Leviticus · Chapter 10

V. 1. Strange fire-Fire so called, because not taken from the altar, as it ought, but from some common fire. Before the Lord-Upon the altar of incense. Which he commanded not-Not commanding may be here put for forbidding, as it is, Jeremiah 32:35. Now as this was forbidden implicitly; Leviticus 6:12, especially when God himself made a comment upon that text, and by sending fire from heaven declared of what fire he there spake; so it is more than probable it was forbidden expressly, though that be not here mentioned, nor was it necessary it should be.

Verse 1. And Nadab and Abihu-took either of them his censer] The manner of burning incense in the temple service was, according to the Jews, as follows:-“One went and gathered the ashes from off the altar into a golden vessel, a second brought a vessel full of incense, and a third brought a censer with fire, and put coals on the altar, and he whose office it was to burn the incense strewed it on the fire at the command of the governor. At the same time all the people went out of the temple from between the porch and the altar. Each day they burned the weight of a hundred denaries of incense, fifty in the morning, and fifty in the evening. The hundred denaries weighed fifty shekels of the sanctuary, each shekel weighing three hundred and twenty barleycorns; and when the priest had burned the incense, he bowed himself down and went his way out. See Maimonides’ Treatise of the Daily Service, chap. iii. So when Zacharias, as his lot fell, burned incense in the temple, the whole multitude of the people were without at prayer while the incense was burning, Luke 1:9,10. By this service God taught them that the prayers of his faithful people are pleasing to him, whilst our High Priest, Christ Jesus, by his mediation puts incense to their prayers; (see Psalm 141:2; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 8:1,2; 9:24; Revelation 8:3,4;) for the priests under the law served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things; Hebrews 8:5.” See Ainsworth in loco.

In the preceding chapter we have seen how God intended that every part of his service should be conducted; and that every sacrifice might be acceptable to him, he sent his own fire as the emblem of his presence, and the means of consuming the sacrifice.-Here we find Aaron’s sons neglecting the Divine ordinance, and offering incense with strange, that is, common fire,-fire not of a celestial origin; and therefore the fire of God consumed them. So that very fire which, if properly applied, would have sanctified and consumed their gift, became now the very instrument of their destruction! How true is the saying, The Lord is a consuming fire! He will either hallow or destroy us: he will purify our souls by the influence of his Spirit, or consume them with the breath of his mouth! The tree which is properly planted in a good soil is nourished by the genial influences of the sun: pluck it up from its roots, and the sun which was the cause of its vegetative life and perfection now dries up its juices, decomposes its parts, and causes it to moulder into dust. Thus must it be done to those who grieve and do despite to the Spirit of God. Reader, hast thou this heavenly fire? Hear then the voice of God, QUENCH not the SPIRIT. Some critics are of opinion that the fire used by the sons of Aaron was the sacred fire, and that it is only called strange from the manner of placing the incense on it. I cannot see the force of this opinion.

Which he commanded them not.] Every part of the religion of God is Divine. He alone knew what he designed by its rites and ceremonies, for that which they prefigured-the whole economy of redemption by Christ-was conceived in his own mind, and was out of the reach of human wisdom and conjecture. He therefore who altered any part of this representative system, who omitted or added any thing, assumed a prerogative which belonged to God alone, and was certainly guilty of a very high offence against the wisdom, justice, and righteousness of his Maker. This appears to have been the sin of Nadab and Abihu, and this at once shows the reason why they were so severely punished. The most awful judgments are threatened against those who either add to, or take away from, the declarations of God. See Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6; and Revelation 22:18,19.

Verse 1. Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron — He had other sons; but these were the two eldest, Exodus 6:23. Took either of them his censer — That is, a certain vessel, in which they put coals of fire for burning incense. This is supposed to have happened on the last day of their consecration, when fire came down from heaven, Leviticus 9:24. Their sin was that they offered incense with what is here called strange fire, that is, common fire, or fire not taken from the altar. Thus incense, which was not such as was prescribed, is called strange incense, Exodus 30:9. Which he commanded them not — This is what we call a Meiosis, where more is understood than is expressed. It implies not only that they did it of their own proper motion, without any command or authority from God, but that they did it against his command; in which sense the expression is used Jeremiah 32:35. For though no express law is recorded, as having been already given, prohibiting to offer common fire, yet as it was forbidden implicitly Leviticus 6:12, especially when God himself made a comment upon that text, and by sending fire from heaven, declared of what fire he there spake; so it is more than probable it was forbidden expressly, though that be not here mentioned, nor was it necessary it should. Indeed, it is not to be supposed they would have been punished with death, if they had not done something which God had expressly forbidden, or omitted what he had expressly commanded. It is not easy to say how two such persons, who had the honour and happiness of being with God on the mount, (Exodus 24:1, 9, 10,) could be guilty of this fatal error. Some think they had drunk too freely at the feast upon the peace-offerings, which made them forget themselves; because of the prohibition against drinking wine or strong drink, which immediately follows the relation of this event.

Verse 1. Strange fire. Having, as some rabbins think, from the 9th verse, drank too freely at the feast, they inconsiderately took fire from the boiler, instead of taking it from off the altar, pure as it fell from heaven. Or they might have been foolishly afraid to approach the sacred altar. It might be a sin of ignorance, which cost them their life. Ministers should fear to do the Lord’s work in an unsanctified manner.

NADAB AND ABIHU SLAIN BY JEHOVAH, 1-7.

