This verse underscores the principle that holiness was represented in every aspect of the priestly role.
The verse states, “or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles” (v.20) as part of the broader instruction regarding who may serve as a priest. This command is situated within the laws given to Moses around 1446 BC, after the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. At this point in Israel’s history, the priesthood—descendants of Aaron, Moses’ brother who lived around the early 15th century BC—was charged with offering sacrifices to God on behalf of the people, maintaining the ceremonial purity of the Tabernacle and all worship rituals. By listing these physical blemishes, “or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles” (v.20), Leviticus emphasizes that only those without visible defects could perform this sacred role, highlighting the holiness required in approaching God.
The notion of barring someone with a physical defect from making offerings does not imply that they are rejected by God, but rather preserves a symbolic representation: the priest standing before God was to reflect wholeness in a ceremonial sense. Much like the sacrifices themselves required to be without defect, the priestly ministry foreshadowed the perfect and sinless sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:26). The specific terms—“or a hunchback or a dwarf” (v.20)—illustrate the wide range of conditions that, though often beyond a person’s control, were still understood to be disqualifications for this particular role. In the ancient Near East context, this served as a powerful visual lesson for the community regarding God’s complete holiness.
By including “one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles” (v.20), the verse extends these guidelines beyond more commonly noted irregularities. Each example underscores the priests’ calling to be free from physical imperfection in their service, mirroring a spiritual principle: those who lead in worship must seek to bring their very best. This does not diminish the value of anyone who is physically flawed; it sets a standard for those who filled the specific and sacred role of drawing near to God on behalf of the nation.
Set to dark mode
Leviticus 21:20 meaning
The verse states, “or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles” (v.20) as part of the broader instruction regarding who may serve as a priest. This command is situated within the laws given to Moses around 1446 BC, after the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. At this point in Israel’s history, the priesthood—descendants of Aaron, Moses’ brother who lived around the early 15th century BC—was charged with offering sacrifices to God on behalf of the people, maintaining the ceremonial purity of the Tabernacle and all worship rituals. By listing these physical blemishes, “or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles” (v.20), Leviticus emphasizes that only those without visible defects could perform this sacred role, highlighting the holiness required in approaching God.
The notion of barring someone with a physical defect from making offerings does not imply that they are rejected by God, but rather preserves a symbolic representation: the priest standing before God was to reflect wholeness in a ceremonial sense. Much like the sacrifices themselves required to be without defect, the priestly ministry foreshadowed the perfect and sinless sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:26). The specific terms—“or a hunchback or a dwarf” (v.20)—illustrate the wide range of conditions that, though often beyond a person’s control, were still understood to be disqualifications for this particular role. In the ancient Near East context, this served as a powerful visual lesson for the community regarding God’s complete holiness.
By including “one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles” (v.20), the verse extends these guidelines beyond more commonly noted irregularities. Each example underscores the priests’ calling to be free from physical imperfection in their service, mirroring a spiritual principle: those who lead in worship must seek to bring their very best. This does not diminish the value of anyone who is physically flawed; it sets a standard for those who filled the specific and sacred role of drawing near to God on behalf of the nation.