Laws Concerning the Priests and Sacrifices

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 21:1) And the LORD 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,'"

In the past few chapters and posts, the Lord had been speaking with Moses, giving him laws to pass onto the people.  Now He apparently turned his focus to Aaron and the priests, and told Moses to tell them this and the following laws.  First, no priest was to defile himself for the dead among his people, by touching the dead body, preparing it for burial, coming into the tent where the dead body lay, or in any other way that a person might make himself ceremonially unclean by contact with a dead body.

(2) "'But for his kin, that is near to him, his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, and his brother; (3) And for his sister a virgin who is near to him, who has had no husband, for her he may defile himself.'"

Exceptions were made for immediate family, mother, father, children, brother, and unmarried virgin sister.  The priests would be allowed to do those things like touching their loved ones and preparing them for burial, etc.; those things that would make them ceremonially unclean were allowed in the case of the near blood kin described.  Note that the wife is not included here.  The original word translated as "kin" above was "sheer" and it literally meant "flesh", so perhaps in this context, it referred to only the nearest blood kin.  A spouse is not related by blood.  However, does scripture not say that a man and wife become "one flesh" when they marry (Gen. 2:24, Mark 10:8)?  It would seem reasonable to assume that the wife of a priest would be included here.  The old commentaries I study seem to agree that the wife was included.  They point to the prohibition against Ezekiel mourning for his wife in Ezekiel, chapter 24.  It seemed this was the exception to the rule, that in most cases one would mourn for his wife, but the Lord told Ezekiel not to in that case.  There was a similar exception to the rule regarding sons and brothers when God struck dead Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu.  He told Aaron and his remaining sons not to show any signs of mourning for the sons that were struck dead (Lev. 10:6).  It does seems reasonable to assume that these exceptions would not have to have been pointed out if they had been the rule and the law all along.

(4) "'But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.'"

Holding a chief position among his people, a priest was not to profane or defile himself in any cases other than those mentioned in verses 2 and 3.  There are some Bible commentators I regularly study who have a different view of the meaning in verse 4.  Because the original word translated as "chief man" above, "baal", also means "husband", they take it to mean, as the Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge by Canne, Browne, Blayney, Scott, and others, wrote, "Or, the verse may be read, being an husband among his people, he shall not defile himself for his wife, etc."  They point to the case of Ezekiel as proving this point.  Most agree, as I do, too, that this is not the intended meaning.  "Baal" also means "master, lord, ruler, etc."  There is no reason to assume it means "husband" in this case.  Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, proposed another meaning.  The word "being" above was supplied by the translators and not actually in the original text.  It still has the same meaning when read, "But he shall not defile himself, a chief man among his people, to profane himself."  However, Dr. Gill suggested it might be possible to read the verse as a prohibition against defiling himself "for any chief man" (rather than "being a chief man").  Even if it was a chief ruler among his people, a priest was not to defile himself by coming in contact with the ruler's dead body, unless, of course, the ruler, was his immediate next of kin.  This translation doesn't really change the meaning of the previous verses.  A priest was NOT to defile himself for the dead among his people, unless it was his immediate blood kin, and that was the only exception (except for perhaps spouses as pondered above). 

(5) "‘They shall not make baldness on their heads, nor shall they shave the edges of their beards, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.'"

There was already a prohibition made against any of the children of Israel shaving the corners of their heads or their beards, or of making any cuttings in their flesh (Lev. 19:27-28), which were pagan practices that were done as signs of mourning (described more fully in the post on Leviticus 19).  I believe the sense here is that even though the Lord gave priests an exception for defiling themselves for the dead of their very near kin, they were forbidden to take part in those heathen mourning practices described.

(6) "'They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God, for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God; therefore they shall be holy.'"