1. Offered strange fire — “These men were not at liberty to take each his own censer; there was a utensil provided for that action, and for any man to bring his own ironmongery to serve in such a cause was to insult the Spirit of the Universe. They ventured to put incense thereon, when only the pontiff of Israel was allowed to use such incense.” — Joseph Parker. The fire is called “strange” in distinction from that of celestial origin which “came out from before Jehovah and consumed the burnt offering.” Leviticus 9:24. The great difficulty in this matter is found in the absence of any previously recorded regulation touching the proper use of sacrificial fire. This regulation is found in Leviticus 16:12. The presumption is very strong that it was instituted before the events narrated in chapters 9 and 10, since the statute respecting the preservation of the altar-fire was given in Leviticus 6:9, 13. For various theories respecting this sin, see Numbers 3:4, note. Their sin consisted in the performance of the Lord’s service in a manner which he commanded them not. They departed in some way from the plain words of Jehovah, deeming their own reason a better guide in religious matters. Very much of that which passes among men for the worship of God is but strange fire.

V. 2. From the Lord-From heaven, or rather from the sanctuary. Devoured them-Destroyed their lives; for their bodies and garments were not consumed. Thus the sword is said to devour, 2 Samuel 2:26. Thus lightning many times kill persons, without any hurt to their garments.

Verse 2. And there went out a fire from the Lord — From heaven, or rather, from the sanctuary; and devoured them — Not reduced them to ashes, as the word signifies at the end of the former chapter, but struck them dead in a moment, their bodies and garments remaining entire. Thus the sword is said to devour, 2 Samuel 2:26. Thus lightning often kills persons without injuring their garments. To take off from our surprise at this great severity, let it be considered, that the wisest legislators have always judged it necessary to inflict a heavy punishment upon the first transgressors of a law, especially in cases of great moment, in order to deter others from the like offence, Had this first irregularity been connived at in the inferior priests, it might have imboldened them, and much more the high-priests, to introduce further and more important innovations, to the total subversion of the order God had appointed. Thus Ananias and Sapphira, presuming to lie against the Holy Ghost, were punished in a way very similar, when the gospel law had been confirmed by the descent of a different fire from heaven.

2. Fire from the Lord — The sacred fire which these priests had slighted had “come out from before the Lord.” Leviticus 9:24. “Fire had just consumed the burnt-offering and the fat upon the altar in token of divine complacency and sacred nearness, and the acceptance of human worship, and that same fire went out from the Lord and devoured the audacious priests — the sacerdotal blasphemers — ate them up as if they had been common bones! The Lord has never been negligent of his own altar.” — Joseph Parker. By a species of poetical justice, fire from the same source is the instrument of their punishment. “Our God is a consuming fire.” This fearful exhibition of wrath and power indicates his real presence where his name is. “A saint, when asked, ‘What is the most dangerous doctrine?’ replied, ‘God’s own truth held carnally, and to exalt self.’ For his light may blind, his ark destroy, his sanctuary smite, his table be damnation. And a truth perverted may be the firmest chain to hold and bind and blind us for ever.” — Jukes. Devoured them — Literally, ate them up. But this strong word is used metaphorically for slew, since neither their bodies nor even their garments were consumed. The stroke was like a deadly flash of lightning issuing from the most holy place, the abode of the invisible Jehovah. Here we find another parallel between the opening of the dispensation of shadows and the beginning of the official work of the Holy Ghost. Two persons are struck dead at the inauguration of each dispensation, amid the displays of omnipotent power, and the rejoicings of the people at the tokens of Jehovah’s presence and favor. See Acts 5:1-11. In both these passages we have the double action of the same fire, which consumes the burnt offering and baptizes the believer with fire in token of acceptance, and smites the sinning priest and the lying Ananias in token of judgment. “God is love.” “God is a consuming fire.” His anger against sin burns most intensely around his own altars. “Poetical justice might have closed the book of Leviticus with chap. 9. It would have been a glorious close — Aaron moved to feeling; Moses giving way to emotion; the Lord’s fire consuming the offering upon the altar; the people singing, shouting, and falling down in adoration! Why did not the history close there? That would have been Canaan enough for any nation, paradise enough for any people. But there is another chapter.”

V. 3. The Lord spake-Though the words be not recorded in scripture, where only the heads of discourses are contained, yet it is probable they were uttered by Moses in God’s name. Howsoever the sense of them is in many places. I will be sanctified-This may note, either,

1. their duty to sanctify God, to demean themselves with such care, and reverence, and watchfulness, as becomes the holiness of the God whom they serve; whence he leaves them to gather the justice of the present judgment. Or,

2. God’s purpose to sanctify himself, to manifest himself to be an holy and righteous God by his severe and impartial punishment of all transgressors, how near soever they are to him.

That come nigh me-Who draw near to me, or to the place where I dwell, and are admitted into the holy place, whence others are shut out. It is a description of the priests. I will be glorified-As they have sinned publickly and scandalously, so I will vindicate my honour in a public and exemplary manner, that all men may learn to give me the glory of my holiness by an exact conformity to my laws. And Aaron held his peace-In acknowledgment of God’s justice and submission to it. He murmured not, nor replied against God.

Verse 3. And Aaron held his peace.] אהרנ וידם vaiyiddom Aharon, and Aaron was dumb. How elegantly expressive is this of his parental affection, his deep sense of the presumption of his sons, and his own submission to the justice of God! The flower and hope of his family was nipped in the bud and blasted; and while he exquisitely feels as a father, he submits without murmuring to this awful dispensation of Divine justice. It is an awful thing to introduce innovations either into the rites and ceremonies, or into the truths, of the religion of Christ: he who acts thus cannot stand guiltless before his God.

