Here are four laws concerning sacrifices: -
I. Whatever was offered in sacrifice to God should be without blemish, otherwise it should not be accepted. This had often been mentioned in the particular institutions of the several sorts of offerings. Now here they are told what was to be accounted a blemish which rendered a beast unfit for sacrifice: if it was blind, or lame, had a wen, or the mange (Lev 22:22), - if it was bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut (Lev 22:24), that is, as the Jewish writers understand it, if it was, in any of these ways, castrated, if bulls and rams were made into oxen and weathers, they might not be offered. Moreover a difference is made between what was brought as a free-will offering and what was brought as a vow, Lev 22:23. And, though none that had any of the forementioned blemishes might be brought for either, yet if a beast had any thing superfluous or lacking (that is, as the Jews understand it, if there was a disproportion or inequality between those parts that are pairs, when one eye, or ear, or leg, was bigger than it should be, or less than it should be) - if there was no other blemish than this, it might be accepted for a free-will offering, to which a man had not before laid himself, nor had the divine law laid him, under any particular obligation; but for a vow it might not be accepted. Thus God would teach us to make conscience of performing our promises to him very exactly, and not afterwards to abate in quantity or value of what we had solemnly engaged to devote to him. What was, before the vow, in our own power, as in the case of a free-will offering, afterwards is not, Act 5:4. It is again and again declared that no sacrifice should be accepted if it was thus blemished, Lev 22:20, Lev 22:21. According to this law great care was taken to search all the beasts that were brought to be sacrificed, that there might, to a certainty, be no blemish in them. A blemished sacrifice might not be accepted even from the hand of a stranger, though to such all possible encouragement should be given to do honour to the God of Israel, Lev 22:25. By this it appears that strangers were expected to come to the house of God from a far country (Kg1 8:41, Kg1 8:42), and that they should be welcome, and their offerings accepted, as those of Darius, Ezr 6:9, Ezr 6:10; Isa 56:6, Isa 56:7. The heathen priests were many of them not so strict in this matter, but would receive sacrifices for their gods that were ever so scandalous; but let strangers know that the God of Israel would not be so served. Now, 1. This law was then necessary for the preserving of the honour of the sanctuary, and of the God that was there worshipped. It was fit that every thing that was employed for his honour should be the best of the kind; for, as he is the greatest and brightest, so he is the best of beings; and he that is the best must have the best. See how greatly and justly displeasing the breach of this law was to the holy God, Mal 1:8, Mal 1:13, Mal 1:14. 2. This law made all the legal sacrifices the fitter to be types of Christ, the great sacrifice from which all these derived their virtue. In allusion to this law, he is said to be a Lamb without blemish and without spot, Pe1 1:19. As such a priest, so such a sacrifice, became us, who was harmless and undefiled. When Pilate declared, I find no fault in this man, he did thereby in effect pronounce the sacrifice without blemish. The Jews say it was the work of the sagan, or suffragan, high priest, to view the sacrifices, and see whether they were without blemish or no; when Christ suffered, Annas was in that office; but little did those who brought Christ to Annas first, by whom he was sent bound to Caiaphas, as a sacrifice fit to be offered (Joh 18:13, Joh 18:24), think that they were answering the type of this law. 3. It is an instruction to us to offer to God the best we have in our spiritual sacrifices. If our devotions are ignorant, and cold, and trifling, and full of distractions, we offer the blind, and the lame, and the sick, for sacrifice; but cursed be the deceiver that does so, for, while he thinks to put a cheat upon God, he puts a damning cheat upon his own soul.
II. That no beast should be offered in sacrifice before it was eight days old, Lev 22:26, Lev 22:27. It was provided before that the firstlings of their cattle, which were to be dedicated to God, should not be brought to him till after the eighth day, Exo 22:30. Here it is provided that no creature should be offered in sacrifice till it was eight days old complete. Sooner than that it was not fit to be used at men's tables, and therefore not a God's altar. The Jews say, "It was because the sabbath sanctifies all things, and nothing should be offered to God till at least one sabbath had passed over it." It was in conformity to the law of circumcision, which children were to receive on the eighth day. Christ was sacrificed for us, not in his infancy, though then Herod sought to slay him, but in the prime of his time.
III. That the dam and her young should not both be killed in one day, whether in sacrifice or for common use, Lev 22:28. There is such a law as this concerning birds, Deu 22:6. This was forbidden, not as evil in itself, but because it looked barbarous and cruel to the brute creatures; like the tyranny of the king of Babylon, that slew Zedekiah's sons before his eyes, and then put out his eyes. It looked ill-natured towards the species to kill two generations at once, as if one designed the ruin of the kind.
IV. That the flesh of their thank-offerings should be eaten on the same day that they were sacrificed, Lev 22:29, Lev 22:30. This is a repetition of what we had before, Lev 7:15; Lev 19:6, Lev 19:7. The chapter concludes with such a general charge as we have often met with, to keep God's commandments, and not to profane his holy name, Lev 22:31, Lev 22:32. Those that profess God's name, if they do not make conscience of keeping his commandments, do but profane his name. The general reasons are added: God's authority over them - I am the Lord; his interest in them - I am your God; the title he had to them by redemption - "I brought you out of the land of Egypt, on purpose that I might be your God;" the designs of his grace concerning them - I am the Lord that hallow you; and the resolutions of his justice, if he had not honour from them, to get himself honour upon them - I will be hallowed among the children of Israel. God will be a loser in his glory by no man at last; but sooner or later will recover his right, either in the repentance of sinners or in their ruin.

