The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Restrictions against Those with Blemishes
Leviticus 21:16–24 — Restrictions against Those with Blemishes. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
16Then the LORD said to Moses,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
Yah·weh way·ḏab·bêr ’el- mō·šeh lê·mōr
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-spoke YHWH unto Moses, saying:
Where the English smooths the original
In the preceding part of this chapter the priests were forbidden voluntarily to disfigure themselves, or to disqualify themselves and their descendants for their sacred office by illegal alliances. The legislator, therefore, now passes on to other blemishes, which, though not voluntarily contracted, likewise disqualify the priests for performing sacerdotal duties in the sanctuary.Ellicott marks the hinge: the chapter moves from defects a priest brings on himself to defects he is simply born with or befalls — and both still disqualify.
He was not treated as an outcast, but enjoyed his privileges as a son of Aaron, except in regard to active duties.The whole pastoral burden of the passage in one sentence: excluded from the altar, never expelled from the family.
As the spiritual nature of a man is reflected in his bodily form, only a faultless condition of body could correspond to the holiness of the priest; just as the Greeks and Romans required, for the very same reason, that the priests should be ὁλόκληροι, integri corporisK&D supply the symbolic logic and the cross-cultural parallel — the demand for an "integral body" was not peculiar to Israel.
any physical infirmity or malformation of body in the ministers of religion, which disturbs the associations or excites ridicule, tends to detract from the weight and authority of the sacred office. Priests laboring under any personal defect were not allowed to officiate in the public service; they might be employed in some inferior duties about the sanctuary but could not perform any sacred office.JFB give the functional rationale beside the symbolic one: a visible defect in the officiant drew the worshipper's eye off the worship and onto the man.
Our bodily infirmities, blessed be God, cannot now shut us out from his service, from these privileges, or from his heavenly glory. Many a healthful, beautiful soul is lodged in a feeble, deformed body. And those who may not be suited for the work of the ministry, may serve God with comfort in other duties in his church.Henry marks the shadow's passing: what barred a priest's body from the altar bars no believer's body from God under the new covenant.
Perfection of the body being typical of perfection of the mind and of the whole man, and symbolical perfection being required of the priest of God, none may be admitted to the priesthood with bodily defects, or excrescences, or grievous blemishes.The Pulpit editors state the governing symbolism in one line: the whole body stands for the whole man, and the holy office demands a sign of wholeness.
17“Say to Aaron, ‘For the generations to come, none of your descendants who has a physical defect may approach to offer the food of his God.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
dab·bêr ’el- ’a·hă·rōn lê·mōr lə·ḏō·rō·ṯām ’îš lō miz·zar·‘ă·ḵā ’ă·šer yih·yeh ḇōw mūm yiq·raḇ lə·haq·rîḇ le·ḥem ’ĕ·lō·hāw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Speak unto Aaron, saying: A man of-your-seed throughout-their-generations who shall-have in-him a-blemish, he-shall-not draw-near to-bring-near the-bread of-his-God.
Where the English smooths the original
The reason hereof is partly typical, that he might more fully represent Christ, the great High Priest, who was typified both by the priest and sacrifice, and therefore both were to be without blemish; partly moral, to teach all Christians, and especially ministers of holy things, what purity and perfection of heart and life they should labour afterPoole's three-fold reading — typical, moral, prudential — is the classic Protestant grid for the passage; here the typical and moral strands.
any defect or excess of parts, any notorious deformity or imperfection in his body. The reason hereof is partly typical, that he might more fully represent Christ, the great High-Priest, who was typified both by the priest and sacrifice, and therefore both were to be without blemishBenson independently joins priest and sacrifice under one requirement — "both were to be without blemish" — the structural key to the threads below.
this was imitated by the Heathens: Romulus ordered that such as were weak and feeble in any part of the body should not be made priestsGill's note on Romulus corroborates K&D: the demand for a whole-bodied priest was a wide ancient instinct, not an Israelite peculiarity.