It has often been remarked that excessive grief stupefies the mind, so that amazement and deep anguish prevent at once both tears and complaints; hence that saying of Seneca, Curæ leves loquantur; graviores silent. “Slight sorrows are loquacious; deep anguish has no voice. See Clarke on “Leviticus 10:19”.

Verse 3. Moses said unto Aaron — This awful stroke having wounded Aaron with deep anguish, Moses endeavours to allay his sorrows, by representing to him how very faulty his two sons had been, and how agreeable their punishment was to the wisdom of the divine government, and what good ends it might answer. This is it that the Lord spake — Though the words be not recorded in Scripture, where only the heads of discourses are contained, yet it is probable they were uttered by Moses in God’s name. Howsoever, the sense of them is in many places. I will be sanctified — This may denote, either, 1st, Their duty to sanctify God, to demean themselves with such care, and reverence, and watchfulness, as became the holiness of the God whom they served; whence he leaves them to gather the justice of the present judgment. Or, 2d, God’s purpose to sanctify himself, to manifest himself to be a holy and righteous God by his severe and impartial punishment of all transgressors, how near soever they were to him. That come nigh me — Who draw near to me, or to the place where I dwell, and are admitted into the holy place, whence others are shut out. It is a description of the priests. I will be glorified — As they have sinned publicly and scandalously, so I will vindicate my honour in a public and exemplary manner, that all men may learn to give me the glory of my holiness by an exact conformity to my laws. And Aaron held his peace — In acknowledgment of God’s justice, and submission to it. He murmured not, nor replied against God, nor against Moses, wisely considering that their sin was directly against God, and in that which is most dear and honourable in God’s account, his worship; and that God’s honour ought to be dearer to him than his sons. The words are most beautiful and emphatical.

3. I will be sanctified — I will be regarded as high and glorious. There must be a correspondence between my majesty and the obedience and veneration of those who minister at my altars and are conspicuous examples to the whole people. In them that come nigh me — There is no verb in the Hebrew. The literal is in those near to me; that is, in the pious. Disobedience in the holy place is almost equal to the Miltonic story of a rebellion in heaven. Before all the people I will be glorified — This is a key to the apparent severity of this judgment, which fell upon the priesthood like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky. Infidelity at the altar will inevitably beget irreligion in the tents. An impious priesthood cannot train up a pious people for the heritage of God. This awful outflashing of his wrath gives a perpetual emphasis to the admonition, “Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord.” And Aaron held his peace — The father stood dumb over the corpses of his sons. Through divine grace he was enabled to repress the grief of his heart, which sought its natural outlet in wailings and tears. He recognised the hand which had smitten him, and heard the voice of Jehovah within his heart, “Be still, and know that I am God.” The situation of the high priest was critical indeed. As the representative of Jehovah he should calmly approve his judgments; as a father, he loves his sons and is prompted by nature to yield to that perturbation of sorrow which would disqualify him for his official duties. Charles Wesley thus versifies Aaron’s mute sorrow:

“Why should a living man complain

That sinners are struck dead?

Reprieved myself, I still remain,

If punished in my seed.

Howe’er thou deal’st with mine or me,

O stop the murmuring groan,

Or let my only answer be,

Father, thy will be done!”

V. 4. Moses called Mishael-For Aaron and his sons were employed in their holy ministrations, from which they were not called for funeral solemnities. Brethren-That is, kinsmen, as that word is oft used. Out of the camp-Where the burying-places of the Jews were, that the living might neither be annoyed by the unwholesome scent of the dead, nor defiled by the touch of their graves.

Verse 4. Uzziel the uncle of Aaron] He was brother to Amram the father of Aaron; see Exodus 6:18-22.

Verse 4. Moses called Mishael — For Aaron and his sons were employed in their holy ministrations, from which they were not to be called for funeral solemnities. Brethren — That is, kinsmen, as that word is often used. Out of the camp — Where the burying-places of the Jews were, that the living might neither be annoyed by the unwholesome scent of the dead, nor defiled by the touch of their graves.

4. Moses called — He who had amid the quakings of Horeb and the thunderings and lightnings drawn near and entered into the cloud where God was not the man to be disconcerted by this awful catastrophe. Sons of Uzziel — The third son, Zithri, (Exodus 6:22,) was not summoned to this painful task. Being Kohathites, soon to be charged with the transportation of the sacred furniture, it was fitting that they should be employed to remove the bodies of these sacred persons. Elizaphan was chief of the Kohathites. Numbers 3:30, 31. Carry your brethren — They were kindred of the fifth degree, and loosely termed brethren. Before the sanctuary — As they fell between the great altar and the tabernacle with smoking censers in their hands, it is evident that they were going toward the holy place to burn incense at the golden altar unbidden, and possibly against a positive prohibition.

V. 5. In their coats-In the holy garments wherein they ministered; which might be done, either,

1. as a testimony of respect due to them, notwithstanding their present failure; and that God in judgment remembered mercy, and when he took away their lives, spared their souls. Or,

2. because being polluted both by their sin, and by the touch of their dead bodies, God would not have them any more used in his service.

