Leviticus 7:8 · Bible study
Leviticus 7:8 Commentary: The Priest's Portion
Hebrew · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why the priest receives the hide of the burnt offering: a provision for those who serve, with echoes of Eden and practical care in the sacrificial system.
Research Summary
- Meaning: The officiating priest receives the hide of the burnt offering as payment for his service, since the flesh is wholly consumed.
- Key words: Kohen (priest), qarav (present/Hiphil participle), or (skin/hide), yiheyeh lo (it shall belong to him).
- Main debate: Whether the priest’s right to the skin originates with Adam’s sacrifice (coats of skin) or is purely a Mosaic provision for the Levitical priests.
- Theological theme: God’s provision for those who minister before Him, blending material compensation with holy service.
- Best use: Supporting the principle that those who serve in sacred office are worthy of material support (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:13, 14).
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
As for the priest who presents a burnt offering for anyone, the hide of that offering belongs to him.
WEB World English Bible 2000
The priest who offers any man’s burnt offering shall have for himself the skin of the burnt offering which he has offered.
KJV King James Version 1769
And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt-offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt-offering which he hath offered.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
`And the priest who is bringing near any man's burnt-offering, the skin of the burnt-offering which he hath brought near, it is the priest's, his own;
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And [as to] the priest that presenteth any man's burnt-offering, the skin of the burnt-offering which he hath presented shall be the priest's for himself.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
The priest that offereth the victim of holocaust, shall have the skin thereof.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y el sacerdote que ofreciere holocausto de alguno, el cuero del holocausto que ofreciere, será para él.
E o sacerdote que oferecer holocausto de alguém, o couro do holocausto que oferecer, será para ele.
Le sacrificateur qui offrira l’ holocauste de quelqu’ un aura pour lui la peau de l’ holocauste qu’ il a offert.
Welcher Priester jemandes Brandopfer opfert, des soll des Brandopfers Fell sein, das er geopfert hat.
Ook de priester, die iemands brandoffer offert, die priester zal de huid des brandoffers hebben, dat hij geofferd heeft.
E il sacerdote che offrirà l’olocausto per qualcuno avrà per sé la pelle dell’olocausto che avrà offerto.
Kapłanowi, który by czyję ofiarę całopaloną ofiarował, skóra tejże ofiary, którą ofiarował, należeć będzie.
И когда священник приносит чью-нибудь жертву всесожжения, кожа от жертвы всесожжения, которое он приносит, принадлежит священнику;
獻 燔祭 的祭司，無論為 誰奉獻，要親自 得 他 所 獻 那燔祭牲 的皮。
And the priest offering any man's burned offering for him, may have the skin of the burned offering which is offered by him.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Leviticus 7:8
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
The priest receives the skin because the flesh is entirely consumed on the altar, leaving nothing else as payment for his work. Commentators agree this is a concrete provision for the officiating priest. Keil and Delitzsch note the Hebrew construction, “as for the priest, who offers … the skin shall belong to the priest”, isolates his right. Gill adds a grammatical emphasis on the phrase “to himself,” suggesting other priests may not share this particular skin; it belongs to the one who performed the service. Barnes and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown point to a likely patriarchal origin, linking the practice back to Adam. Clarke quotes Bishop Patrick: Adam’s first sacrifice may have given him the hide, and this custom passed into the Law. The hide is thus both wages for sacred labor and a tangible reminder that God supplies the needs of those who minister before Him.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: The priest who offers the burnt offering receives the hide as his compensation, since the flesh is entirely burned on the altar.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Priest's right to the skin | The verse clearly gives the hide of the burnt offering to the officiating priest. | Some traditions see this as limited to the burnt offering only; others extend it to sin and guilt offerings (Barnes notes it is likely they also fell to the priest). |
| Origin of the custom | It is part of the Mosaic Law and provided material support for priests. | Some commentators (Patrick via Clarke, JFB) trace it back to Adam’s sacrifice and the coats of skin in Genesis 3:21. Others treat it strictly as a cultic regulation without patriarchal precedent. |
| Application to Christian ministry | The principle that those who serve in sacred work deserve material support is affirmed by most traditions (cf. 1 Corinthians 9). | Catholics and some Protestants see a direct typological link to priestly provision in the Church; others emphasize that the Levitical system is fulfilled in Christ and not directly normative for church finance. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The burnt offering (olah) was unique: the entire animal, except the hide, went up in smoke on the altar (Leviticus 1:6, 9; 6:9, 10). This total consumption signified complete dedication to God. No meat remained for the worshiper or the priest. Unlike guilt offerings or peace offerings, where portions were eaten, the burnt offering left nothing edible. The hide, however, was not burned. Instead, it became the property of the priest who offered it.
In the ancient Near East, animal hides held real economic value, they could be used for clothing, shelter, or trade. By assigning the skin to the priest, the Law provided for the material needs of those who served at the altar. The Hebrew verb qarav (to present) appears in the Hiphil participle, underscoring the priest’s active role in bringing the offering. The hide was his compensation for labor that yielded no other personal benefit.
Later Jewish tradition (Mishnah Zebachim 12:3) confirmed the principle: skins of most holy things belonged to the priests, while skins of lighter holy things remained the owner’s. This sustained the household of Levi, who had no territorial inheritance (Numbers 18:20, 21). The rule also set Israel apart from pagan neighbors, who sometimes slept on sacrificial fleeces seeking oracles, as Clarke documents from Virgil. Israel’s priests received hides as dignified payment, not as tools for divination.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Leviticus 7:8. The Masoretic Text is stable across Hebrew manuscripts. The ancient versions (Septuagint, Targum, Syriac) consistently render the sense of the hide belonging to the priest. There is no reason to doubt the received reading.
