Leviticus 22:10 · Bible study
Leviticus 22:10 Commentary: Boundaries of the Holy Household
Hebrew · 10 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Explore Leviticus 22:10: who may eat the sacred offerings and what this restriction teaches about God’s holiness and household membership.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Only the priest and his permanent household may eat the holy offerings; guests and hired workers are forbidden.
- Key words: Zar (stranger, anyone not of the priest’s family), toshash (resident alien or sojourner), sakhir (hired laborer), qodesh (holy thing, set apart to God).
- Main debate: Whether “stranger” means any non-priestly Israelite (Gill, Barnes) or specifically a foreigner outside the covenant community (Clarke notes a Jewish tradition). Also whether “sojourner” is a temporary guest (Wesley) or an indentured servant (Gill).
- Theological theme: Holiness requires clear household boundaries, protecting God’s sacred provisions from being treated as ordinary.
- Best use: Teaching on reverence for holy things, God’s provision for ministers, and the shape of covenant membership.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
No one outside a priest’s family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired hand eat it.
WEB World English Bible 2000
“‘No stranger shall eat of the holy thing: a foreigner living with the priests, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
KJV King James Version 1769
There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest’s, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
`And no stranger doth eat of the holy thing; a settler of a priest and an hireling doth not eat of the holy thing;
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And no stranger shall eat the holy thing; the sojourner with the priest, and the hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
No stranger shall eat of the sanctified things: a sojourner of the priests, or a hired servant, shall not eat of them.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Ningún extraño comerá cosa sagrada; el huésped del sacerdote, ni el jornalero, no comerá cosa sagrada.
Nenhum estranho comerá coisa sagrada; o hóspede do sacerdote, nem o empregado, não comerá coisa sagrada.
Aucun étranger ne mangera des choses saintes; celui qui demeure chez un sacrificateur et le mercenaire ne mangeront point des choses saintes.
Kein anderer soll von dem Heiligen essen noch des Priesters Beisaß oder Tagelöhner.
Ook zal geen vreemde het heilige eten; een bijwoner des priesters, en een dagloner, zullen het heilige niet eten.
Nessun estraneo al sacerdozio mangerà delle cose sante: chi sta da un sacerdote o lavora da lui per un salario non mangerà delle cose sante.
Żaden obcy nie będzie jadł z rzeczy poświęconych; komornik kapłański, ani najemnik nie będzie jadł rzeczy poświęconych.
Никто посторонний не должен есть святыни; поселившийся у священника и наемник не должен есть святыни;
「凡 外人 不可 吃 聖物；寄居 在祭司家的，或是雇工人，都不可 吃 聖物；
No outside person may take of the holy food, or one living as a guest in the priest's house, or a servant working for payment.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Leviticus 22:10
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree that this verse restricts eating the holy offerings (the portions of sacrifices assigned to priests) to the priest and his immediate household. The word zar (stranger) refers to anyone not of Aaron’s family (Gill, Barnes), whether an ordinary Israelite or a Levite. A toshash (sojourner) and a sakhir (hired servant) are excluded because they are temporary residents; they do not belong to the priest’s permanent household (Cambridge Bible, Wesley). By contrast, a slave bought with money or born into the house may eat, since he is a fixed member of the family (JFB, Clarke). Calvin notes that the prohibition prevented priests from turning sacred food into a marketable commodity; Matthew Henry adds that the priest must guard against profanation, not bringing guilt upon others. The common thread: holiness requires clear boundaries around who partakes of what is set apart to God.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Stranger as any non-priestly Israelite: Gill, Barnes, and most commentators understand 'stranger' (zar) to mean anyone not of Aaron’s seed, including ordinary Israelites and Levites.
- Stranger as foreigner or non-covenant member: Clarke notes a Jewish tradition that the term refers specifically to one who has had his ear pierced (a perpetual servant), suggesting a narrower category; also, some readings see the stranger as a Gentile outsider.