Verse 5. Carried them in their coats out of the camp] The modern impropriety of burying the dead within towns, cities, or places inhabited, had not yet been introduced; much less that abomination, at which both piety and common sense shudder, burying the dead about and even within places dedicated to the worship of God!

Verse 5. In their coats — In the holy garments wherein they ministered; which might be done, either, 1st, As a testimony of respect due to them, notwithstanding their present failure; and that God in judgment remembered mercy, and when he took away their lives, spared their souls. Or, 2d, Because, being polluted both by their sin, and by the touch of their dead bodies, God would not have them any more used in his service.

5. In their coats — Their apparel, being defiled by contact with dead bodies, could not be retained for the use of their brothers or successors in office. Aaron was not permitted to die in his pontifical robes, in order that they might be worn by Eleazar. Numbers 20:26.

V. 6. Uncover not your head-That is, give no signification of your sorrow; mourn not for them; partly lest you should seem to justify your brethren, and tacitly reflect upon God as too severe; and partly lest thereby you should be diverted from, or disturbed in your present service, which God expects to be done chearfully. But bewail the burning-Not so much in compassion to them, as in sorrow for the tokens of divine displeasure.

Verse 6. Uncover not your heads, &c.] They were to use no sign of grief or mourning, 1. Because those who were employed in the service of the sanctuary should avoid every thing that might incapacitate them for that service; and, 2. Because the crime of their brethren was so highly provoking to God, and so fully merited the punishment which he had inflicted, that their mourning might be considered as accusing the Divine justice of undue severity.

Verse 6. Uncover not your heads — That is, give no signification of your sorrow; mourn not for them; partly lest you should seem to justify your brethren, and tacitly reflect upon God as too severe; and partly lest thereby you should be diverted from, or disturbed, in your present service, which God expects to be done cheerfully. But let the whole house of Israel bewail the burning — Not so much in compassion to them, as in sorrow for the tokens of divine displeasure.

6. Uncover not your heads — “It was the law that the priest should never leave the altar to go to burials, or interrupt his sacred ministry by shedding tears. He represented God as well as represented the people, and he must abide at his duty whoever died. It was military religion in its mechanical arrangement; it was spiritual obedience in the acceptation of its intention.” — Joseph Parker. They were forbidden to remove their hats, to unbind their head-bands, and dishevel their hair in token of grief. This was an act derogatory to priestly dignity. This command was generalized in the case of the high priest, who was forever prohibited to attend a funeral or to give any indication of mourning for the dead. Neither Judaism nor Christianity ignores the ties of human kindred except when they stand in the way of duty. All affections must yield to the paramount claims of God. Luke 14:26. Those who are brought nigh to God by the anointing of the Holy Spirit must move in a sphere beyond the range of nature’s influences. Priestly nearness to God gives the soul such an insight into all his ways as right and good that one is enabled joyfully to worship in his presence, even though the stroke of his hand has removed from us the object of tender affection. Neither rend… clothes — This act was an oriental symbol of grief, despair, or indignation. Lest wrath come upon all the people — Personal gratification must be subordinate to the public weal. “For even Christ,” our high priest, “pleased not himself.” Thus vicarious suffering by the priest is early foreshadowed as a requisite of the coming great High Priest. Nevertheless the erring priests are not to die unwept. The whole house of Israel are commanded to bewail the stroke of vengeance, and to soothe the wounded family of Aaron.

V. 7. Ye shall not go from the tabernacle-Where at this time they were, because this happened within seven days of their consecration. The oil of the Lord is upon you-You are persons consecrated peculiarly to God’s service, which therefore it is just you should prefer before all funeral solemnities.

Verse 7. The anointing oil of the Lord is upon you.] They were consecrated to the Divine service, and this required their constant attendance, and most willing and cheerful service.

Verse 7. Ye shall not go from the tabernacle — Where at this time they were, because this happened within seven days of their consecration: for the oil of the Lord is upon you — You are devoted and consecrated to the service of God and of his people, which, therefore, it is proper you should prefer before all funeral solemnities, and which must not be omitted out of respect to any person whatsoever. The ministers of religion ought to consider that this law is still binding upon them, as to the spirit and intention of it. They, of all men, ought to be so heavenly-minded, and of such elevated affections, as to maintain an unbroken manly fortitude, amid all the calamities and afflictions, both private and public, which are incident to humanity in its present state. Though religion does not require that they should divest themselves of their passions, yet they ought to be examples to others how to moderate those passions, and keep them within due bounds; especially they must not be so swallowed up in the sorrows of the world as to be incapacitated thereby for discharging their duty to God.

7. Ye shall not go out — Primarily this relates to going forth to funerals. See Leviticus 21:10-12, notes. This prohibition must not be considered as absolute. They were not to come in contact with secular affairs by abandoning the service of the tabernacle. Lest ye die — By some supernatural interposition. Many a Christian minister has suffered spiritual death by voluntarily going forth from the tabernacle to enter upon secular matters with the anointing oil of the Lord upon him. See Leviticus 8:10, 30, notes.

THE PRIESTS FORBIDDEN WINE AND STRONG DRINK, 8-11.

V. 9. Drink not wine-it is not improbable, that the sin of Nadab and Abihu was owing to this very thing. But if not, yet drunkenness is so odious a sin in itself, especially in a minister, and most of all in the time of his administration of sacred things, that God saw fit to prevent all occasions of it. And hence the devil, who is God’s ape, required this abstinence from his priests in their idolatrous service.