18No man who has any defect may approach—no man who is blind, lame, disfigured, or deformed;
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kî ḵāl lō ’îš ’ă·šer- bōw mūm yiq·rāḇ ’îš ‘iw·wêr p̄is·sê·aḥ ’ōw ḥā·rum ’ōw ’ōw śā·rū·a‘
Literal — word-for-word from the original
For any-man who in-him a-blemish, he-shall-not draw-near: a-man blind or lame, or mutilated-of-face, or one-overgrown;
Where the English smooths the original
A similar law obtained among the Greeks and Romans, that a priest should be perfect in all his parts; and according to the Hindoo law, Brahmins born with a bodily defect, or who received one before their sixteenth year, are excluded from the rites of consecration.Ellicott widens the comparative net beyond Greece and Rome to the Brahminical law — the instinct for an unblemished officiant is nearly universal.
a flat nose ] slit, as R.V. mg., rather than ‘flat.’ The Heb. word does not occur elsewhere in O.T. But the cognate root in Arabic, having the sense perforate, pierce , admits of the sense of perforation of the lip, or the lobe of the ear, as well as a slit in the partition between the nostrils. any thing superfluous ] The rendering of the EVV is too vague. The Heb. root denotes extension, and is applied to an extended (i.e. abnormally long) limb or other memberThe Cambridge editors candidly flag the lexical uncertainty of both ḥārum and śārûa‘ — the very places the divergences above mark.
or שׂרוּע, lit., stretched out, i.e., one who had anything beyond what was normal, an ill-formed bodily member therefore; so that a man who had more than ten fingers and ten toes might be so regarded ( 2 Samuel 21:20 ).K&D's cross-reference to the six-fingered giant of 2 Samuel 21:20 fixes the sense of śārûa‘ concretely.
19no man who has a broken foot or hand,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’ōw ’îš ’ă·šer- yih·yeh ḇōw še·ḇer rā·ḡel ’ōw še·ḇer yāḏ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Or a-man who shall-have in-him a-fracture of-foot or a-fracture-of hand;
Where the English smooths the original
That is, one with a badly cured fractured foot or hand, since in ancient days such accidents were scarcely ever properly cured. Owing to the imperfect knowledge of surgery, and to a want of skill in setting fractures, the evil effects of such accidents had to be endured by a considerable number of the members of the community.Ellicott grounds the law in the medical reality of the ancient world: a fracture was usually a permanent, visible disability.
That has any of the bones or joints in his hands and feet broke, or when they are distorted, and he is clubfooted, or his fingers crooked and clustered together; and such a man could not be fit to ascend the altar, and lay the sacrifice in order upon itGill ties the defect to the concrete act — ascending the altar and laying the sacrifice in order — that a broken foot or hand makes impossible.
Whoever had a fracture in his foot or hand.K&D's terseness matches the Hebrew's own clinical brevity.
20or who is a hunchback or dwarf, or who has an eye defect, a festering rash, scabs, or a crushed testicle.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’ōw- ḡib·bên ’ōw- ḏaq ’ōw bə·‘ê·nōw tə·ḇal·lul ḡā·rāḇ ’ōw yal·le·p̄eṯ ’ōw ’ōw mə·rō·w·aḥ ’ā·šeḵ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Or hunch-backed or thin, or one-with-in-his-eye a-cataract, or scab, or scurf, or crushed-of testicle;
Where the English smooths the original
A dwarf - One who is small and wasted, either short, as in the text, or slender, as in the margin. It is hardly likely that dwarfishness would be overlooked in this enumeration. So most critical authorities. Scurry or scabbed - These words most probably include all affected with any skin disease.Barnes weighs "short" against "slender" for daq and reads the skin-disease pair broadly — the catalogue is representative, not exhaustive.
crushed in the stones, one who had crushed or softened stones; for in Isaiah 38:21 , the only other place where מרח occurs, it signifies, not to rub to pieces, but to squeeze out, to lay in a squeezed or liquid form upon the wound: the Sept. rendering is μόνορχις, having only one stone. Others understand the word as signifying ruptured (Vulg., Saad.), or with swollen testicles (Juda ben Karish). All that is certain is, that we are not to think of castration of any kind (cf. Deuteronomy 23:2 ), and that there is not sufficient ground for altering the text into מרוח extension.K&D rule out castration and resist emending the text — honest restraint where the Hebrew is hard.
the former is a scab which is dry both within and without, whilst the second is a scab which is moist within and dry without, and which clings to a man till he dies.Ellicott preserves the second-Temple distinction between the two skin-conditions, gārāb and yallepheth.