What is clear: No one outside the priest’s permanent household may eat the holy offerings; this includes guests and hired workers, but not purchased slaves who are bound to the family.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Definition of “stranger” (zar) | The stranger is anyone who does not belong to the priest’s family. All agree the word excludes non-priests from eating holy offerings. | Some understand it as any Israelite who is not a priest (Gill, Cambridge); others note a Jewish tradition that it refers to one who has had his ear pierced and is a perpetual servant (Clarke), while still others understand it as a general term for an outsider. |
| Status of the sojourner (toshash) and hired servant (sakhir) | Both are forbidden to eat the holy things because they are temporary residents, not permanent household members. | Wesley calls the sojourner “one that comes to his house and abides there for a season.” Gill cites Jewish interpreters who see the sojourner as a servant bought for a limited term. The key question is whether these persons are guests or bonded workers with an end date. |
| Inclusion of purchased slaves | A slave bought with money and a homeborn slave may eat the holy food because they are permanent members of the household. | Clarke notes that such slaves were taken from among the heathen and instructed in the true religion, suggesting that religious instruction accompanied household membership. Others (JFB, Gill) simply emphasize permanence of belonging without specifying religious status. |
| Rationale for the restriction | All agree the primary purpose is to maintain the sanctity of holy things and prevent profanation. | Calvin stresses that it prevented priests from selling leftovers and turning sacred things into a trade. Matthew Henry focuses on the priest’s responsibility to prevent others from incurring guilt. These two emphases are complementary but prioritize different aspects. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The “holy thing” refers to portions of the peace offerings, wave breast, heave shoulder, and showbread that God gave to Aaron and his sons for food (Exod 29:33; Lev 7:28, 36). These were not merely priestly perks; they sustained the men who served at the altar day by day. The law surrounding them protected the sanctity of what had been consecrated to Yahweh.
In ancient Israel, a priest’s household consisted not only of his wife and children, but also of slaves purchased with his money and those born into his house. Such slaves were considered permanent property. A toshash (sojourner) was a resident alien who lived with the priest temporarily, perhaps as a boarder or a guest; a sakhir was a day-laborer or short-term employee. Neither had the stability of household membership. To allow them to eat the holy food would have blurred the line between the sacred and the common, and could have led to casual disregard for what God had claimed as His own.
The restriction also prevented the priest from profiting by selling the leftovers (Calvin). By limiting access to those who were permanently part of his family, and who were themselves bound to the purity laws of the priesthood, the command guarded against the very act of profanation that verse 9 warns against: “lest they bear sin for it and die.” The broader context (vv. 6, 13) repeatedly emphasizes that the holy things are the priest’s “bread” (v. 7), yet only those fully embedded in his household may share it.
Later biblical episodes echo this principle. When David ate the showbread in 1 Samuel 21:6, the priest gave it only after ascertaining that David’s men were ceremonially pure, an exception that underscores the rule. Jesus cited this very incident in Matthew 12:4 to teach that mercy can override strict application of the law, but he did not dismantle the principle that holy things deserve reverence.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for this verse. The Hebrew is stable across manuscripts, and the translations reflect the same underlying reading. The main interpretive work focuses on lexical and social definitions rather than textual issues.
Reception History
Church tradition has often read this verse as a boundary marker for holy things. Early Christian writers saw in the priest’s household a type of the Church, the household of God, where only the faithful may partake of the Eucharist (e.g., the Didache restricts Communion to the baptized). The Reformers, particularly Calvin, used the passage to argue that sacred offices must not be exploited for personal gain, and that reverence for God’s gifts requires orderly distribution. Matthew Henry, writing within the Puritan tradition, emphasized the priest’s duty to guard against profanation. In modern scholarship, the verse is studied for its evidence of ancient Israelite household structure and the social incorporation of slaves into the religious community. Across eras, readers have seen in this law a principle: what is holy demands respect, and not everyone belongs at every table.
Preaching This Verse
Three-Point Outline
- Holiness requires boundaries. God’s sacred gifts are not to be treated as ordinary. The restriction separates the holy from the common and teaches us to approach Him with reverence.
- Membership defines access. Only those who belong to the priest’s permanent household may eat. In the New Covenant, all believers belong to God’s household, but the principle of reverence remains: not everyone who is near is invited to the same table.
- God provides for those who serve. The holy food sustained the priests and their families. The law ensures His ministers are cared for, while protecting them from temptation to profit from sacred things.
Five-Point Outline
- The holy things: God’s provision for His ministers.
- The stranger: anyone outside the priestly household.
- The sojourner and hired servant: temporary residents excluded.