Verse 9. Do not drink wine nor strong drink] The cabalistical commentator, Baal Hatturim, and others, have supposed, from the introduction of this command here, that Aaron’s sons had sinned through excess of wine, and that they had attempted to celebrate the Divine service in a state of inebriation.

Strong drink.-The word rkv shechar, from shachar, to inebriate, signifies any kind of fermented liquors. This is exactly the same prohibition that was given in the case of John Baptist, Luke 1:15: oinon kai sikera ou mh pih\ Wine and sikera he shall not drink. Any inebriating liquor, says St. Jerome, (Epist. ad nepot.,) is called sicera, whether made of corn, apples, honey, dates, or other fruit. One of the four prohibited drinks among the Mohammedans in India is called [Arabic] sakar, (see the Hedaya, vol. iv., p. 158,) which signifies inebriating drink in general, but especially date wine or arrack. From the original word probably we have borrowed our term cider or sider, which among us exclusively signifies the fermented juice of apples. See on Luke 1:15.

Verse 9. Do not drink wine nor strong drink — It is certainly not improbable that the sin of Nadab and Abihu was owing to this. But if not, yet drunkenness is so odious a sin in itself, especially in a minister, and most of all at the time of his administration of sacred things, that God saw fit to prevent all occasions of it. And hence the devil, who is God’s ape, required this abstinence from his priests in their idolatrous service. By strong drink here, is meant such inflammatory, intoxicating liquors as were made in imitation of wine, as of dates, figs, honey, with many other sorts of liquors, particularly palm-wine, which was much used in those countries, and was reckoned the most intoxicating of any. The intention of this law was to be always in force: accordingly it is required of the ministers of the gospel, that they be sober, not given to wine.

Ver. 9. Do not drink wine. Ministers should be careful to preserve their physical powers in a proper temperament for the work of God, and to bring to the sanctuary all their faculties fresh and vigorous, calm and collected. Refreshments will be seasonable when the work is done: intoxication is nowhere so loathsome as in the pulpit.

9. Do not drink wine — This wine is in Hebrew yayin, the most general term for this beverage, especially when it is intoxicating. “Yayin is a mocker.” Proverbs 20:1. In seventy-five out of a hundred and thirty-six passages it is spoken of with condemnation by reason of its disastrous effects. Unfermented, or new wine, called must, is in the Hebrew expressed by tirosh. This is never prohibited or condemned. It occurs thirty-eight times, with no indication of any intoxicating quality. The solitary apparent exception in Hosea 9:11 is explained as the gluttonous use of sweet, nutritious wine as an article of food. The meaning of the passage is, that the three great appetites — the sexual, the bibulous, and the gluttonous — “take away the heart” or understanding. There are several other terms sparingly used, some of which always involve a bad sense, as sobe, signifying soak and soaker, while others are doubtful. Nor strong drink — The Hebrew shecar is a generic term applied to all fermented liquors except wine. It includes, 1.) Beer, which was largely consumed in Egypt under the name of zythus. It was made of barley and certain herbs, such as lupin and skirrett, as a substitute for hops. 2.) Cider, or apple-wine. 3.) Honey-wine, of which there were two sorts; the first consisting of a mixture of wine, honey, and pepper, the other a decoction of the juice of the grape, termed debash (honey) by the Jews, and dibs by the modern Syrians. 4.) Date-wine, which was the fermentation of dates mashed and mixed with water. 5.) The fermented juices of various other fruits and vegetables, as figs, millet, pomegranates, and carob fruit. According to the latest researches in philology, the English word cider is a modification of shecar, through the Grecized form sikera, sikera. See Webster’s Dictionary. When ye go into the tabernacle — The service of God requires the clearest head and the purest heart. It is an intelligent exercise, and not a blind, mechanical opus operatum, or going through with the motions. If the priest even medicinally used fermented wine or strong drink in the smallest quantity, it disqualified him for his office during that day. What a rebuke is this to the usage — still prevalent in some countries — of drinking wine in the vestry before going into the pulpit and reasoning of righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come! The enactment of this law immediately after the slaying of Nadab and Abihu affords strong grounds for the theory that they were drunken when they committed the act of sacrilege. The Targum of Palestine plainly sustains this view. “Drink no wine nor any thing that maketh drunk, as thy sons did, who have died by the burning of fire.” See Numbers 3:4, note.

V. 10. Between holy and unholy-Persons and things, which Nadab and Abihu did not.

Verse 10. That we may put difference between holy and unholy] This is a strong reason why they should drink no inebriating liquor, that their understanding being clear, and their judgment correct, they might be always able to discern between the clean and the unclean, and ever pronounce righteous judgment. Injunctions similar to this were found among the Egyptians, Carthaginians, and Greeks. Indeed, common sense itself shows that neither a drunkard nor a sot should ever be suffered to minister in holy things.

Verses 10, 11. Between holy and unholy — Persons and things, which Nadab and Abihu did not, mistaking unholy or common fire for that which was sacred and appointed of God for their use. Ye may teach — Which drunken persons are very unfit to do.

V. 11. Ye may teach-Which drunken persons are very unfit to do.

Verses 10, 11. Between holy and unholy — Persons and things, which Nadab and Abihu did not, mistaking unholy or common fire for that which was sacred and appointed of God for their use. Ye may teach — Which drunken persons are very unfit to do.