21No descendant of Aaron the priest who has a defect shall approach to present the food offerings to the LORD. Since he has a defect, he is not to come near to offer the food of his God.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kāl- ’îš miz·ze·ra‘ ’a·hă·rōn hak·kō·hên lō ’ă·šer- bōw mūm yig·gaš lə·haq·rîḇ ’eṯ- ’iš·šê Yah·weh mūm bōw ’êṯ lō yig·gaš lə·haq·rîḇ le·ḥem ’ĕ·lō·hāw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Every man who in-him a-blemish, of-the-seed of-Aaron the-priest, shall-not draw-near to-present the-fire-offerings-of YHWH; a-blemish in-him, he-shall-not draw-near to-present the-bread of-his-God.
Where the English smooths the original
The addition of this general remark to the twelve instances adduced in the preceding verses, shows that the cases in question were simply typical, and that it was left to the administrators of the Law, not only to decide the minute details and various stages of these cases, but also to determine whether other bodily infirmities are included or not in this summary statement.Ellicott reads the summarizing repetition as a deliberate signal that the dozen named defects are samples, not a closed list.
this is repeated for the confirmation of it, and to show how determined the Lord was in this matter; and how much he should resent it in any that should be found guilty of the breach of those rules, and so it is designed to deter from attempting: it.Gill reads the doubling of mūm as rhetorical weight — God's settled resolve, framed to deter.
Any notorious blemish whereby he is disfigured, though not here mentioned.Benson agrees the verse generalizes beyond the listed defects to any "notorious" disfigurement.
22He may eat the most holy food of his God as well as the holy food,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
yō·ḵêl miq·qā·ḏə·šê haq·qo·ḏā·šîm le·ḥem ’ĕ·lō·hāw ū·min- haq·qo·ḏā·šîm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
The-bread of-his-God, of-the-most-holy and-of-the-holy, he-may-eat.
Where the English smooths the original
Which a priest having any uncleanness might not do: whereby God would show the great difference between natural infirmities sent upon a man by God, and moral defilements which a man brought upon himself.Benson draws the crucial theological line: a blemish is a God-given infirmity, not a self-incurred defilement — hence the priest still eats.
for though their natural infirmities disqualified them for service, yet they did not become hereby impure, either in a moral nor ceremonial sense, and might eat of the sacrifices, which impure persons might notGill makes explicit what the permission implies: disqualified is not the same as defiled.
But though unfit for serving at the altar, and reduced to do the menial work connected with the sanctuary, he was not only allowed to partake of the less holy sacrificial gifts, such as the peace shoulder, the tithes, and the first-fruits, but also to eat what remained of the meat-offerings, the sin-offerings, and the trespass-offerings, which were most holy.Ellicott itemizes both classes of food the blemished priest shares — the holy and the most holy alike.
23but because he has a defect, he must not go near the veil or approach the altar, so as not to desecrate My sanctuaries. For I am the LORD who sanctifies them.’”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’aḵ kî- mūm bōw wə·lō lō yā·ḇō wə·’el- ’el- hap·pā·rō·ḵeṯ yig·gaš ham·miz·bê·aḥ lō yə·ḥal·lêl ’eṯ- miq·dā·šay kî ’ă·nî Yah·weh mə·qad·də·šām
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Only unto-the-veil he-shall-not go, and-unto the-altar he-shall-not approach, because a-blemish in-him; that-he-not-profane My-sanctuaries; for I am-YHWH who-sanctifies-them.
Where the English smooths the original
My sanctuary , Heb. my sanctuaries , in the plural number, as it is also Leviticus 26:31 Jeremiah 51:51 Ezekiel 28:18 ; for though the sanctuary was but one, yet there were divers parts, to wit, the court, the holy place, and the most holy, each of which was in a large sense a sanctuary, or a holy place set apart for God’s worship.Poole explains the plural "sanctuaries" precisely as the divergence above marks it — one sanctuary, three holy parts.
