Original Meaning
LEVITICUS 22 CONTINUES the topic introduced in the last part of chapter 21: disqualifications with regard to sacred things. In 21:16–23 a physically defective descendant of Aaron is permitted to eat priestly portions, including most holy ones, but is permanently barred from priestly officiation. In 22:1–7, Moses deals with temporary disqualification of nondefective priests from officiation as a result of contracting physical ritual impurity.
Until the required purificatory procedures have been completed and the full term of impurity has expired (e.g., until evening), a priest must be careful not to illegitimately use (Qal of qrb; lit., “approach”)1 sacred things that the Israelites dedicate to the Lord (22:3). Disqualification of impure priests is based on the same principle as the rule that an impure lay offerer is prohibited from eating meat of a well-being offering (7:20–21): Impurity that represents human mortality may not be brought into contact with holiness that characterizes the pure, immortal sphere of God.
In the context of restrictions on what priests may eat, 22:8 prohibits priests from eating animals not slaughtered by humans because they die of themselves or are killed by animals. Priests are held to a higher standard than laypersons, who are permitted to incur minor impurity by eating such an animal (17:15).
While most holy sacrificial portions must be eaten in the sacred precincts by the officiating priest himself (6:26—purification offering) or a male member of a priestly family (7:6—reparation offering), holy portions may be shared with other family members as part of their livelihood. The boundaries of a priestly family authorized to partake of sacred offerings are specified in 22:10–13. In accordance with the procedure already established in 5:16, if an unauthorized person inadvertently eats a holy thing, he or she must make reparation (22:14).
Like 22:2, 9, verses 15–16 exhort the priests to prevent desecration of the people’s offerings. Verse 16 adds that if the priests do desecrate the sacred things that laypersons dedicate to the Lord by permitting them to eat the priestly portions of what they give, they will cause the Israelites to bear culpability (ʿawon) of liability (ʾašmah) that requires reparation (22:16).2
Leviticus 22:17–25 continues the overall topic of qualifications in regard to sacred gifts. At issue here is the physical qualification of animals brought as sacrifices. This is relevant to the Israelites as a whole because they must offer fit victims, and to the priests in particular since they would undoubtedly be responsible for inspecting animals before slaughter.
From earlier sacrificial regulations we know that in order to be acceptable, a sacrifice had to be unblemished (tamim; lit., “whole/complete”; 22:18–21; cf. 1:3; 3:1; 4:28), that is, free from serious defect. Paralleling the list of defects that disqualify priests (21:18–20), 22:22–24 specifies the kinds of defects that render animals unfit.3
The rules in chapter 22 only apply to cattle, sheep, or goats (22:19; not including birds), and the defects listed in verses 22–24 are limited to those that are outwardly visible. Verses 26–30 wrap up the topic of ritual qualifications. Apparently out of respect for life, a baby animal may not be taken from its mother as a sacrifice during the first seven days of its life (v. 27),4 and an animal and its young are not to be sacrificed the same day (v. 28).5
Leviticus 22:29–30, reiterating the rule that a thanksgiving offering must be eaten the same day (7:15), complements 19:5–7, which repeats the requirement that other kinds of well-being offerings must be eaten by the second day (7:16–18). Thus 19:5–7 and 22:29–30 form an inclusio that binds together chapters 19–22, which emphasize spatial and personal holiness. This structural “envelope” also relates to 7:15 and 7:16–18 in reverse order to create a chiasm:6
thanksgiving offering to be eaten same day (7:15)
other well-being offerings to be eaten by second day (7:16–18)
other well-being offerings to be eaten by second day (19:5–7)
thanksgiving offering to be eaten same day (22:29–30)
A concluding exhortation (22:31–33) contains elements that parallel ingredients of exhortations in chapters 18–21:
• summary command to keep the Lord’s regulations
• reminder that “I am the LORD” (in each verse)
• warning against profaning God’s holy name
• warning that the Lord must be treated as holy among the Israelites
• reminder that it is the Lord who makes Israel holy
• reminder that the Lord brought the Israelites out of Egypt to be their God
Bridging Contexts
UNBLEMISHED SACRIFICES. Both officiating priests and sacrificial victims must be unblemished in a limited sense (chs. 21–22). In the New Testament, the ultimately unblemished Christ fuses the two ritual roles in himself. As Priest, he is free from the underlying physical blemish that limited the effectiveness of the Aaronic priesthood: mortality (Heb. 7). Furthermore, while he is an empathetic Mediator, he is free from the moral blemish of sin (4:15) that required Aaronic priests to offer sacrifices for their own shortcomings (5:3; 7:27).