The priests were to be holy to their God, totally devoted to Him and His service.  They were not to act in a way that would allow the name of their God to be profaned or spoken evil of on their account.  The reason was because they offered the bread of their God, the offerings of their Lord made by fire; therefore they were to be holy.  The bread above might refer to the shewbread, which they set every week before the Lord on the shewbread table, but surely referred to any bread or meat offering that they offered to their Lord.  Albert Barnes noted in his Notes on the Bible that, "The word here and in Lev. 21:8 rendered 'bread', is the same as is rendered food in Lev. 3:11, Lev. 3:16, etc., and meat in Lev. 22:11. The reader of the English Bible should keep in view that bread, meat, and food, were nearly equivalent terms when our translation was made, and represent no distinctions that exist in the Hebrew."

(7) "‘They shall not take a wife who is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy to his God.'"

Priests were not to take for their wives any women who had prostituted themselves or were in any way profane, probably meaning defiled or deflowered.  They were not to take women as wives who had been previously divorced by their husbands.  The reason again was because the priests were holy to their God, separated from common people, and devoted to the service of God.

(8) "'Therefore you shall sanctify him, for he offers the bread of your God; he shall be holy to you, for I the LORD, who sanctify you, am holy.'"

It appears the people of Israel are now being addressed.  They are to sanctify their priest, regarding him holy and to reverence him, because he was the one who offered the various offerings of their Lord God.  The priest was to be holy to the people because their Lord God was holy who had sanctified them and had separated them from all other people to be a holy people to Him.

(9) "'And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the whore, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.'"

The daughter of any priest who profaned and defiled herself by prostituting herself likewise profaned and brought disgrace to her father.  By profaning her father, she brought shame to the office of the priesthood and profaned the name of their God (v. 6 above).  Therefore she was to be burned with fire.

(10) "'And he who is the high priest among his brethren, on whose head the anointing oil was poured and who is consecrated to wear the garments, shall not uncover his head nor tear his clothes;'"

The one who was the high priest among the priests, the one on whose head the anointing oil was poured, as it was poured on Aaron the high priest at his consecration (Ex. 29:7, Lev. 8:12), and on all others who succeeded him, that high priest who was consecrated to wear the high priest's garments, that man was never to uncover his head nor tear his clothes.  Uncovering the head and tearing the clothes were usual signs of mourning.  The high priest was forbidden to take off his mitre or tear his garments in common expression of mourning.  He was not to be common, but holy before the Lord.

(11) "'Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father or for his mother;'"

Additionally, the high priest must never go into the place where a dead body lay, even if it were his father or his mother.

(12) "'Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God, for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him; I am the LORD.'"

The sense here becomes clear in context with the previous clause; the high priest was not to go out of the sanctuary thus profaning the sanctuary of God by deserting his priestly post to observe the common practices of mourning.  The complete thought would read that the high priest was never to enter the place where a dead body lay, or even leave the sanctuary, for that matter.  The reason was that the anointing oil of his God, that crown of glory, was upon him, and he was not to thusly profane his holy Lord.

(13) "'And he shall take a wife in her virginity. (14) A widow or a divorced woman or a defiled woman or a harlot—these he shall not take; but he shall take a virgin of his own people as wife.'"

The high priest was only allowed to take a virgin as his wife.  He was not allowed to marry a widow or a divorced woman, nor a woman who was "defiled" and not a virgin.  Additionally, the virgin must be of his own Israelite people.  It may be argued that he was only allowed one wife according to verse 13 which states he shall take "a wife".  The older commentaries I study stated that although polygamy was practiced by the common priests, it was forbidden by the high priest to set him apart as a type of Christ, to whom the church was to be presented as a "chaste virgin":  "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy, for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." - 2 Corinthians 11:2

(15) "'Neither shall he profane his seed among his people, for I the LORD do sanctify him.'"

The high priest was not to defile or pollute his posterity by marrying such women as described in verse 14, because the Lord Himself sanctified the high priest.  The Lord Himself separated the high priest from all other men for His service, and would not have His people defiled or corrupted by marriages to such as described above, nor by marriages to women of other countries and cultures.

(16) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (17) “Speak to Aaron, saying, ‘Whoever he be of your seed in their generations who has any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.'"