This law is of course to be regarded as one development of the great principle that all which is devoted to the service of God should be as perfect as possible of its kind.Barnes states the governing principle the whole unit serves: what is given to God is offered in its most perfect form.
I the Lord do sanctify them, i.e. do set them apart for high and holy uses, to manifest my presence and grace, and to receive my worship and service in them. And therefore I will not have them polluted or disparaged by the admission of defiled or deformed priests to minister therein.Poole reads the closing self-naming as the ground of the prohibition: God's own sanctifying act is what may not be disparaged.
In all these regulations for preserving the unsullied purity of the sacred character and office, there was a typical reference to the priesthood of Christ (Heb 7:26).JFB name the typological horizon the whole unit serves — the spotless Aaronic office foreshadowing the High Priest of Hebrews 7:26. (A typological inference, not a citation: see the flagged thread.)
24Moses told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
mō·šeh way·ḏab·bêr ’el- ’a·hă·rōn bā·nāw wə·’el- wə·’el- kāl- bə·nê yiś·rā·’êl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-spoke Moses unto Aaron and-unto his-sons, and-unto all the-sons of-Israel.
Where the English smooths the original
These regulations about the conduct and qualifications of the priesthood, which God imparted to Moses, the latter not only communicated to the high priest and his sons the priests, but to the representatives of the people, who, as the community, had the supervision of the priests.Ellicott explains why the whole nation hears a priestly law: the community held oversight of who served at the altar.
Jarchi thinks this was to warn the sanhedrim concerning the priests, whose business it was to examine and judge who were fit for service and who not; for so we are told (k), that in the chamber Gazith, or of hewn stone, the great sanhedrim of Israel sat and judged the priests, and rejected some and received others.Gill records the later institutional outworking — the Sanhedrin's chamber where priests were examined and ruled fit or unfit.
Moses communicated these instructions to Aaron and his sons.K&D's bare summary lets the verse's own closing function stand: the word delivered, the frame shut.
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The oracle opens with the bare revelation-formula — way·ḏab·bêr YHWH ’el-mōšeh lê·mōr, "and YHWH spoke to Moses, saying" — and Ellicott catches its place in the argument: the chapter has just forbidden the priests to disfigure or disqualify themselves, and now "passes on to other blemishes, which, though not voluntarily contracted, likewise disqualify the priests." The hinge is the noun mūm (H3971), "blemish." It is not a moral category; Keil & Delitzsch render it with the Greek μῶμος, a "bodily fault." Their governing principle is symbolic, not cruel: "As the spiritual nature of a man is reflected in his bodily form, only a faultless condition of body could correspond to the holiness of the priest" — and they note the same instinct in Greece and Rome, who required their priests to be integri corporis. Gill independently adds Romulus's edict barring the feeble from the priesthood, and Ellicott reaches as far as the Brahminical law. The demand for an unblemished officiant was a near-universal ancient reflex; Israel's distinctive is why — the holiness of YHWH Himself (v. 23).
Twelve sample defects follow, strung on the relentless ’ōw ("or"): blind, lame, mutilated, overgrown (v. 18); broken-footed, broken-handed (v. 19); hunch-backed, thin, cataract-eyed, scabbed, scurfed, crushed in the stones (v. 20). The list is honest about its own obscurity. The Cambridge editors flag that ḥārum ("flat nose"/"slit") "does not occur elsewhere in O.T." and that śārûa‘ ("superfluous") is "too vague" in the older versions — its root "denotes extension," an abnormally long limb. K&D fix that sense with 2 Samuel 21:20, the six-fingered giant. Two of the rarest words seed the threads below: ‘iw·wêr and pissêaḥ ("blind … lame") form a near-fixed pair, and gārāb and yallepheth (the skin-diseases) each occur in only three verses. Ellicott notes the second-Temple authorities multiplied these twelve into one hundred and forty-two registered disqualifications. Yet the same Ellicott insists the listed cases "were simply typical" — illustrative, not a closed code.