11. That ye may teach — The priest was the earliest religious teacher of the Levitical law, “for the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth.” Malachi 2:7. The two sides of the priestly vocation, teaching and offering, are embraced in Deuteronomy 33:10. The Pentateuch knows nothing of a scholastic inculcation of the divine laws; it knows no formal religious instruction at all except the reading of the law before the assembled people, at the feast of tabernacles, in the Sabbatic year. Deuteronomy 31:10-13. All religious teachers should be teleioi, perfect, having their senses — internal and external — exercised to discern or discriminate both good and evil. Hebrews 5:14. Wine draws a film over the spiritual eye and confounds moral distinctions. If the priests have aught to do with wine in a lawful way, it is only that it may, in the holy place,” be poured unto the Lord for a drink offering.” Numbers 28:7. Wine symbolizes joy. The joy of all believers is not the joy of earth but of heaven — of the sanctuary. “The joy of the Lord is your strength.”

V. 12. Eat it-Moses repeats the command, partly lest their grief should cause them to neglect their meat prescribed by God, (which abstinence would have been both a signification of their sorrow which God had forbidden them, and a new transgression of a divine precept;) and partly to encourage them to go on in their holy services, and not to be dejected, as if God would no more accept them or their sacrifices.

Verses 12-14. Moses spake unto Aaron — Moses, being apprehensive that Aaron, in the confusion of his grief for the loss of his two sons, might forget or omit some part of his duty, here puts him in mind of it, repeating to him the order about eating the remains of the meat or meal-offering, (Leviticus 6:16, 17,) and about the shoulder and breast, Leviticus 7:31. The former of which the priests alone might eat, and that only in the holy place, or court of the tabernacle. The other might be eaten in any clean place, that is, in any of their dwellings, or in any place in the camp which was decent, and kept clean from all ceremonial defilement; and where the women as well as the men might come; for the daughters of the priests might eat these as well as their sons, if they were maids, or widows, or divorced, Leviticus 2:11-13.

EATING THE MOST HOLY THINGS, 12-20.

12. Take the meat offering — The appalling stroke of Jehovah’s wrath had disconcerted Aaron so that he had forgotten the prescribed order of the sacrifices. Moses reminds him that the meat offering follows the burnt offering consumed by celestial fire. Leviticus 9:24. See Introduction,

(5.) And eat it — The eating by the priest symbolizes the full acceptance of the oblation. See Leviticus 6:16, note, and Concluding Note (1) of the same chapter. Beside the altar — This was the altar of incense in the priests’ apartment, called the holy place, within the first veil. See chap. 4:7.

V. 13. In the holy place-in the court, near the altar of burnt-offerings.

Verses 12-14. Moses spake unto Aaron — Moses, being apprehensive that Aaron, in the confusion of his grief for the loss of his two sons, might forget or omit some part of his duty, here puts him in mind of it, repeating to him the order about eating the remains of the meat or meal-offering, (Leviticus 6:16, 17,) and about the shoulder and breast, Leviticus 7:31. The former of which the priests alone might eat, and that only in the holy place, or court of the tabernacle. The other might be eaten in any clean place, that is, in any of their dwellings, or in any place in the camp which was decent, and kept clean from all ceremonial defilement; and where the women as well as the men might come; for the daughters of the priests might eat these as well as their sons, if they were maids, or widows, or divorced, Leviticus 2:11-13.

13. Thy due, and thy sons’ due — In addition to the meat offering there were other sources of revenue to the priests, enumerated in Numbers 5:9, note. For so I am commanded — “Moses was not the fountain of authority. God has no dead letters in his law book. The law is alive — tingling, throbbing in every letter and at every point. The commandment is exceeding broad; it never slumbers, never passes into obsoleteness, but stands in perpetual claim of right and insistence of decree. It is convenient to forget laws; but God will not allow any one of his laws to be forgotten.” — Joseph Parker.

V. 14. In a clean place-In any of your dwellings, or any place in the camp, which was kept clean from all ceremonial defilement. In any place where the women as well as the men might come, for the daughters of the priest might eat these as well as their sons, if they were maids, or widows, or divorced, Leviticus 22:11-13.

Verse 14. Wave-breast and heave-shoulder] See Clarke’s note on “Leviticus 7:38” and see “Exodus 29:27”.

Verses 12-14. Moses spake unto Aaron — Moses, being apprehensive that Aaron, in the confusion of his grief for the loss of his two sons, might forget or omit some part of his duty, here puts him in mind of it, repeating to him the order about eating the remains of the meat or meal-offering, (Leviticus 6:16, 17,) and about the shoulder and breast, Leviticus 7:31. The former of which the priests alone might eat, and that only in the holy place, or court of the tabernacle. The other might be eaten in any clean place, that is, in any of their dwellings, or in any place in the camp which was decent, and kept clean from all ceremonial defilement; and where the women as well as the men might come; for the daughters of the priests might eat these as well as their sons, if they were maids, or widows, or divorced, Leviticus 2:11-13.

Ver. 14. In a clean place. The Septuagint reads, in the holy place.

EATING THE MOST HOLY THINGS, 12-20.

12. Take the meat offering — The appalling stroke of Jehovah’s wrath had disconcerted Aaron so that he had forgotten the prescribed order of the sacrifices. Moses reminds him that the meat offering follows the burnt offering consumed by celestial fire. Leviticus 9:24. See Introduction,

(5.) And eat it — The eating by the priest symbolizes the full acceptance of the oblation. See Leviticus 6:16, note, and Concluding Note (1) of the same chapter. Beside the altar — This was the altar of incense in the priests’ apartment, called the holy place, within the first veil. See chap. 4:7.