The Lord continued speaking to Moses, and told him to instruct Aaron, as high priest, on the fitness of his descendants to be able to "approach to offer the bread of his God".  Any man among his successive generations who had any blemish or defect must not be allowed to serve at the altar of his God.  This seems to pertain to all priests, not just the high priest.

(18) "‘For whatever man who has a blemish shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a marred face or anything superfluous,'"

The Lord began a list of blemishes that might affect successors to the priesthood that would prevent them from being able to serve at the altar of their God--a blind man, one that was lame, one who had a deformed face, or any extra or uneven features, like having six fingers or one leg longer than the other.  I have to admit I used to be uncomfortable at the idea that God would reject any creation by Himself who had imperfections beyond their control, like blindness or lameness.  My husband is blind, and the idea that he would be rejected by God bothered me.  However, priests were symbolic of Christ, and Christ was perfect and without blemish.  I don't think it is so much that a blind or lame person is unfit to act as a priest, but rather the priest must be like Christ.  In the same way I have come to understand the blood sacrifices that used to make me uncomfortable and had me wondering why God would demand those things.  It's not that God demanded a blood sacrifice and ultimately Christ had to do that for Him, but because Christ, as God come to earth, sacrificed Himself to save us, as pictures of the coming Christ, sacrifices were commanded.  I find it so awesome to see how often the coming Christ can be seen in the pages of the Old Testament!

(19) "'Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,'"

If a successor to the priesthood had a broken foot or hand for a time and then it healed completely and normally, I would imagine that the man would be prevented from serving at the altar of God for a time while he was "blemished", but perhaps could take over the duties when he was completely healed and unblemished.  I think verse 19 may pertain to permanent deformities caused by broken bones, or someone born club-footed, or with some other such deformity.

(20) "'Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or who has a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or has his stones broken;'"

A man was prohibited from serving at the altar of God is he was hunchbacked, or a dwarf, or had a defect in his eye, such as discoloration or perhaps crossed or wandering eyes.  If he were scurvy or scabbed, again I think it possible he could not perform the priestly duties for a time until he was considered unblemished.  "Stones" refer to testicles, so broken ones probably referred to ones that had been removed or damaged, or perhaps even deformed ones, such as having only one.

(21) "‘No man of the descendants of Aaron the priest, who has a blemish shall come near to offer the offerings made by fire to the LORD; he has a blemish; he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God.'"

Of the descendants of Aaron, successors to the priesthood, if any had a blemish as described above, he was not allowed to serve at the altar or attend or assist in offering sacrifice or burning incense.

(22) "'He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.'"

Although blemished and unable to serve at the altar of God, they were still allowed to eat of the portions that were given to the priests for maintenance of them and their families; that included all the things the priests ate of, even the most holy.

(23) "'Only he shall not go in to the veil or come near to the altar, because he has a blemish, that he not profane my sanctuaries, for I the LORD do sanctify them.'"

A priest with a blemish was not allowed to go within the veil or approach the altar so that he did not defile God's sanctuaries which God had separated and devoted for sacred uses, and were not to be defiled by any.  Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, pointed out that this was a picture of how we, too, cannot approach God defiled; it is only by the atonement of the perfect blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ which blots out our sins and defects that we may enter into heaven.

(24) And Moses told it to Aaron and his sons, and to all the children of Israel.

All the things above that the Lord had told Moses pertaining to ways in which the priests might defile themselves for the dead, their marriages, and blemishes that would prevent them from attending at the altar, Moses told to Aaron and to all the children of Israel, which was most likely told to the heads of the tribes and elders of the people, to be passed on to them.

As these priests were types of Christ to their people, they were to be without blemish and separate from sinners, adhering to God's perfect laws as nearly as humanly possible.  What a perfect example for our ministers today!  Even though, because of Christ, we are no longer prevented from approaching God because of our physical defects, we must still strive to be imitators of Christ.  I love this statement by Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible:  "There is many a healthful beautiful soul lodged in a crazy deformed body."  He went on to explain how we should infer from these laws about blemishes that, "incapable those are to serve God acceptably whose minds are blemished...Those are unworthy to be called Christians, and unfit to be employed as minsters, that are spiritually blind, and lame, and crooked, whose sins render them scandalous and deformed, so as that the offerings of the Lord are abhorred for their sakes."

