Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 10:1
And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
(3) The first priestly transgression and its punishment (1 7)
1. Nadab and Abihu were specially chosen to ‘come up unto the Lord’ with Moses, Aaron and the 70 elders (Exo 24:1; Exo 24:9-11, the only reference to these sons of Aaron outside P).
his censer ] The Heb. word is used in this sense here, in ch. Lev 16:12 (of Aaron on the Day of Atonement), and in Numbers 16 (the censers of Korah and his company, and of Aaron). A dish or pan for carrying live coal is meant.
offered strange fire ] This is sometimes explained as fire not taken from the altar of Burnt-Offering (cp. Lev 16:12; Num 16:46); but then the adjective ‘strange’ would have been used with fire when first mentioned ‘and put [strange] fire therein.’ If the offence consisted in bringing ‘strange incense’ (Exo 30:9), i.e. incense not prepared according to the prescription in Exo 30:34-36, then the next clause would have been ‘and laid [strange] incense thereon.’ The whole action is here described as ‘offering strange fire before the Lord,’ an expression found only here and in passages referring to this event (Num 3:4; Num 26:61). It was an irregular fire-offering, and the sin of Nadab and Abihu consisted in offering that which the Lord had not commanded them. At the commencement of priestly ministrations both priests and people are taught by this visitation to observe scrupulously the Divine commands in all that concerns the ministration of the sanctuary. From Lev 16:1 it may be conjectured that the regulations for entering into the Holy place were at one time more closely connected with this narrative.
there came forth fire from before the Lord ] As in Lev 9:24; see note there.
devoured them ] They were not wholly consumed (cp. Lev 10:5). For similar punishment cp. Num 11:1; Num 16:35; 2Ki 1:10.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Nadab and Abihu – The two elder sons of Aaron Exo 6:23; Num 3:2, who were among those invited to accompany Moses when he was going up Mount Sinai, but who were to worship afar off, and not come near the Lord. Exo 24:1-2.
Censer – See Exo 25:38 note.
Strange fire – The point of their offence is evidently expressed in this term. This may very probably mean that the incense was lighted at an unauthorized time. And we may reasonably unite with this the supposition that they were intoxicated (compare Lev 10:9), as well as another conjecture, that they made their offering of incense an accompaniment to the exultation of the people on the manifestation of the glory of the Lord Lev 9:24. As they perished not within the tabernacle, but in front of it, it seems likely that they may have been making an ostentatious and irreverent display of their ministration to accompany the shouts of the people on their way toward the tabernacle. The offence for which they were immediately visited with outward punishment was thus a flagrant outrage on the solemn order of the divine service, while the cause of their offence may have been their guilty excess.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Lev 10:1-2
Nadab and Abihu . . . offered strange fire.
The fall of Nadab and Abihu
Nadab and Abihu were no inconsiderable personages. They were the sons of Israels priest, the nephews of Israels leader, the head of Israels princely elders. They had been with Moses and Aaron in the hallowed mount; they had looked upon the glorious vision of God as He appeared on Sinai; they had been chosen and consecrated to the priesthood; they had stood by and assisted Aaron in the first operations of the Hebrew ritual; and in all that camp of Gods ransomed ones, Moses and Aaron alone had higher dignity than theirs. But, from the mount of vision they fell into the pit of destruction. They were accepted priests yesterday; they are disgraced victims of Gods holy indignation to-day. An event so startling and melancholy, occurring at the very inception of the Mosaic ceremonies, challenges our special attention, and calls for serious thinking.
I. Let us inquire, then, into the nature of the offence which called out this startling visitation upon these unfortunate men. The context shows that it was not one isolated and specific act of disobedience. It was of a complex nature, and involved sundry particulars, each of which contributed to make up the general crime for which judgment came upon the guilty ones. The special statute recorded in the ninth verse, of which this occurrence seems to have been the occasion, furnishes ground for the inference, that Nadab and Abihu had indulged too freely in stimulating drinks, and thus incapacitated themselves for that circumspection and sacred reverence which belonged to the priestly functions. And if this inference be correct, we have here another among the many sad exhibitions of the mischiefs wrought by indulging in a too free use of intoxicating liquors. The history of strong drink is the history of ruin, of tears, of blood. It is, perhaps, the greatest curse that has ever scourged the earth. But, although drunkenness was most likely the root of Nadab and Abihus offending, it was not the body of their came. If these men had not been first set on fire of hell by excessive indulgence in drink, they would never perhaps have been driven to the daring impiety which cost them their lives. The head and front of the sin of these men, as I understand it, was the presumptuous substitution of a will-worship of their own, in defiance of what God had appointed. In three points did they offend–first, in the time; second, in the manner; and third, in the matter of the service which they undertook. It was the prerogative of Moses or Aaron to say when their services were needed; but they went precipitately to work, without waiting for instructions, or asking for directions. It was for the high priest alone to go in before the Lord and offer incense at the mercy-seat; but they wickedly encroached upon His functions, and went in themselves. Never more than one priest was to officiate in burning incense at the same time; but they both together entered upon a service which did not belong to either. These things in themselves evince a very high-handed disregard of Divine order. But the great burden of their sin rested in the matter of the service. They offered strange fire–common fire–fire wholly foreign to the fire which God had kindled for such purposes. They thus obtruded what was profane into what was holy, desecrated Gods ritual, cast contempt upon His institutions, put their own will-worship above His sacred regulations, and thus called down upon themselves a judgment which made all Israel tremble.
