it is related of Joseph (r), a priest, that
his wife died in the evening of the sabbath, and he would not defile himself for her, and
his brethren the priests obliged him, and made him defile himself against his will.
BENSON, "Leviticus 21:3. His sister, a virgin, that hath no husband — No husband
to take care of her funeral; which was therefore a needful office of charity in her
brother, though a priest. That is nigh to him — That is, by nearness, not of relation,
(for that might seem a needless addition,) but of habitation, one not yet cut off from
the family. For if she was married she was now of another family, and under her
husband’s care in those matters.
ELLICOTT, " (3) And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him—That is, his
maiden sister who still remains in sole relationship with him. What this is the next
clause explains more minutely.
Which hath had no husband.—When she is married she goes to her husband, and
ceases to be near her brother. It then devolves upon her husband to attend to the
funeral rites.
For her may he be defiled.—According to the administrators of the Law during the
second Temple, the priest was not only allowed to contract defilement by attending
to the funeral rites of these seven relations, but was obliged to do it.
TRAPP, "Leviticus 21:3 And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which
hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled.
27

28. Ver. 3. And for his sister.] What! and not for his wife? Yes surely, though she be not
mentioned, because she is nearer than either daughter or sister. See Ezekiel 24:16.
He was a priest, but that was an exempt case, an exception from what was
ordinarily done.
4 He must not make himself unclean for people
related to him by marriage,[a] and so defile
himself.
BARNES, "The sense seems to be that, owing to his position in the nation, the priest
is not to defile himself in any cases except those named in Lev_21:2-3. The Septuagint
appear to have followed a different reading of the text which would mean, “he shall not
defile himself for a moment.” The explanation in the margin of our version is hardly in
keeping with the prohibition to Ezekiel on a special occasion. See Eze_24:16.
CLARKE, "A chief man among his people - The word ‫בעל‬ baal signifies a
master, chief, husband, etc., and is as variously translated here.
1. He being a chief among the people, it would be improper to see him in such a state
of humiliation as mourning for the dead necessarily implies.
2. Though a husband he shall not defile himself even for the death of a wife, because
the anointing of his God is upon him. But the first sense appears to be the best.
GILL, "But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his
people,.... Which is not to be understood of any lord or nobleman or any chief ruler or
governor of the people; for the context speaks only of priests, and not of other
personages; besides, such might defile themselves, or mourn for their dead, as Abraham
did for Sarah; nor of any husband for his wife, for even a priest, as has been observed,
might do this for his wife, and much more a private person; nor is there any need to
restrain it, as some Jewish writers do, to an adulterous wife, which a husband might not
mourn for, though he might for his right and lawful wife; but there is nothing in the text,
neither of an husband, nor a wife: the words are to be interpreted of a priest, and either
of him as considered as a person of eminence, consequence, and importance, and sons
28

29. giving a reason why he should not defile himself for the dead, because he was a principal
person among his people to officiate for them in sacred things; wherefore if he did not
take care that he was not defiled for the dead, which might often happen, he would be
frequently hindered from doing his office for the people, which would be attended with
ill consequence to them; and therefore the above cases are only excepted, as being such
that rarely happened: or rather the words are to be considered as a prohibition of
defiling himself "for any chief" (s), or principal man, lord, ruler, or governor, among his
people; even for such an one he was not to defile himself, being no relation of his:
to profane himself; make himself unfit for sacred service, or make himself a common
person; put himself upon a level with a common private man, and be no more capable of
serving at the altar, or doing any part of the work off priest, than such an one.
JAMISON, "But he shall not defile himself — “for any other,” as the sense may
be fully expressed. “The priest, in discharging his sacred functions, might well be
regarded as a chief man among his people, and by these defilements might be said to
profane himself” [Bishop Patrick]. The word rendered “chief man” signifies also “a
husband”; and the sense according to others is, “But he being a husband, shall not defile
himself by the obsequies of a wife” (Eze_44:25).
COFFMAN, "Leviticus 21:4 here is difficult. Some say the text here has been
damaged. As it stands, Lofthouse has given the best interpretation of it:
"A married sister would ordinarily be mourned by her husband - this is probably
the meaning of the original text of Leviticus 21:4. If his sister were a widow, the
priest might act in the place of her husband."[5]
According to Clements, only the slightest emendation allows the reading "as a
husband" to replace the words "being a chief man."[6] The ASV's margin allows
the reading "as a husband"; so also the RSV (or "lord of the house"). Robert O.
Coleman says that, "in all probability, this should be allowed."[7] In any case, the
meaning here must be considered unclear.
"The offerings made by fire ... the bread of God ..." These phrases mean the same
thing, indicating that animal sacrifices were called "the bread of God." "The fat of
the peace-offering (Leviticus 3:11) is called the food (bread) of God."[8] However,
we may not for a moment receive the notion that the Hebrews had any false notion
that God actually needed to eat such things. "The author of Leviticus would not
have taken this phrase literally at all."[9] When Christ said that Christians should
eat his flesh and drink his blood, the usage was metaphorical, and not literal at all.
So it is here.
COKE, "Leviticus 21:4. But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his
people— Very different versions are given of this passage: several ancient versions
render it, neither shall he be defiled for the prince of his people: a rendering which
Houbigant follows, and strongly approves. It seems, however, most probable, from
29

