Tyndale Open Study NotesLeviticus 22

This section, which discusses priestly rules, six times repeats the phrase I am the Lord who sanctifies (Leviticus 21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; see also 21:8). These words emphasize the link between God's holiness and the holiness expected of priests. This extended to all of Israel (see 8:10; 11:44–45; 19:2). The text specifically addresses priests in 21:1–22:16, while including both clergy and common people in 22:17–33.

They considered the priest's portions of the sacred offerings "most holy" (see Leviticus 2:3). He had to avoid contact with anything ceremonially unclean (11:1–15:33). So, any descendant of Aaron who was unclean could not eat this food.

In Leviticus, the Hebrew word sherets always refers to an unclean small animal that swarms on land or in water (Leviticus 5:2; 11:10, 20–21, 23, 29, 31, 41–44).

die because they profane it (see Leviticus 10:1–3): The temptation to make improper offerings continued throughout Israel's history until after the exile in Babylon (Malachi 1:6–9).

The only male outside the priest's family who could eat the priest's share was the priest's slave. Without this provision, the slave would have no other food.

Like the rules for the guilt offering, a common person who accidentally ate the priestly portion had to repay 120 percent (see Leviticus 5:14–16). Yet, they did not need to offer a ram in this case.

An Israelite who ate the “most holy” food meant only for priests as if it were ordinary food would profane it (treat it as unholy).

People could choose to present a gift instead of a burnt offering (see 1:3).

A peace offering could be given in different ways:

• as a thanksgiving offering,

• an offering to fulfill a vow, or

• as a voluntary offering (see Leviticus 3:1–17).

The rules for voluntary offerings were less strict, allowing the use of a deformed animal. But fulfilling a vow still required an animal that was not injured or sick. God would not accept a sacrifice that a person could not eat or that was not a whole animal.

Keeping a newborn animal with its mother for seven days helped determine the animal's health (see Exodus 22:30).

on the same day: There are several possible explanations for this command, although none is certain:

1. Senseless slaughtering would leave nothing of the herd;

2. it would be cruel to slaughter the young and the mother at the same time; or

3. it would resemble pagan worship rites, where people cooked the newborn animal in the milk of its slain mother (see Exodus 23:19).