As chapter 22 continued with more laws concerning the priests, and chapter 21 was relatively short, I will continue in this post:

(Leviticus 22:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) “Speak to Aaron and his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they do not profane My holy name in those things which they hallow to me; I am the LORD."

The Lord continued speaking to Moses directing him on what to tell Aaron and his sons, the priests.  Continuing with the things that must separate priests from their priestly duties, I believe the point here will become more clear in the verses following.  Perhaps this was a continuing thought from Leviticus 21:22-23 above.  Although blemished and unable to serve at the altar of God, those blemished priests were still allowed to "eat the bread of his God", but they were not to go within the veil or approach the altar, nor were they to touch the holy things of the children of Israel, that is, the sacrificial foods they offered, which they consecrated to the Lord.  They must not profane God's holy name by flippantly touching anything that was dedicated to the Lord while they were unclean.

(3) “Say to them, ‘Whoever of all your seed among your generations, who goes near the holy things which the children of Israel hallow to the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD.'"

Anyone of their descendants, which I believe meant even women of their families who ate of the holy things that the priests were given for their families, while they were unclean, would be cut off from the presence of the Lord.  That may have meant excommunication from the sanctuary of the Lord, or from the children of God, or even from the living; that part is not explicit.  The Lord Himself decreed this and He alone had the right and power to avenge any such breach of His law.

(4) "‘What ever man of the seed of Aaron who is a leper or has a discharge, shall not eat the holy things until he is clean. And whoever touches anything made unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goes from him,'"

 "What ever man" as translated by the NKJV or "what man soever" in the KJV, probably means "whoever" referring to anyone of the seed or descendants of Aaron, not just men, although the part about seed or semen going out from him, obviously refers to just men.  No person in the family of priests, including the priests themselves, were to eat of holy things of the Lord while he was unclean, not until he was clean.  Then began a list of the ways in which he might be considered unclean, by being a leper, or having any bodily discharge, including semen, or by touching anything made unclean by the dead. 

(5) "‘Or whoever touches any creeping thing by which he may be made unclean, or any person by whom he would become unclean, whatever uncleanness he has, (6) The person who has touched any such thing shall be unclean until evening, and shall not eat the holy things, unless he washes his flesh with water.'"

Anyone (of the descendants of Aaron) who touched any unclean creeping thing or any unclean person, or anything at all that would make him unclean, that person would remain unclean until the evening, and would not be able to eat of the holy things until he washed himself with water.

(7) "'And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food.'"

After the sun went down, and after he had washed himself, he would be considered clean and able to eat of the holy things, because after all, it was his food.  We had already been told in Leviticus 21:22 above that a permanently blemished man was allowed to eat the bread of his God, both of the holy and the most holy, as this verse above states, "because it is his food", his sustenance.  However, this current passage insured that anyone who made himself temporarily ceremonially unclean would necessarily make himself clean again before being allowed to eat of the holy things of the Lord.  Just because those permanently blemished were allowed to eat of holy things, that did not excuse those who would become temporarily unclean from doing the things that would make them clean again before partaking of their food.

(8) "'That which dies of itself, or is torn by beasts he shall not eat, to defile himself with it; I am the LORD.'"

Animals which had died by themselves or had been killed by beasts, not having been killed for sacrifice, were not to be eaten by the priests and their descendants, as they would become defiled by eating the impure food, thus said their Lord God.

(9) "‘They shall therefore keep My ordinance, lest they bear sin for it and die therefore, if they profane it; I the LORD do sanctify them.'"

Aaron and his descendants were required to keep the laws of the Lord as before stated or they would bear sin and incur guilt and suffer punishment and death, for the neglect and violation of them.  The Lord sanctified the priests, separating them from the other people for His service, and therefore commanded them to be holy and obey His ordinances.

