Leviticus 21

Leviticus 21:7

Augustine of Hippo: They will not marry a prostitute or profaned woman, nor with a woman repudiated by her husband, because she is holy to the Lord her God. It had been said before: They will not marry. Now it is said: Because he is holy, not because they are holy. Using his usual way of expressing himself, the Scripture refers to many who are priests at the same time, and speaking to each of them in particular he says: Because he is holy. Because the high priest, who entered the saint of saints, mentions it later. Then he concludes, saying in the plural: you will be holy: he offers the gifts of the Lord your God. It is holy, because holy is I, the Lord, who sanctified them (Leviticus 21,8). Regarding the gifts mentioned with these words: He offers the gifts of the Lord your God, it must be noted that not only the high priest offered them, but also the priests of the second rank. The prohibition expressed as follows: They will not marry a prostitute or a profaned one, nor with one repudiated by her husband, it also refers to priests of the second rank. Because the high priest speaks later and says about him that he can only marry a virgin. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 78 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 21:9

John Chrysostom: But why speak of the men engaged in the ministry? Even the daughters of priests, who are of no significance for the priestly office, incur a far more severe penalty than do others for the same sins, because of their fathers’ dignity. The offense is the same (it is prostitution in both cases) when committed by them and the daughters of ordinary people, but their punishment is far greater. You see how thoroughly God proves to you that he demands much more punishment of the ruler than of the subjects. — On the Priesthood 6.16

Leviticus 21:10

Augustine of Hippo: The priest superior to his brothers, the one who is great among his brothers, is the only high priest. On whose head the anointed oil was poured. The Scripture calls Christum (anointed) in oil. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 79 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Augustine of Hippo: Who received the investiture to dress, the garments. It is undoubtedly the garments that are described in detail when talking about the priestly garment (Cf Exodus 28,4). — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 80 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Augustine of Hippo: He will not remove his miter from his head and will not tear his clothes and will not approach any dead soul. It is understood that he is forbidden to do what was previously said about mourning, that is, to discover the head, removing the miter and tearing the garments. Tearing the garments was a custom of the ancients when they mourned, as, for example, in the case of Job, when his sons announced to him that ruin had come upon them (Cf Job 1,20). Discovering the head, taking off the miter, could be a gesture of mourning precisely because it was taking off an ornament. In relation to the phrase: And it will not come close to any dead soul, it is difficult to understand how the dead body is called dead soul. But it must be said that this is a frequent expression in the Scriptures that for us is very rare. In effect, the private body of the soul also receives the name of the one who governed it, because it must be returned in the resurrection. As, for example, the building that is called church, is still called church, although the church, which are men, has left there. But since the body does not receive the name of soul in a living man, we are surprised that it is called a soul when it lacks a soul. Now, if we understand that it is the dead soul, separated from the body, so that it would seem that death was the separation itself, that is, that the dead soul had been stripped from the body without losing its nature -for not even when it is said that we are dead to sin (Cf Rm 6,2), it is affirmed that nature has perished, but that we no longer sin, so that it is understood that the soul is dead, dead to the body, because it has ceased to use it, since it lives in its nature - how can one approach a dead soul, something that was forbidden to this priest, since whoever approaches, approaches a dead body, not a soul that has separated from the body? Or is it designated by the name of soul to one’s own temporal life, which is certainly dead in a dead body, since that soul migrated that can not die? It is not a matter of the soul having been its own life, but because of the presence of the soul, which gave it subsistence, it has received its name. It is something similar to the distinction we made when speaking about blood, about which it was said: The soul of all flesh is blood (Leviticus 17,11). Because the blood is dead in a dead body, and it does not withdraw with the soul that withdraws. The Scripture therefore forbade the high priest to even approach the corpse of his own father or mother. Thing that did not forbid the priest of the second degree, because he continues saying: Neither by his father nor by his mother he will become impure (Leviticus 21,11). The order of the words is as follows: By his father he will not be made unclean by his mother. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 81 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 21:11

Augustine of Hippo: In relation to the fact that the high priest is prohibited from approaching the body of his father, he may wonder how he could already be a high priest if his father had not yet died, when the Scripture orders the high priests to succeed their parents. Because the incense, which had to be placed daily by the high priest, was always on, it was necessary that the priest be immediately replaced, even though the previous high priest was not buried. Although the question of the illness of the high priest still remains, if we think he could be sick a few days before dying. Unless this is also resolved by saying that the chief priests used to die suddenly, without pre-dating an illness, as the Scripture says about Aaron (Cf Numbers 20,26-29). — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 83 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 21:12