- The purchased slave: a permanent member included.
- The rationale: guarding the sanctity of what is consecrated.
Illustration Hooks
- A family’s private pantry: guests are offered refreshments, but only family members freely take the special preserves or leftovers. The hired gardener would not help himself to the family’s dinner.
- A company’s benefits: full-time employees with a contract have health coverage; interns or day workers do not. The distinction is about commitment and belonging, not worth.
- A church’s Communion table: some traditions restrict the elements to baptized members; others invite all believers. The ancient boundary raises the same question: who belongs to the household that eats together?
Questions Your Congregation Is Asking
- “Does God still expect us to keep such strict boundaries around holy things today?”
- “If I welcome a non-Christian friend to church, is it wrong for them to take Communion?”
- “What does this Old Testament law tell us about how God treats His servants (pastors, missionaries) in our time?”
Leading a Discussion
This verse draws a clear line: only the priest’s permanent household may eat the holy offerings. The temporary guest and the hired worker are excluded, but the purchased slave is included. This forces us to think about membership, holiness, and God’s provision for His servants. As a small group, work through these questions together.
Discussion Questions
- Observation: Who is listed as forbidden to eat, and who is permitted? Read Leviticus 22:10, 13 and list each category.
- Observation about the text: What does the word “holy thing” mean here? Why is it called “holy” rather than simply “food”?
- Interpretation: Why do you think the sojourner and hired servant are excluded, but the bought slave is included? What does this say about the biblical definition of “household”?
- Interpretation: Calvin suggested the restriction prevented priests from selling leftovers. Matthew Henry focused on preventing profanation. Which rationale resonates more with you, and why?
- Application: How do we “profane” holy things today? Eating irreverently during Communion? Treating worship as ordinary? Where might we need to restore a sense of sacred boundary?
- Application: In what ways does your church community distinguish between those who are “members” and those who are not? Is this distinction healthy or harmful?
- Gospel connection: In Christ, believers are called a “royal priesthood” and have direct access to God. How does this New Testament reality both affirm and transform the boundary we see in Leviticus 22:10?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Exodus 29:33 | They shall eat those things with which atonement was made, to consecrate and sanctify them; but a stranger shall not eat of it, because they are holy. |
| I Samuel 21:6 | So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the show bread that was taken from before Yahweh, to be replaced with hot bread in the day when it was taken away. |
| Matthew 12:4 | how he entered into God’s house and ate the show bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke contrasts the Mosaic treatment of slaves as members of the priest's family with European slaveholders who profess Christianity yet ignore their slaves' spiritual welfare. He condemns these owners as preposterous for citing Mosaic law to defend a system far harsher than the one they invoke.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Stranger - One of another family. See Exo 29:33 note.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin's emphasis falls on the priests rather than the strangers. He argues the rule protected sacred offerings from becoming a source of trade or social entertainment. Without it, priests could have sold leftover offerings or used them to gratify guests, eroding the reverence that distinguished holy things from ordinary food.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The school notes a key social distinction in ancient Israel: a sojourner and a hired servant were not counted as family members. This contrasts with purchased slaves or those born into the household, who held a closer, more integral status within the family unit.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note clarifies three categories of people barred from eating holy offerings: anyone outside the priest's household, a guest staying with the priest, and a worker hired by him. Only the priest's own family—those permanently part of his house—could share in these sacred portions.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill clarifies that "stranger" here means anyone not from Aaron's priestly family, including ordinary Israelites and Levites. Even an Israelite sojourner living in a priest's house or a hired servant may not eat the holy things, since they do not belong to the priest's household.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown observe that the rule about eating holy offerings turns on permanent household membership. Bought or homeborn slaves could eat, but temporary guests and hired servants could not. A priest’s daughter who married outside the priesthood lost the privilege, regaining it only if widowed and childless.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
L
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Matthew Henry emphasizes that the priests carried a double duty: not only to keep the holy food for themselves, but to actively prevent outsiders from eating it, so that no one would bring guilt on themselves. He sees this as a warning that we must protect others from sin, not just ourselves.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley draws a careful distinction between a stranger and a sojourner. A stranger does not belong to the priestly family and is excluded by rule, though he notes an exception in the law. A sojourner is a temporary guest who eats at the priest’s table yet is also disqualified.