(10) "'No stranger shall eat of the holy thing; a sojourner of the priest or a hired servant shall not eat of the holy thing.'"

No stranger, someone apart from the family of Aaron, nor a temporary resident or guest of the priest, nor a hired servant of the priest, was to eat of the holy things.

(11) "‘But if the priest buys a person with his money, he may eat it; and one who is born in his house may eat his food.'"

However, if a priest bought a servant with his own money, then he (or she) being the priest's own possession, so to speak, was allowed to eat the holy things as a member of the priest's family.  Additionally, children born of servants he had bought and now owned, were also considered his "property" and were allowed to eat of the holy things with his family.

(12) "‘If the priest’s daughter is married to a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things.'"

If the priest's daughter married someone outside the family of Aaronic priests, then she, belonging to another family, was not allowed to eat of an offering of the holy things.

(13) "‘But if the priest’s daughter is a widow or divorced, and has no child, and has returned to her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat her father’s food; but no stranger shall eat it.'"

However, if a priest's daughter became a widow and had no children with whom she would be considered as having a separate family, and she returned to her father's house again being neither a wife nor a mother, she would again be looked upon as a daughter and could eat of the holy things.  "But no stranger shall eat it", I believe, refers to any child or anyone connected to the daughter who returned home to her father.  Only the daughter, if she had no other family connections, could return home and be as a daughter as in her youth; only she could eat of the holy things.

(14) "‘And if a man eats the holy thing unwittingly, then he shall put a fifth of it, and shall give that to the priest with the holy thing.'"

If a man unknowingly or unintentionally ate of the holy things, then he was to restore to the priest what he had eaten plus an additional one fifth amount.  He would not be able to give the actual holy thing itself, so it must be understood to mean that he gave something with the equivalent value of the holy thing he had eaten, plus an additional one fifth of that value.

(15) "'And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer to the LORD, (16) Or allow them to bear the iniquity of trespass, when they eat their holy things; for I the LORD do sanctify them.'"

No one was to profane or dishonor the holy things of the children of Israel that they offered to their Lord by doing any of the things described as being prohibited above.  In doing those things they would not only dishonor their Lord, but would bear the guilt of sin.  They were not to profane their Lord and bring sin upon themselves because their Lord had sanctified them, setting them apart for His holy service.

(17) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (18) “Speak to Aaron and his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘Whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, who offers his sacrifice for any of his vows or for any of his freewill offerings, which they offer to the LORD as a burnt offering— (19) You shall offer of your own will a male without blemish of the cattle, of the sheep, or of the goats.'"

The Lord continued speaking to Moses, telling him what to pass on to Aaron and his sons, and to all the children of Israel.  Any person from the children of Israel, as well as any stranger who dwelt with them, who offered a sacrifice for a vow or a freewill offering, which they offered to the Lord as a burnt offering, must offer a male without blemish from their cattle, sheep, or goats, and it must be given of their own free will.

(20) "'But whatever has a blemish you shall not offer, for it shall not be acceptable for you.'"

An animal with a defect was not to be offered to the Lord because it would not be acceptable to Him on their behalf.

(21) "‘And whoever offers a sacrifice of a peace offering to the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in cattle or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish in it.'"

Likewise, whoever offered a peace offering to the Lord to fulfill his vow or as a freewill offering in cattle or sheep, that must also be perfect and without blemish in order to be accepted by the Lord.

(22) "'Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, you shall not offer to the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them on the altar to the LORD.'"

Any blind or lame or injured animal, or any with any sores or cysts or scabs, or any such defect, was not to be offered to the Lord, and was not to be burned upon the altar to the Lord.

(23) "'Either a bullock or a lamb that has anything superfluous or lacking in its parts, that you may offer for a freewill offering, but for a vow it shall not be accepted.'"