Reception History
Jewish tradition codified the rule in the Mishnah (Zebachim 12:3), distinguishing between skins of most holy things (given to priests) and lighter holy things (retained by owners). The Talmud debated whether the skin belonged to the priest who killed the animal or the one who offered the blood. Christian interpreters saw here a type of the priestly provision fulfilled in the New Covenant: as the Levitical priest received the skin, so ministers of the gospel should be sustained by those who receive spiritual benefits (1 Corinthians 9:13). Early Reformers such as Luther and Calvin read the verse as a concrete example of God’s care for the clergy, though they rejected any notion of sacerdotal hierarchy. Matthew Henry drew practical lessons about the honor and support due to those who serve at the altar.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- God provides for His servants. The burnt offering consumed everything but the skin, yet the priest was not left empty-handed. The hide was his portion, a tangible sign that the Lord who requires worship also cares for the worshiper’s earthly needs.
- Ministry has material dimensions. The priest’s labor was holy, yet it was not detached from practical life. The Law recognized that those who give themselves to sacred service deserve compensation (see 1 Corinthians 9:13, 14).
- A pattern of giving and receiving. The worshiper gave the animal; God received the smoke; the priest received the hide. Every party participated. This rhythm of offering and provision echoes throughout Scripture.
Five-point outline
- The burnt offering as total surrender, nothing held back.
- The priest’s unique position: no inheritance of land, but a share in what is offered.
- The skin as a practical gift, not sacred in itself, but given for common use.
- A contrast with pagan use of hides for superstition; Israel’s priests received them as honest wages.
- Echoes of Eden: some tradition sees Adam’s first sacrifice and the coats of skin (Genesis 3:21) as the origin of this priestly right.
Illustration hooks
- A farmer who provides for his harvesters by allowing them to keep fallen fruit from the field, the priest keeps what the fire does not claim.
- An employer who gives an employee a tool or product as part of compensation, not just a paycheck, the hide was a tangible, usable portion.
- Church staff or missionaries who receive housing, food, or stipends from congregation offerings, a modern parallel to the priest’s portion.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does this mean I should give to support my pastor? What is a fair level of support?
- Is there any spiritual meaning behind the hide, or is it purely practical?
- How does this verse apply to me if I am not a pastor or Levite?
Leading a Discussion
This short verse opens a window into how God cared for the priests who served Him day after day. As you study together, notice how the Law blends the sacred and the practical, worship provision and plain compensation belong together.
Discussion questions
- Read Leviticus 7:8 and then Leviticus 1:6, 9. Why was there no flesh left for the priest in the burnt offering? What difference does the skin make?
- The priest received the hide “to himself”, what does that phrase imply about fairness or exclusivity among the priests? How does Gill explain this?
- Several commentators connect this verse to Genesis 3:21 (the coats of skins). How does that connection change or deepen your understanding of the rule?
- Compare the priest’s portion here with the portions given in guilt offerings (Leviticus 7:6, 7) and peace offerings (Leviticus 7:28, 34). What do these differences teach about God’s design for worship?
- The pagan practice mentioned by Clarke involved sleeping on fleeces to receive dreams (Virgil). How does Israel’s law protect the priest from similar exploitation or superstition?
- What does this verse suggest about God’s attitude toward those who serve Him in vocational ministry? How might this shape the way a church supports its leaders today?
- In what ways does the burnt offering, given entirely to God except the skin, challenge our own patterns of giving and dedication?
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)
| Genesis 3:21 | Yahweh God made garments of animal skins for Adam and for his wife, and clothed them. |
| Exodus 29:14 | But the meat of the bull, and its skin, and its dung, you shall burn with fire outside of the camp. It is a sin offering. |
| Leviticus 1:6 | He shall skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces. |
| Leviticus 4:11 | He shall carry the bull’s skin, all its meat, with its head, and with its legs, its innards, and its dung |
| Numbers 19:5 | One shall burn the heifer in his sight; her skin, and her meat, and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn. |
| Romans 13:14 | But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, for its lusts. |
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
8 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke traces the priest's right to the animal skin back to Adam's first sacrifice, suggesting God gave the skin to Adam for clothing and this became the priest's portion ever after. He notes the same custom appeared among Gentiles, who used sacrificial skins for superstitious dream divination, as Virgil records.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes notes that the priest who conducted the burnt offering received its skin. He then infers that the skins of sin and trespass offerings also went to the officiating priest, implying a
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentary notes that the guilt-offering and sin-offering are nearly identical in every ritual detail. The one clear distinction is that the Hebrew word for "food," used for the peace-offering, is never applied to the guilt-offering at all.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note highlights a practical provision: the priest who performs the burnt offering receives the animal's skin as his portion. This underscores that those who serve at the altar are not left without material support, even from offerings that are wholly consumed by fire.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill emphasizes that the phrase "to himself" means the skin of the burnt offering belongs exclusively to the priest who offered it, not shared with fellow priests. He connects this to both Jewish tradition, where the offerer's priest alone receives the skin, and an ancient view linking it to the skins God used to clothe Adam and Eve after their sacrifice.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB notes that the priest receives only the skin because all flesh and fat of the burnt offering are entirely consumed. He further suggests this practice may trace back to a patriarchal custom, pointing to Adam's example as a precedent later incorporated into the Mosaic law.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil and Delitzsch observe a practical distinction in the meat-offering: prepared cakes and pastries went to the officiating priest alone because they were offered in small amounts, while flour, oil, and dry grain were shared among all priests since those offerings were more common and plentiful.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Matthew Henry notes that the trespass offering and sin offering are so alike in nature that they follow identical rules. Once the blood and fat were offered to God for atonement, the priests could eat the flesh, but only in the holy place.