Whatsoever hath a blemish - The same perfection is required in the sacrifice that was required in the priest; see on Lev 22:2 (note), and the notes on Leviticus 21 (note).

Blind, or broken, or maimed,.... Which is "blind" of one eye, or both: and so the Egyptians, as they would not sacrifice any of their oxen that had any blemishes on them, and were of a different colour, or changed in their form, so likewise such that were deprived of either of their eyes (x). Some, as Aben Ezra observes, restrain that which is "broken" to its being broken in the head; but others interpret it of any fracture of the foot, as well as the head, and even of the tail, side, or rib; though others think, that such fractures as were not open and visible are excepted, as that of the rib; so Gersom; and with the Heathens, as Pliny (y) would have remarked, as they were not used to sacrifice calves, brought on men's shoulders, so neither anything that halted: that which is maimed some understand of that whose foot is broken, as Aben Ezra also remarks; but the word is by the Septuagint rendered, "cut in the tongue"; and the Targum of Jonathan, "whose eyebrows are smitten"; and Jarchi seems to take in both, interpreting it the eyebrow which is cut or broken, and so the lip, which is cut or broken: but it is rather to be understood more generally of its being maimed or mutilated in any part of it; so with the Heathens, as Porphyry (z) affirms, beasts that were mutilated were not to be sacrificed; and in the Comedian (a), a sacrifice is objected to, because it had no tail; upon which the Scholiast observes, that whatever was mutilated was not offered in sacred services, nor was any thing imperfect or unsound sacrificed to the gods; and particularly Servius (b) remarks, if their tongues were cut or slit; which illustrates the Septuagint version, which is observed by Grotius:

or having a wen: or full of warts, as others; the Targum of Jonathan is, whose eyes are smitten with a mixture of white and black; and so Gersom interprets it of a like defect in the eye, in the white of the eye; for he says, if it was in the black or pupil of the eye, the eye would be blind:

or scurvy or scabbed: the same of those in men; See Gill on Lev 21:20,

ye shall not offer these unto the Lord; any creatures defective in any of these instances; three times this is said, as Jarchi observes, to make them careful concerning the sanctification of them, and concerning the slaying of them, and concerning the sprinkling of their blood:

nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the Lord; a burnt offering on the altar of burnt offering, or burn the fat of them upon it.

(x) Chaeremon. apud Porphyr. de Abstinentia, l. 4. sect. 7. (y) Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 45. (z) De Abstinentia, l. 2. sect. 23. (a) Aristoph. Acharnens. ver. 784. (b) In Virgil. Aeneid. l. 6.

THE SACRIFICES MUST BE WITHOUT BLEMISH. (Lev. 22:17-33)

Ye shall offer at your own will--rather, to your being accepted.

a male without blemish--This law (Lev 1:3) is founded on a sense of natural propriety, which required the greatest care to be taken in the selection of animals for sacrifice. The reason for this extreme caution is found in the fact that sacrifices are either an expression of praise to God for His goodness, or else they are the designed means of conciliating or retaining His favor. No victim that was not perfect in its kind could be deemed a fitting instrument for such purposes if we assume that the significance of sacrifices is derived entirely from their relation to Jehovah. Sacrifices may be likened to gifts made to a king by his subjects, and hence the reasonableness of God's strong remonstrance with the worldly-minded Jews (Mal 1:8). If the tabernacle, and subsequently the temple, were considered the palace of the great King, then the sacrifices would answer to presents as offered to a monarch on various occasions by his subjects; and in this light they would be the appropriate expressions of their feelings towards their sovereign. When a subject wished to do honor to his sovereign, to acknowledge allegiance, to appease his anger, to supplicate forgiveness, or to intercede for another, he brought a present; and all the ideas involved in sacrifices correspond to these sentiments--those of gratitude, of worship, of prayer, of confession and atonement [BIB. SAC.].