There appears to be an exception to the perfection rule when it came to animals with anything superfluous or lacking in their parts.  Matthew Henry wrote that the Jews understood this to mean any part larger or smaller than the other one in a pair, such a longer leg or a smaller eye or ear.  It would not make sense to mean lacking a complete member such as having only three legs that would make it lame.  However, an animal with this type of imperfection was only allowed for a freewill offering, like one that might be offered for the repair of the sanctuary.  This type of imperfect offering was not accepted for a vow; for a vow the animal must be perfect.

(24) "‘You shall not offer to the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall you make any offering of them in your land.'"

An animal that was bruised or crushed or broken or cut in any way was not accepted as an offering.  Because the phrase "any offering of them" was added by the translators for better understanding, I think you could take the meaning two different ways.  It might be as the translators seem to suggest, that the people were not allowed to make any kind of offering with that type of imperfect animal anywhere in their land.  Read the verse without the supplemented phrase and it becomes, "You shall not offer to the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall you make in your land."  The original word for "make" is "asah" and it also means "do".  The verse would now suggest that the people were neither to give an animal that was bruised or crushed or broken or cut, and neither were they to do any of those things to any of their animals in their land.

(25) "'Neither from a stranger's hand shall you offer any of these as the bread of your God, because their corruption is in them, and blemishes are in them; they shall not be accepted for you.'"

Still speaking about the bruised, crushed, broken or cut animals, those would not even be accepted from a stranger who perhaps might want to show respect to the God of Israel.  The reason given was because their corruption or disfigurement was in them; therefore they were blemished and unacceptable to make atonement for the people.

(26) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (27) “When a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall be seven days with its mother; and from the eighth day and thereafter it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire to the LORD."

The Lord continued speaking to Moses and told him that when a bull, sheep, or goat, was born, those being the animals given in sacrifice, the newborn animal was to stay with its mother for at least seven days, and then from the eighth day and thereafter it would be accepted as a burnt offering to the Lord.

(28) "And whether it is a cow or ewe, you shall not kill it and her young both in one day."

The only reason for this law seems to be that it encouraged mercy and tenderness and discouraged cruelty not to kill a mother and her young in the same day.  There should never be a rampant slaughter of their animals without discrimination and observance of God's laws.  As Adam Clarke wrote, "When it is necessary to take away the lives of innocent animals for the support of our own, we should do it in such a way as not to blunt our moral feelings; and deplore the necessity, while we feel an express gratitude to God for permission, to do it."

(29) “And when you offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the LORD, offer it of your own will. (30) On the same day it shall be eaten; you shall leave none of it until the next day; I am the LORD."

When the people offered a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Lord, it was to be given of their own free will, and just as they pleased, as long as they obeyed the aforementioned laws.  Additionally, the flesh of the sacrifice must be eaten the same day it was offered, and none was to remain till the next day.  Thus said their Lord who made the law and required its observance.

(31) "Therefore shall you keep My commandments, and do them; I am the LORD."

Once again, because it was their one true Lord God who made all the commandments and He alone was the sovereign Lord who required the observance of them, the people were commanded to observe and perform all His commandments.

(32) "Neither shall you profane My holy name, but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel; I am the LORD who hallows you, (33) Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; I am the LORD.”

The people were not to profane God's holy name by not obeying His commandments.  The same original word, "qadash", is used in how the Lord was to be "hallowed" among the children of Israel, and how the Lord would "hallow" them.  The word meant "to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, be holy, be sanctified, be separate".  The Lord was holy and to be hallowed among His people, and He was the one who sanctified them, separating them as His holy people, when He brought them out of the land of Egypt.  The one true sovereign Lord was to be their God.

Chapter 22 began with a continuation of the laws concerning priests and transitioned into the sacrifices that were offered.  The chapter ended with the Lord reminding His people that He was the one who brought them out of bondage in Egypt.  Adam Clarke added to this beautifully, "By such a series of miraculous interferences, to be your God - to save you from all idolatry, false and superstitious worship, teach you the right way, lead and support you in it, and preserve you to my eternal kingdom and glory. God, infinite in his own perfections, has no need of his creatures; but they need him; and, as a source of endless felicity, he opens himself to all his intelligent offspring."