Verse 21 restates the prohibition twice over — mūm appears twice in one verse — and Gill reads the repetition as God's "determined" resolve, "designed to deter." Then comes the unit's pivot, and it is a mercy. The verb yō·ḵêl ("he may eat") stands first and emphatic in v. 22: the disqualified priest still eats "the bread of his God, of the most holy and of the holy." Benson states the theology exactly: God "would show the great difference between natural infirmities sent upon a man by God, and moral defilements which a man brought upon himself." Gill presses it home — "though their natural infirmities disqualified them for service, yet they did not become hereby impure, either in a moral nor ceremonial sense." Barnes had already named the pastoral note at v. 16: "He was not treated as an outcast, but enjoyed his privileges as a son of Aaron, except in regard to active duties." Excluded from the altar; never expelled from the family or the table.
The restrictive ’aḵ ("only") carves out the single remaining limit: he may eat, only he may not pass to the veil or the altar to officiate, "that he not profane (yə·ḥal·lêl) My sanctuaries." Poole explains the plural "sanctuaries" — court, holy place, most holy, each a holy part of one sanctuary. And the whole law lands on a divine self-naming that the English barely shows: kî ’ănî YHWH məqaddəšām — "for I am YHWH, the One sanctifying them." The participle mə·qad·də·šām shares its root qādash with miqdāšay ("My sanctuaries"): holiness is not the priest's wholeness but God's ongoing act. Barnes draws the governing principle: "all which is devoted to the service of God should be as perfect as possible of its kind." Verse 24 shuts the frame — the same verb way·ḏab·bêr that opened at v. 16 now has Moses as subject, transmitting the word to Aaron, the sons, and all Israel; Gill notes the later Sanhedrin took up the charge to examine the priests in the chamber of hewn stone.
Read under the rule that Scripture alone is the final authority, three things stand out — offered as a reading to be tested, not a verdict to be trusted. First, the bar is bodily, not moral — and the text says so by its own mercy. The blemished priest still eats the holiest bread (v. 22), and Benson's distinction between "natural infirmities sent upon a man by God" and "moral defilements which a man brought upon himself" is drawn straight from that permission. The passage that the modern ear hears as harsh is, on its own terms, careful to protect the disabled priest's standing, livelihood, and access to God. The exclusion is from officiating, and the reason given is never the priest's worth but the place's holiness: "I am YHWH who sanctifies them" (v. 23). Second, the law makes priest and offering match. The same word mūm that bars the blemished priest (vv. 17–23) bars the blemished sacrifice (Lev 22:20–25; Deut 15:21) — Benson and Poole both note that Christ "was typified both by the priest and sacrifice, and therefore both were to be without blemish." The whole-bodied priest at the whole-bodied altar is a parable in flesh of a holiness that admits no flaw. Third, the unblemished one demanded here is finally a person, not a code. Where every Aaronic priest could be measured for a defect and some found wanting, the New Testament names a High Priest "holy, harmless, undefiled" (Heb 7:26) and a Lamb "without blemish" (1 Peter 1:19, ἄμωμος — the very μῶμος K&D used to gloss mūm). The shadow asked for an integrity no son of Aaron could fully supply; the substance supplies it. This is the tool's reading; weigh it against the text and keep what the Word supports.
The law sent the blemished priest away from the altar but kept him at the table — a shadow of the God who excludes a man from a task without ever casting him out of the family.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
The defect that bars the priest is the same defect, named by the same word, that bars the animal he would offer. Benson and Poole both saw the symmetry: Christ "was typified both by the priest and sacrifice, and therefore both were to be without blemish." The link is verbal and rare — the noun mūm (H3971) occurs in only nineteen verses of the whole OT, and the catalogue's ‘iw·wêr/pissêaḥ ("blind/lame") pair recurs almost verbatim in the law of the lamb. Held honestly: these are both Levitical/Deuteronomic cult texts in the same Hebrew vocabulary, so the connection is strong but it is shared technical language, not one passage quoting another.