30. comparing the eleventh verse in the original, that the sacred writer means to say,
that he shall not defile himself for, or upon account of, any of his people. The LXX
seem to have understood it in this sense: and let it be observed, that the context
appears manifestly to justify this interpretation; first asserting, that he shall not be
defiled for the dead among his people: some exceptions are then made; after which
it is added, that, saving these exceptions, he shall be defiled for no other: see
Houbigant.
BENSON, "Leviticus 21:4. Being — Or, seeing he is a chief man — For such, not
only the high-priest, but others also of the inferior priests were. He shall not defile
himself — For any other person whatsoever. To profane himself —
Because such defilement for the dead did profane him, or make him as a common
person, and consequently unfit to manage his sacred employment.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 4
(4) But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man . . . —Better, A husband shall
not defile himself among his people when he had profaned himself. As the seven
exceptions to the general rule began with his wife, whose funeral rites the priestly
husband is allowed to attend, the verse before us restricts this permission to his
legally prescribed wife. If he contracted a marriage which profaned him, he could
not attend to her funeral ceremonies. The last clause, which is here translated,
“when he had profaned him,” literally denotes “to profane himself,” “with respect
to his profanation”—i.e., with respect to a marriage by which he profaned himself.
This is the interpretation which the administrators of the Law attached to the verse,
and which is transmitted in the Chaldee version of Jonathan. It is not only in perfect
harmony with the context, but does least violence to this manifestly disordered text.
The translations exhibited in the Authorised version, both in the text and in the
margin, as well as most of those suggested by modern commentators, leave the
clause unexplained, since it manifestly means something else than defiling himself
by contracting impurity through contact with the dead, as is evident from the fact
that it is not added in the other instances where the priest is forbidden to defile
himself by attending to the dead. (See Leviticus 21:1-11.)
TRAPP, "Leviticus 21:4 [But] he shall not defile himself, [being] a chief man among
his people, to profane himself.
Ver. 4. Being a chief man.] A vir gregis; all whose actions were exemplary, and have
not an impulsive only, but a compulsive power and property. "Why compellest thou
the Gentiles?" [Galatians 2:14] His example was a compulsion.
WHEDON, "4. Being a chief man — The exegesis of this verse is much disputed.
Some, as Knobel, connect it with the preceding verses, and interpret the “chief
man” — baal — to signify husband, who is expressly forbidden to mourn for his
wife. Out of twenty-three times, it is rendered husband six times in the Pentateuch.
30

31. Others, with Keil, connect this verse with Leviticus 21:7, and understand it as a
general prohibition which is specialized in that verse as relating to an immoral wife
or daughter. The weight of argument seems to be with Knobel. Nevertheless, Ezekiel
24:16-18, has been rightly adduced against this view, where it is counted strange
that Ezekiel, a priest, does not mourn for his wife.
5 “‘Priests must not shave their heads or shave off
the edges of their beards or cut their bodies.
BARNES, "These prohibitions given to the people at large (compare the margin
reference.) had a special fitness for the Hebrew priests. They were the instruments of the
divine will for averting death, all their sacrifices were a type of the death of Christ, which
swallowed up death in victory 1Co_15:54-57, and it would therefore have been
unsuitable that they should have the same freedom as other people to become mourners.
CLARKE, "They shall not make baldness - See the note on Lev_19:27. It is
supposed that these things were particularly prohibited, because used superstitiously by
the Egyptian priests, who, according to Herodotus, shaved the whole body every third
day, that there might be no uncleanness about them when they ministered in their
temples. This appears to have been a general custom among the heathen. In the book of
Baruch 6:31, the priests of Babylon are represented sitting in their temples, with their
clothes rent, and their heads and beards shaven, and having nothing upon their heads.
Every person knows the tonsure of the Catholic priests. Should not this be avoided as an
approach to a heathenish custom?
GILL, "They shall not make baldness upon their head,.... For the dead, as
Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and Ben Gersom; not shave their heads, or round the corners of
them, or make baldness between their eyes on that account; as those things were forbid
the Israelites, so the priests also; this and what follow being superstitious customs used
among the Heathens in their mournings for the dead, particularly by the Chaldeans, as
Aben Ezra observes; and so by the Grecians; when Hephestion, one of Alexander's
captains, died, he shaved his soldiers and himself, imitating Achilles in Homer (t); so the
Egyptians, mourning for the loss of Osiris, annually shaved their heads (u); and the
priests of Isis, mourning for her lost son, are called by Minutius Felix (w) her bald
priests; see Lev_19:27,
neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard: the five corners of it; See
Gill on Lev_19:27. This the Israelites in common might not do, and particularly their
31