15. The heave shoulder… wave breast — See Leviticus 7:14, 30, notes. “All the members of the priestly family, daughters, as well as sons — all, whatever the measure of energy or capacity — are to feed upon the breast and the shoulder, the affections and the strength of the true Peace Offering as raised from the dead and presented before God.” — McIntosh.

V. 16. He was angry with Eleazar-He spares Aaron at this time, as overwhelmed with sorrow, and because the rebuking him before his sons might have exposed him to some contempt; but he knew that the reproof though directed to them, would concern him too. Who were left alive-And therefore ought to have taken warning.

Verse 16. Moses diligently sought the goat] The goat which was offered the same day for the sins of the priests and the people, (see Leviticus 9:15, 16,) and which, through the confusion that happened on account of the death of Nadab and Abihu, was burnt instead of being eaten. See Leviticus 10:18.

Verse 16. Behold, it was burnt — This justified Moses’s suspicion that some mistake might be committed in the holy things; for upon inquiry he found that the priests had burned upon the altar those parts of the people’s sin-offering which they ought to have eaten, Leviticus 6:26, 29. He was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar — Moses, not willing to aggravate the sorrows of his brother Aaron, says nothing to him, but expostulates with his sons for their neglect. He knew, however, that the reproof, though directed to them, would concern him too.

16. The goat of the sin offering — This was the people’s sin offering which had been slain and offered by Moses, (Leviticus 9:15,) or by the two younger sons of Aaron, to whom this part of the ritual had been intrusted by Moses. And he was angry — No softer word will import into English the strength of the Hebrew katzaph — to snort, to storm. Anger is not a sin when it arises not from personal feeling, but purely in the interest of justice, truth, order, and humanity. The soul which cannot be angry at great wrongs Plato compares to an arm with the chief sinew cut asunder. We do not accept that weak defence of the imprecatory Psalms which explains them as simply declaratory of future judgments upon David’s enemies. They are the proper expression of a righteous indignation breathed out in behalf of God and his righteousness. Hence, the sinless Jesus on one occasion looked around with anger upon his foes lurking in ambush for his life. Mark 3:5. It remains for us to inquire whether Moses had sufficient provocation to just anger. We reply that stupidity and gross carelessness in handling interests of vast importance are such a provocation. The sins of the whole Hebrew nation were to be taken away by virtue of their incorporation into the priests by eating the people’s sin offering. Such was the sanctifying power of the priests’ office that by this act they were enabled to bear away the iniquity of the congregation. By the blunder of these young priests the people’s sins were still resting upon them. See chap. 6:26, note. Heedlessness in respect to our own interests is culpable, but in respect to the well-being of others it is criminal.

V. 17. God hath given it to you-As a reward of your service, whereby you expiate, bear, and take away their sins, by offering those sacrifices, by which God through Christ is reconciled to the penitent and believing offerers.

Verse 17. To bear the iniquity of the congregation] See on “Leviticus 6:26”, &c.

Verse 17. God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation — It was given them as an encouragement to, and a reward of the careful performance of that part of their duty, whereby they expiated, bore, and took away the sins of the people by offering those sacrifices, by which, as being typical of the sacrifice of the Messiah, God was reconciled to the penitent and believing offerers.

17. To bear the iniquity — The Hebrew acn, nasah, he bore, with its derivatives, occurs in the Old Testament eight hundred and ninety-five times, or about once to every chapter. In relation to sin it occurs sixty-four times. It may be interpreted by portare peccatum, to bear or suffer the penalty of sin, or by auferre peccata, to remove sins. The predominant signification is that of removal; yet the other, of bearing, is by no means excluded thereby; rather was the bearing in this case a removal. “When the priests ate they incorporated sin, as it were, and the people received forgiveness unto themselves, that it might be prefigured that at some time the priest and the victim would be one person, namely, the Messiah, a prediction exactly fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.” — Deyling. This singular episode between Moses and Aaron sheds much light upon the sacrifices. The goat of the sin offering and whatever touched it were most holy. The priests were to eat it, and thus the sins of the people, having been transferred through the animal to the priests, were representatively borne. See Numbers 9:13, note. Atonement — Leviticus 1:4, and 4:20, notes.

V. 18. The blood was not brought in-Because Aaron was not yet admitted into the holy place, whither that blood should have been brought, ‘till he had prepared the way by the sacrifices which were to be offered in the court.

Verse 18. Behold the blood was not brought within the holy place — And consequently it was not one of those sacrifices ordered to be burned, (Leviticus 6:30,) but should have been eaten in the court of the tabernacle, Leviticus 6:26.

18. Blood… not brought — See Leviticus 6:30, note. In the passage referred to it will be seen that it was a law of the sin offering that it should not be eaten when the blood was brought into the tabernacle, for this is the meaning of the holy place in this place. This verse proves the converse to be true, namely, that every sin sacrifice shall be eaten whose blood was not brought into the holy place. In the first case the sprinkled blood expiated, and in the second, the eaten flesh removed, sin.

V. 19. They have offered-They have done the substance of the thing, though they have mistaken this one circumstance. Such things-Whereby, haying been oppressed with grief, it is not strange nor unpardonable if I have mistaked. Should it have been accepted-Because it was not to be eaten with sorrow, but with rejoicing and thanksgiving.

