25 Neither shall you offer the bread of your God from the hand of a foreigner of any of these; because their corruption is in them. There is a blemish in them. They shall not be accepted for you.'"
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
Neither from a stranger's hand. God here forbids that victims of this sort should be offered to Him, although they might be purchased from foreigners. The Hebrews, however, has invented a different meaning, viz., that not even from foreigners were such sacrifices to be received, as it was unlawful for the children of the Church themselves to offer. But inasmuch as the Law altogether prohibited the unclean nations from making sacred oblations, another solution of this difficulty was still to be discovered. [1] They suppose, therefore, that those are called "strangers," who observe the precepts of the children of Noah, i.e., who honor God, and do not pollute themselves by incest, abstain from the effusion of human blood, and from theft, and who do not worship idols. But the context does not accord with this, for Moses adds at the end that this kind of sacrifice would not be accepted by God from the Jews themselves, which will not agree with their being offered by the Gentiles. This, then, seems to me to be a confirmation of the previous injunction, introduced by way of precaution; for it might have seemed that the offering would have been permissible, if they had purchased the animal, even though it were defective; whereas God declares that what they were not allowed to present from their own stalls, was no more approved of by Him, if it had been purchased, because defectiveness is always displeasing to Him. Nor do I restrict this, as they do, to the foregoing clause, as if it only referred to castrated animals, and such as were wounded in the testicles, but I include with it also warts and eruptions, and other blemishes. In order that the prohibition may have more weight, he again calls the sacrifices "the bread of God," not because God, who is the fountain of life, has need of food, or eats of corruptible meat, since He is the eternal Spirit; but that men may more diligently take care duly to perform their sacred rites, wherein they familiarly draw nigh to God. Now, if no one would dare to present stale or corrupted food to an earthly prince, much less tolerable is it to contaminate God's table with anything blemished.
1 - This is S.M.'s solution; and after him Fonseca. Willet. "Some understand this (says Bonar) as forbidding them to let a stranger supply them with animals for sacrifices, q. d., take it not out of a stranger's flock or herd: But this is contrary to practice approved of in after days; as when Cyrus gave, and Darius ordered others to supply. But the true meaning is evidently that the same rule shall hold in regard to a strangers offering as in regard to their own. The stranger' may be a proselyte, as ver. 18; or he may be such an one as Cyrus."
A stranger's hand - The word here rendered "stranger", is not the same as that in Leviticus 22:10, Leviticus 22:18 : it means literally, "the son of the unknown", and probably refers to one dwelling in another land who desired to show respect to the God of Israel. See 1-Kings 8:41.
Their corruption is in them - Viz., they are bruised, crushed, broken, etc.
Neither (i) from a stranger's hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these; because their corruption [is] in them, [and] blemishes [be] in them: they shall not be accepted for you.
(i) You shall not receive any imperfect thing from a stranger, to make it the Lord's offering: which he calls the bread of the Lord.
Neither from a stranger's hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these,.... That is, from a Gentile, a proselyte of the gate, who had renounced idolatry, and was willing to offer sacrifice to the true God; but what had such defects and blemishes in them as before described the priest might not take of his hands, and offer on the altar of God; and this is the rather observed, because on the one hand the Gentile might think such sacrifices would be acceptable, since he might have been used to offer such to idols; and on the other hand, the priest might think such would do well enough for Gentiles, though not for Israelites:
because their corruption is in them; or they are corrupt through being bruised, crushed, broken, or cut:
and blemishes be in them; which seems to be added to explain the former, and may have respect to all the blemishes before named, and whatsoever is included in them; for though there are but here mentioned, the Jews reckon no less than fifty (c):
they shall not be accepted for you; to make atonement for you; Jarchi says, or "from you", the priests; they shall not be accepted of the Lord from their hands, and so be of no avail to the offerers, nor to those for whom they are offered.
(c) Maimon. Hilchot Biath Hamikdash, c. 7. sect. 1, &c.
Again, the Israelites were not to accept any one of all these, i.e., the faulty animals described, as sacrifice from a foreigner. "For their corruption is in them," i.e., something corrupt, a fault, adheres to them; so that such offerings could not procure good pleasure towards them. - In Leviticus 22:26-30 three laws are given of a similar character.
A stranger's hand - From proselytes: even from those, such should not be accepted, much less from the Israelites. The bread of your God - That is, the sacrifices.
*More commentary available at chapter level.