Augustine of Hippo: And it will not leave the saints. He no doubt refers to the time when funerals were celebrated by his family, as he was also forbidden to leave the saints during the seven days in which he was consecrated, but not forever. If the high priests were not forbidden, certainly, then marry or have children, there is a serious problem. For as the law says that a man is impure until the evening even by conjugal intercourse, even if he laves his body with water, (Cf Leviticus 8,33) and the high priest is commanded to go twice a day every day to the other side of the veil, there was the altar of incense, so that the incense may continue to burn always, and it is said that no impure person was allowed to approach the saint, how could the high priest fulfill this daily, if he begot children? Because if one asked who would supply him in the event that he fell ill, one can reply saying that because of God’s favor he did not fall ill. Can the same be said about the procreation of children? From here it follows, or that it would keep the continence, or that for a few days the incense was interrupted, or, if it could not be interrupted, that which only the high priest could perform, then he would not become impure by conjugal intercourse on account of his special state of holiness. Or if he also refers to what is said below about all the sons of Aaron, that none of them should approach the saint if any impurity befalls him (Cf Leviticus 21,17), it is as a solution to think that some days he did not put incense. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 82 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 21:15

Augustine of Hippo: It should be noted that the Scripture says many times: It is I, the Lord, who sanctified him, speaking of the high priest, and that this same thing is said to Moses: And you shall sanctify him. How does Moses and the Lord sanctify? Moses does not do it for the Lord, but for his ministry, through visible rites. The Lord does it by his Holy Spirit, through his invisible grace, in whom all the fruit of his own visible rites resides. Because what are the visible rites taking advantage of without this sanctification of invisible grace? We can rightly ask if this invisible sanctification, without visible rites, for which man is visibly sanctified, does not serve equally for anything, which is naturally an absurdity. Because someone more acceptably would say that without them it would not exist, rather than saying that it would not take advantage if it existed, when in sanctification all the usefulness of the rites resides. But we must also see how it can be said correctly that without the rites, holiness could not exist. Because, in effect, the visible baptism of Simon Magus who lacked invisible sanctity was of no use to him (Cf Acts 8,9). But those to whom he took advantage of this invisible sanctification, because they had it, had also received the visible rites, for they had been baptized just as he was. With regard to Moses, who visibly sanctified the priests, it is not said where he himself was sanctified by the same sacrifices or by the oil. But who would dare to deny that he was sanctified invisibly, he who stood out for such great grace? The same can also be said of John the Baptist, since he appeared earlier as a baptizer than as a baptized one (Cf Matthew 3,11.14). Therefore we can not deny at all that he too was sanctified. But nowhere do we find that this has been done with him in a visible way before he himself came to the ministry of baptism. The same can be said of that thief whom the Lord told him when he was crucified with him: Today you will be with me in paradise (Lc 23,43). Because this man could not receive the gift of such great happiness without invisible sanctification. Therefore, we must conclude that some had and took advantage of invisible sanctification without visible rites, which were changing over time, so that before they were some and now they are others. But the visible sanctification that would be verified by the visible rites, could exist without this invisible sanctification, but it could not be profitable. However, this is not the reason why we should despise the visible rite. For he who despises him can not be sanctified invisibly. From this it is deduced that Cornelius and those who were with him, although they were already sanctified invisibly by the coming of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless, were baptized (Cf Hch 10,44-48). And this visible sanctification was not deemed superfluous, even though it had already preceded invisible sanctification. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 84 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 21:17

Gregory of Nazianzus: I know also that not even bodily blemishes in either priests or victims passed without notice, but that it was required by the law that perfect sacrifices must be offered by perfect men—a symbol, I take it, of integrity of soul. — ORATION 2 (IN DEFENSE OF HIS FLIGHT TO PONTUS) 94

Origen of Alexandria: Moreover, blameless priests served the Godhead by offering blameless sacrifices, while those who were blemished and offered blemished sacrifices and whom Moses described in Leviticus were separated from the altar. And who else is the blameless priest offering a blameless sacrifice than the person who holds fast to his confession and fulfills every requirement the account of martyrdom demands? He is the one we have spoken of before. — EXHORTATION TO MARTYRDOM 30

Leviticus 21:20

Gregory the Dialogist: Hence also it is said through Moses that whoever is burdened with a hump should by no means be advanced to the priesthood. And all of us who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ are made members of that same high priest. Whence also it is said to us through Peter: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood.” But he who bears a hump always gazes at the lowest things. Therefore he is driven from the priesthood, because whoever is intent only on earthly things is himself a witness to himself that he is not a member of the high priest. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 31