Verse 19. And such things have befallen me, &c.] The excuse which Aaron makes for not feasting on the sin-offering according to the law is at once appropriate and dignified; as if he had said: “God certainly has commanded me to eat of the sin-offering; but when such things as these have happened unto me, could it be good in the sight of the Lord? Does he not expect that I should feel as a father under such afflicting circumstances?” With this spirited answer Moses was satisfied; and God, who knew his situation, took no notice of the irregularity which had taken place in the solemn service. To human nature God has given the privilege to weep in times of affliction and distress. In his infinite kindness he has ordained that tears, which are only external evidences of our grief, shall be the outlets to our sorrows, and tend to exhaust the cause from which they flow. See on “Leviticus 10:3”.

Verse 19. Aaron said unto Moses — Though Moses expostulates only with Eleazar and Ithamar, yet Aaron, taking the reproof to himself, makes an apology in his own and their behalf, the amount of which is, that he and his sons had performed the substance of their duty, offering the people’s sin-offering and burnt-offering in all respects according to the divine direction; only as to eating their share of the sin-offering, the death of his sons, happening at that juncture, had so overwhelmed him with grief, that he judged himself unfit for feasting at God’s table: Such things, says he, have befallen me; and if I had eaten the sin-offering to-day, should it have been accepted? — Would God have been pleased with me if, in such heaviness and dejection, I had eaten the sacrifice? My sorrows unfitted me for that service; it being the voice of nature as well as of religion, that men ought to celebrate feasts upon joyous occasions, and with a cheerful heart, (Deuteronomy 12:7,) and not eat holy things in their mourning, Deuteronomy 26:14.

19. Such things have befallen me — “Aaron here supplies the ‘one touch of nature’ which ‘makes the whole world kin.’ The deeper laws assert themselves against the more superficial statutes and ordinances.” — Joseph Parker. Aaron, forbidden to mourn in public, could not restrain his grief. His bursting heart finds relief in this one sentence whispered in the ear of his irate brother as an apology for his own neglect to eat the sin offering. He had been deterred by his sense of unworthiness and by his fear of committing an impropriety which might call down still greater judgments. This soft answer turned away wrath, for when Moses heard… he was content. “They were all, in a sense, unclean, even though the anointing oil of the Lord was upon them. They might eat the meat offering which was their due, but could not make atonement for the sins of the people.” — Bib. Sac. It is far better to be real in our confession of failure than to put forth pretensions to spiritual power without foundation. This chapter opens with positive sin, and closes with negative failure, the former dishonouring God, and the latter forfeiting his blessing.

V. 20. He rested satisfied with his answer. it appeared, that Aaron sincerely aimed at pleasing God: and those who do so, will find he is not extreme to mark what is done amiss.

Verse 20. When Moses heard that, he was content.] The argument used by Aaron had in it both good sense and strong reason, and Moses, as a reasonable man, felt its force; and as God evidenced no kind of displeasure at this irregularity, which was, in a measure at least, justified by the present necessity, he thought proper to urge the matter no farther. THOUGH the punishment of Nadab and Abihu may appear severe, because the sacred text does not specify clearly the nature and extent of their crime, we may rest assured that it was of such a nature as not only to justify but to demand such a punishment. God has here given us a full proof that he will not suffer human institutions to take the place of his own prescribed worship. It is true this is frequently done, for by many what is called natural religion is put in the place of Divine revelation; and God seems not to regard it: but though vengeance is not speedily executed on an evil work, and therefore the hearts of the children of men are set to do wickedness, yet God ceases not to be just; and those who have taken from or added to his words, or put their own inventions in their place, shall be reproved and found liars in the great day. His long-suffering leads to repentance; but if men will harden their hearts, and put their own ceremonies, rites, and creeds, in the place of Divine ordinances and eternal truths, they must expect to give an awful account to him who is shortly to judge the quick and the dead.

Were the religion of Christ stripped of all that state policy, fleshly interest, and gross superstition have added to it, how plain and simple, and may we not add, how amiable and glorious, would it appear! Well may we say of human inventions in Divine worship what one said of the paintings on old cathedral windows, Their principal tendency is to prevent the light from coming in. Nadab and Abihu would perform the worship of God not according to his command, but in their own way; and God not only would not receive the sacrifice from their hands, but, while encompassing themselves with their own sparks, and warming themselves with their own fire, this had they from the hand of the Lord-they lay down in sorrow, for there went out a fire from the Lord, and devoured them. What is written above is to be understood of persons who make a religion for themselves, leaving Divine revelation; for, being wilfully ignorant of God’s righteousness, they go about to establish their own. This is a high offence in the sight of God. Reader, God is a Spirit, and they who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth. Such worshippers the Father seeketh. LEVITICUS

Verse 20. Moses was content — He rested satisfied with Aaron’s answer, who, it appeared, had sincerely aimed at pleasing God; and those who do so, will find he is not extreme to mark what is amiss.

EATING THE MOST HOLY THINGS, 12-20.

12. Take the meat offering — The appalling stroke of Jehovah’s wrath had disconcerted Aaron so that he had forgotten the prescribed order of the sacrifices. Moses reminds him that the meat offering follows the burnt offering consumed by celestial fire. Leviticus 9:24. See Introduction,

(5.) And eat it — The eating by the priest symbolizes the full acceptance of the oblation. See Leviticus 6:16, note, and Concluding Note (1) of the same chapter. Beside the altar — This was the altar of incense in the priests’ apartment, called the holy place, within the first veil. See chap. 4:7.