LEVITICUS 22
No one of Aaron’s seed is to approach the holy things or eat of them with uncleanness upon him. If there has been contact with anything unclean, the sun of that day must go down, and the flesh must be bathed with water, before the holy things may be eaten. The whole day is affected by what has taken place, and the soul has to learn by its sorrowful deprivation of “the holy things” how serious it is to contract uncleanness.
Then the seed of Aaron were forbidden to eat of “a dead carcase and what is torn” (verse 8). It was not forbidden to the ordinary Israelite, but even for him it rendered unclean until even, and necessitated washing (Leviticus 17: 15). “A dead carcase” would signify a source of food which had no sacrificial character; it would suggest that in which God has no pleasure. And “what is torn” would imply that such food had become available through violence. There is much which sometimes tempts the people of God, of which they would have to admit that there was nothing for God in it, and some of which is the fruit of violence being done to what is due to Him. Such food renders an Israelite unclean, but it is absolutely prohibited to one of the priestly seed.
In verses 10 - 16 the holy things are restricted to the priestly household. The priestly household has its own privileges. All of that household can eat — the slave, those born in the house, the daughter at home — but no stranger. Neither stranger, sojourner, nor hired servant may eat. It is only those who are of the household by purchase or by birth who can partake of the priestly food. It is one thing to [p. 235] sojourn with the priest, another to be part of his household. The sojourner and the hired servant represent those who are providentially near to the priest, but do not belong to him. It is a great thing to be conscious that one belongs by purchase to a priestly household! Such are not casual visitors or strangers. It supposes some who are not up to priesthood themselves, but who can hold themselves as purchased. The feeblest believer can do that; he can say, I am bought with a price.
Then “he that is born in his house ... may eat of his food”. It supposes that there will be children born there. Where priestly conditions are maintained one would look for children to be born! And even young converts are entitled to the “holy things”. What an unfolding of grace there is in this! The one with a defect, the purchased one, the child born, all entitled to eat of the “holy things” if clean!
“No stranger shall eat the holy thing”. The “stranger” here is one “not of the seed of Aaron” (Numbers 16: 40). He is not at home in the priestly household; he does not belong to it. There are many scriptures which show what grace there is in the heart of God for the “stranger”. He need not remain a “stranger”; he may become “a soul of purchase”. “Ye are no longer strangers and foreigners, but ye are fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God” (Ephesians 2: 19). But no stranger as such can eat the holy thing.
“A priest’s daughter who is married to a stranger may not eat of the heave-offering of the holy things”. She is one who has been in the priestly household, and known what it was to enjoy priestly food, but she has entered into an association outside the priestly family.
[p. 236] She loses her right to the holy things. This would be a serious consideration for any true-hearted daughter of the priestly house. The principle of this would apply today. Any kind of association — marriage or otherwise — that links us intimately with those who have no priestly character or exercises is sure to deprive us practically of our share in priestly food. If we have known what it is to feed on Christ, and delight in Him, let us beware of forming links of friendship or companionship with those who are “strangers” to the priestly family!
But there is an intimation here of restoration. Verse 13 speaks of her becoming a widow, or being divorced, and returning to her father’s house, as in her youth! How many have got away through associations which they have formed, only to find that they lose all that they went after! Through the sorrow of widowhood they come back to what they need never have left. They may even be “divorced” — disowned and cast off by the very persons who drew them away! What precious grace to think that such can go back to “her father’s house, as in her youth”, and “she may eat of her father’s food”.
The “stranger” here is not exactly an unbeliever; he is an Israelite, but not of the seed of Aaron. We have to beware that even converted people do not draw us away from priestly privileges and food. We have to be careful what kind of links we form even with believers. As we were seeing in the types of the tabernacle, they must be loops of blue, clasps of gold, clasps of copper, rods of silver! These things indicate the kind of links that are safe. Heavenly, divine spiritual links will never lead us away from spiritual privilege and food. We can serve all believers as we [p. 237] have opportunity, but we have to guard our associations if we wish to retain the privileges that belong to the priestly household.
Barnabas lost much by allowing his natural partiality for his nephew to be greater in his estimation than his link of partnership with Paul. It is sad to think of one who had been a pattern of good works, and a comfort to the apostles — for they surnamed him “Son of consolation” — one who had a large and true appreciation of Paul, allowing his attachment to his nephew to deprive him of so much that might have been his priestly privilege! It was not that either the uncle or the nephew ceased to be believers, or to be servants of the Lord, but they both lost a priceless privilege. To be associates of Paul was the highest privilege of the moment, and they lost it, at any rate for the time. This shows the danger of unspiritual links with even true believers.
The closing section of this chapter is the last word in the book about the offerings, and it insists that there shall be no blemish or defect therein whether offered for a burnt-offering or a peace-offering to accomplish a vow. “As a voluntary offering” a bullock or a sheep might be offered “that hath a member too long or too short”. This would represent typically a lack of proportion in the apprehension of Christ. One feature of Christ made so much of that it is out of proportion to the rest in our apprehension, or another feature to which due place is not given. But the offerer in this case has no thought of blemish or defect in Christ. He simply has not things in intelligent and divinely adjusted proportion. One can be deeply thankful that such a voluntary offering is accepted, for with how many of us is there a lack [p. 238] of proportion in our apprehension of Christ! God accepts it, for it is Christ who is apprehended and offered, but He intimates to us at the same time that such an offering does not come up to what He looks for in a truly spiritual person. “As a vow it shall not be accepted”. Where there is that devotedness and spiritual energy of which a “vow” would be the expression there would be much exercise to have the perfections of Christ in their due proportion before the soul, so that we might be able to present them to God with intelligent apprehension, and in such a way as to be accepted, and to give pleasure to God.