Leviticus 21:18 · Leviticus 22:20-25 · Deuteronomy 15:21
basis: rare shared lexemes make this a VERBAL link, though not a quotation — neither passage cites the other; they share Leviticus/Deuteronomy cultic vocabulary. (Lev 21:18 ↔ Deut 15:21): H6455 piççêach (in 13 vv), H5787 ʻivvêr (in 23 vv), H3971 mʼûwm (in 19 vv), H176 ʼôw; (Lev 21:21 ↔ Lev 22:20/25): H3971 mʼûwm + H7126 qârab + H3899 lechem
Centuries later Malachi turns this very statute back on a corrupt priesthood. The law forbade a blind or lame priest to draw near; Malachi indicts priests who bring the blind and lame animal near to the altar: "When you offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? … Offer it now to your governor!" (Mal 1:8). The mirror is exact and the shared vocabulary is rare — ‘iw·wêr (blind), pissêaḥ (lame), and qârab (draw near/offer) all carry over. What Leviticus guarded in the priest's body, Malachi finds violated in the priest's offering.
Leviticus 21:18 · Leviticus 21:21 · Malachi 1:8
basis: rare shared lexemes (Verifier, Lev 21:18 ↔ Mal 1:8): H6455 piççêach (in 13 vv), H5787 ʻivvêr (in 23 vv), H7126 qârab (in 260 vv), H176 ʼôw — verbal in vocabulary (Malachi deliberately echoes the priestly list back on a corrupt priesthood); not a formal citation
The same governing rule — that what comes near to God's holiness must be without flaw — reaches past the priest to the victim. The red heifer of the purification-water must be one "on which never came yoke" and in which there is no mūm: "a red heifer without defect, in which there is no blemish" (Num 19:2). The unit's load-bearing word reappears at the head of Israel's most mysterious sacrifice, the ash that cleanses the unclean. Priest and offering are bound under one demand. Held honestly: the link is the single shared word mūm (H3971, rare at 19 occurrences) within the same Mosaic cult vocabulary — a structural/thematic resonance, not a quotation; the contexts (priestly fitness vs. the heifer's purity) are distinct but governed by the one principle Barnes names, that "all which is devoted to the service of God should be as perfect as possible of its kind."
Leviticus 21:21 · Numbers 19:2
basis: shared lexeme (Verifier, Lev 21:21 ↔ Num 19:2): H3971 mʼûwm (in 19 vv); same Mosaic cult-purity vocabulary, but no quotation — the heifer-text does not cite the priest-law; the bond is the shared principle of an unblemished thing devoted to God
Two of the rarest defects in the catalogue — gārāb (scab/itch) and yallepheth (scurf/ring-worm) — are vanishingly uncommon words. gārāb stands in only three verses of the whole OT, and one of them is Deuteronomy 28:27, where it falls among the covenant curses: "The LORD will strike you with … the scab and the itch, from which you cannot be healed." The disease that disqualifies a priest from the altar is, in Deuteronomy's curse-list, a stroke of judgment on a disobedient nation. Held honestly: this is a single rare shared lexeme; the link is verbal in vocabulary but the two contexts (priestly fitness vs. national curse) are distinct, so the thread is the word, not a shared argument.
Leviticus 21:20 · Leviticus 22:22 · Deuteronomy 28:27
basis: rare shared lexeme (Verifier, Lev 21:20 ↔ Deut 28:27): H1618 gârâb (in only 3 vv) — verbal by rarity, not a quotation; also H8311 sâraʻ (in 3 vv) shared Lev 21:18 ↔ Lev 22:23. The two contexts (priestly fitness vs. national curse) differ; the bond is the rare word
The unit's keyword recurs, negated, in the portrait of Absalom: "In all Israel there was no one so highly praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom; from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish (mūm) in him" (2 Sam 14:25). The same rare noun that here disqualifies is there a mark of perfect outward form — and the irony of Absalom is that flawless beauty cloaked a rotten heart. Scripture itself thereby warns against reading the priestly mūm as a verdict on inner worth.
Leviticus 21:17 · Leviticus 21:21 · 2 Samuel 14:25
basis: shared lexeme (Verifier, Lev 21:18 ↔ 2 Sam 14:25): H3971 mʼûwm (in 19 vv) + H376 ʼîysh + H3808 lôʼ; thematic inversion (disqualifying flaw vs. flawless form), no quotation claimed
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown read the whole unit toward Christ: "In all these regulations for preserving the unsullied purity of the sacred character and office, there was a typical reference to the priesthood of Christ (Heb 7:26)" — "such a high priest … holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners." Poole and Benson concur that the unblemished priest "typified … Christ, the great High Priest." Flagged on purpose: this is a cross-Testament link (Hebrew Leviticus ↔ Greek Hebrews), so it cannot rest on a shared Strong's number — the Verifier finds no verbal basis across the language barrier. The conceptual bridge is real and ancient (the Greek μῶμος renders Hebrew mūm in the LXX, and 1 Peter 1:19 calls Christ ἄμωμος, "without blemish"), but Hebrews 7:26 does not quote Leviticus 21; it draws a typological inference. We tier it typological and flag the provenance of the claimed connection.