In 1 Peter 2:21–25, alluding to Isaiah 53, Christ’s freedom from sin qualified him as the perfect Victim. The fact that he was “a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19) was crucial not only to the validity of his sacrifice for its intended global purpose, but also because his successful self-sacrifice qualified him for his uniquely effective priesthood (Heb. 9:12).
Christ’s life on earth in harmony with God’s law of love serves an additional function: as an example to us (1 Peter 2:21; see also Phil. 2:5–8). Paul’s appeal “to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God” (Rom. 12:1) implies that we can aspire to be without blemish as Christ was. Paul refers to total dedication of physical and mental energies to God and transformation “by the renewing of your mind” (12:2). Our transformation is a gift from God through his Holy Spirit (Titus 3:4–7), who brings divine love into our hearts (Rom. 5:5).
Contemporary Significance
NO DUMPING ALLOWED. An Israelite who acquired a defective animal from a foreigner was not permitted to pass the problem on to the Lord by offering the animal to him (22:25). Treating God with respect called for giving him something of quality. While he offers needy people abundant help (e.g., Isa. 45:22; Heb. 4:14–16) and accepts a widow’s mite (Mark 12:42–44), this does not mean that his people should dump on him “gifts” that neither they nor anybody else wants.
A real estate teacher described an extreme example of an attempt to use God as a dumping ground. A man owned a large piece of property in California, but squatters settled there. When a state health official discovered substandard sanitary conditions in the burgeoning community of uninvited guests, he held the owner responsible and registered a lien against the property. Unwilling to pay and unable to sell the property because of the lien, the owner deeded the property to God! But his attempt to lean on the “everlasting arms” failed. A judge threw out his solution because the law does not allow real estate to be irretrievably alienated—that is, given or sold in such a way that its ownership can never again be transferred (between human beings). If the property belonged to God, its subsequent transfer would require God’s signature (cf. Ex. 31:18; Deut. 9:10). Besides, how would the government collect property taxes from God?
Do we devote our best to God in terms of time, energy, and other resources? Or do we condescendingly give him leftover bits of the day, such as spare time (what’s that?) and spare change, as if he is a beggar? Speaking of beggars, Jesus said, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me” (Matt. 25:40). Do we treat others the way we would treat Jesus? Obviously, our resources are finite and we have families to support. But do we ever “sacrifice” anything from our abundance for anyone else? Or do we only give to others what we would otherwise haul to the dump or use to clothe a scarecrow in the garden?
Another way to dump problems on God is to expect him to do for us things we can and ought to do for ourselves. When we ask him to bless us in spite of the fact that we violate the cause-and-effect principles through which his blessing comes, we are being unreasonable. Why should he give us success when we are sloppy, provide us with health when we abuse it, make our families happy when we are selfish, or take us to the mountaintop of spiritual fulfillment when we choose forms of entertainment that pull us down in the opposite direction?
The Israelites repeatedly tried to dump their problems on God, as we will see in our study of Numbers. A later episode comes from Judges 10. When the apostate Israelites cried to the Lord to deliver them from the Ammonites, he replied: “Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them save you when you are in trouble!” (Judg. 10:14). Why should he save them from disaster resulting from their faithlessness when they persisted in hanging on to the cause of their difficulty, namely, their idolatry? When they finally recognized that they were in control of the root of the problem and took action to do their part by getting rid of their false gods (10:15–16a), the whole divine-human dynamic changed. Now they were no longer dumping on him. Now their problem was his problem, “and he could bear Israel’s misery no longer” (10:16b).
When God appears harsh, unfeeling, or unresponsive, sometimes it is because he is unwilling to support our addiction to sin by entering into a codependent relationship with us. Just as family members of those addicted to destructive drugs, alcohol, illicit sex, or gambling need to learn redemptive “tough love” by refusing to bear responsibility that is not theirs, God reinforces our willpower by teaching us the nature, consequences, and power of our own choices.