Leviticus 22: A Flawed Animal Is a Gift but Never a Vow

I think verse 23 is the most useful verse in Leviticus 22, and it gets buried because it comes right behind the list of blemishes in verse 22, which is the part everybody remembers. Blind, broken, maimed, scabbed. You nod and move on to the cow and her young.

Since Tuesday Lily has been saving the heels of the bread loaf in a bag on the counter. They're for the horses we're driving out to see this afternoon, fall break being what it is. I told her horses like carrots better. She said these were for the one with the white sock. I couldn't tell you which horse that is. We've passed that pasture exactly once, at about forty miles an hour.

What does Leviticus 22:23 actually allow?

Either a bullock or a lamb that hath any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted.

Leviticus 22:23

An animal with something extra or something missing can be brought as a freewill offering. The same animal can't be brought to fulfill a vow. Everything around it in the chapter is a flat no to a blemished animal, and here is one case where the answer is yes for one kind of offering and no for the other.

The offerings in view start at verse 18, which names "all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings" in the same breath. Verse 19 says to offer "at your own will" a male without blemish, and verse 20 says that whatever has a blemish "shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you." So the chapter opens its animal rules with vows and freewill gifts side by side and one standard for both.

Verse 21 makes it stranger. It puts the vow and the freewill offering under one rule: whoever brings a peace offering "to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein." Both perfect. Then verse 23 pulls one case back out, and it's the freewill gift.

The lists on either side are plain about what they rule out. Verse 22 names the blind, broken, maimed, and anything with a wen, scurvy or scabs. Verse 24 names what's bruised, crushed, broken or cut. Verse 23 is the only place in the stretch where the answer changes depending on why you're bringing the animal.

That's all it says.

Who could eat what the priests ate?

The first half of the chapter has a different subject, who may eat the holy food. A stranger, a sojourner of the priest and a hired servant may not (verse 10). A servant the priest bought with his money may, and so may anyone born in his house (verse 11). A priest's daughter married to a stranger may not (verse 12). A daughter who is widowed or divorced with no child, and has returned to her father's house "as in her youth," may (verse 13).

The table follows the household, so a bought servant eats and a hired one doesn't. The daughter who married out doesn't, and the daughter who is back at her father's house does. If anyone eats a holy thing without knowing it, verse 14 has him add a fifth part and give it to the priest along with the thing itself.

Who is inside an obligation and who is outside it is worth keeping in mind for what comes next. A vow puts a person inside one on purpose.

Why is a vow held to a stricter standard than a gift?

Leviticus gives no reason for verse 23, so what follows is my reading and not the chapter's. Deuteronomy 23 has a short passage on vows, and it opens like this.

When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.

Deuteronomy 23:21

Verse 22 says that if you hold back from vowing, "it shall be no sin in thee." Verse 23 says "That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the Lord thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth." That last verse is about a freewill offering that has been vowed. So Deuteronomy puts the weight on what the person said out loud. Ecclesiastes comes at it from the other side: "Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay" (Ecclesiastes 5:5).

Put those beside Leviticus 22:23 and here is how I read it. A freewill offering is what a man chooses to bring, and the Lord takes what he has. A vow is something he already said he'd bring, and what he said is what has to arrive.

Malachi 1:14 puts a vow and a bad animal in the same sentence.

But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.

Malachi 1:14

A male in the flock, a vow, a corrupt thing handed over. Leviticus 22:19 asks for "a male without blemish," and verse 21 asks for a perfect animal for a vow, so the man in Malachi has a good one at home and offers something else.

Six verses earlier, in 1:8, the complaint is wider and has no vow in it. It asks if offering the blind, the lame and the sick isn't evil, and tells them to offer it to their governor and see if he's pleased. Verse 13 adds the torn, the lame and the sick again. Those verses are about the whole offering going wrong, priests told they call the Lord's table contemptible while they bring the torn and the lame. Verse 14 is where it narrows to the vow.

What does the Church teach about the unblemished animal?

None of this is in Leviticus 22 itself, so I'll mark it as what the Church teaches and not what the chapter says. Latter-day Saints read the perfect animal as a pointer to Christ. When Adam is asked why he offers sacrifices he answers "I know not, save the Lord commanded me," and the angel tells him "This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father" (Moses 5:6-7). Amulek puts it more broadly in Alma 34:14, calling the whole law "every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice."

The vow-and-gift distinction doesn't depend on that reading. It's in the text on its own terms, and it's what the rest of this post stays with. Monday's study of the blemished priest who still eats the bread in Leviticus 21 covers the priest's blemish, which is a different matter from the animal's.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does "cut off from my presence" mean in Leviticus 22:3?

The chapter doesn't say what it means. The verse applies to anyone of Aaron's seed who goes to the holy things with his uncleanness upon him, and the only other thing it gives is the "I am the Lord" at the end.

Can a person offer a flawed animal in Leviticus 22?

Yes, in one case. Verse 23 allows a bullock or a lamb with something extra or missing as a freewill offering, but not for a vow. Verses 22 and 24 rule out animals that are blind, broken, maimed, bruised, crushed or cut. Verse 25 says you may not offer any of these as the bread of your God from a stranger's hand either.

Why can't you kill a cow or ewe and her young on the same day?

Verse 28 gives no reason, and the chapter doesn't tie it to the blemish rules or to the seven days under the dam in verse 27. I'd rather not guess at one.

What happens if someone eats a holy thing by mistake?

Verse 14 has him add a fifth part to the holy thing and give both to the priest.

Read verse 23 slowly, then read Deuteronomy 23:21-23 right after it. If you're about to promise something this week, wait until you know you can do it, because Deuteronomy 23:22 says there's no sin in holding back.

— D.