Leviticus 21:17 · Leviticus 21:21 · Hebrews 7:26 · 1 Peter 1:19
basis: cross-Testament (Hebrew↔Greek) — no shared Strong's possible; not a quotation but a typological inference asserted by JFB/Poole/Benson. Conceptual bridge is the LXX μῶμος = mūm and ἄμωμος of 1 Peter 1:19; left flagged because the link is interpretive, not citational
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
The old commentators read this passage with one eye on Calvary. Poole: the priest was "to represent Christ, the great High Priest, who was typified both by the priest and sacrifice, and therefore both were to be without blemish." Leviticus required a whole-bodied priest at a whole-bodied altar; the New Testament names a High Priest "holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners" (Heb 7:26) who offered Himself as "a lamb without blemish or defect" (1 Peter 1:19). The Greek ἄμωμος there is the negated form of the same μῶμος the LXX uses to translate the mūm of this chapter — the shadow's keyword, fulfilled in the substance. In Christ, for the first time, priest and victim are unblemished in the same person.
Leviticus 21:21 · Hebrews 7:26 · 1 Peter 1:19
The mercy folded into the law — the blemished priest barred from the altar yet kept at the table (vv. 22–24), "not treated as an outcast" (Barnes) — reads, under the gospel, as a shadow inverted by its fulfillment. The very people a holiness-of-form code would keep at a distance are the ones Jesus draws near: "the blind and the lame came to Him at the temple, and He healed them" (Matt 21:14) — the very pair (‘iw·wêr, pissêaḥ) this chapter heads its catalogue with. And His parable of the great banquet sends the servant to bring in "the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame" (Luke 14:21). The flawless High Priest is precisely the one who seats the flawed at the feast. Held honestly: this is a thematic reading of the gospel's reversal, offered to be weighed — and Matthew and Luke are Greek (τυφλοὶ καὶ χωλοί), so the bond to the Hebrew ‘iwwêr/pissêaḥ is conceptual, not a shared lexeme; Leviticus 21 does not predict these scenes.
Leviticus 21:18 · Leviticus 21:22 · Matthew 21:14 · Luke 14:21
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). The named voices are verbatim public-domain commentary — Ellicott, Benson, Matthew Henry, Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Poole, Gill, Cambridge Bible, The Pulpit Commentary, and Keil & Delitzsch — quoted verbatim and attributed in place (the ✦ layer). The Hebrew parsings, transliterations, literal renderings, and "where the English smooths" notes are this tool's own work (⚙), fallible; verify against BDB/HALOT.
On the threads. Several defect-words in this unit are genuinely uncertain — ḡibbên, ḥārum, śārûa‘, mərōaḥ ’āšeḵ — and the ancient versions disagree (noted per-verse). The five intra-Hebrew threads rest on Verifier-computed shared Strong's lexemes; the rare ones (mūm H3971 in 19 vv; pissêaḥ H6455 in 13 vv; gārāb H1618 and sâraʻ H8311 each in 3 vv) make those links verbal by their rarity — though none is a formal quotation; no passage here cites another, they share Mosaic cult vocabulary. The mūm-only links (2 Sam 14:25, Num 19:2) are tiered structural/thematic because the word is shared but the argument is not.
On the one flagged link. The Christ-typology of JFB, Poole, and Benson points to Hebrews 7:26. Because that is a cross-Testament link (Hebrew Leviticus ↔ Greek Hebrews), no shared Strong's number is possible and it can never be tiered "verbal"; Hebrews 7:26 does not quote this chapter but draws a typological inference. We left it flagged — verify source on purpose: the connection is ancient and rich, but it is interpretive, not citational. "Test all things; hold fast what is good" (1 Thess 5:21).
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)