II. Let us now consider some of the implications, surroundings, and foreshadowings of this sad occurrence. The shadows of the future were linked in with the facts of the past. Scarcely had Christianity been constituted, until we find a foreign and fitful spirit insinuating itself into the operations of those into whose charge its earthly services had been given (see 2Th 2:3-4; 1Jn 4:3). Along with pontifical power, came in great doctrinal and moral corruption. The one was a part of the other. Bishops retired from the pulpits to sit as spiritual lords, superior to all the kings of earth; the Virgin Mary was installed as the worlds mediator; earthly priests assumed the work of intercession, and undertook to forgive and license crime for a price; the Church was driven to the wilderness; another Abihu in his drunkenness had entered the Holy Place, and was offering strange fire before the Lord. And the thing that hath been is the thing that is. Philosophy still has its additions to make to the Word of God. Heathenish pomp still moves to lift itself up in our temples. Human reason is still at work to devise ways to worship and please God which He has not commanded. Men are still found who claim authority to perform offices for the souls of others, which belong only to our great High Priest in heaven. Thousands there are who flatter themselves that they are doing great things in their worship, though the spirit that is in them is not at all the Spirit of Christ. But it shall not always be so. There is a price annexed to all these usurpations and irregularities with regard to holy things. God has magnified His Word above all His name; and he that adds to or takes from it, has his reward specified, and his portion reserved for him. Nadab and Abihu were suddenly and miraculously cut off in the midst of their sin; and so shall it be at last with all the confederates in usurpation and wrong, whether secular or ecclesiastical. Fire from the Lord shall slay them. (J. A. Seiss, D. D.)
Repulsive incense
I. Their offensive offering.
1. What rendered their incense odious to God? Strange fire.
(1) Not kindled by God.
(2) Not mingled with blood.
2. What corresponding offensiveness may mar our offerings? The fire is strange when our religion or work is the outcome of
(1) Mere emotional fervour.
(2) Mere intellectual excitement.
(3) Mere feverish activity.
(4) Mere self-glorifying religious effort.
(5) Mere spiritual rhapsody.
II. Their rash impiety.
1. Fearless presumption.
2. Wilful disobedience.
III. THEIR ALARMING DESTRUCTION.
1. Remember the God with whom we have to do.
2. The rebuke which presumption will receive. (W. H. Jellie.)
The sin of Aarons sons
I. How elevation to high and holy positions does not place men beyond the temptation and liability to commit sin.
II. How the committal of sin merits, and may meet with sudden corresponding retribution.
III. How such retribution, while it condemns the sinner, vindicates the broken law and glorifies the lawgiver.
1. We may note that the punishment they received–
(1) Condemns them here in the eyes of all Israel.
(2) Showed the exceeding sinfulness of sin; and
(3) The exacting demands and exalted dignity of the law.
2. God thus manifesting Himself as a consuming fire showed–
(1) His jealousy, that He could not be openly and grossly insulted.
(2) His power, that the fire which glowed in the cloud, which had kindly let them out of Egypt, protected them from their foes, and which consumed the burnt-offering on the day of consecration, had power to destroy, and, unless held in check, would consume all sinners.
(3) His mercy, that while sin deserved punishment, and God had the right and power to destroy, He made judgment His strange work, and such retribution–as that which visited Aarons sons–an exceptional thing. Let us learn that though worship must be voluntary yet it must be according to Gods own appointed way. Liberty is not to be perverted into lawlessness.
3. Strange fire is offered upon Gods altar when worship is presented with–
(1) Unsolicited materials, or from
(2) Unsanctified motives. Enthusiasm is holy ardour–literally, God in us–His own fire ascending to Himself. (F. W. Brown.)
Nadab and Abihu
I. The position of these two men. Regularly ordained priests of the Lord (Exo 40:12-16). They had a right, therefore, to burn incense before the Lord.
II. The charge against these men (Lev 10:1).
1. The letter of the law was violated (chap. 16:12, 13).
2. The essence of this sin (verse3).
(1) Emphasis to be placed on I. I will be sanctified, &c.
(2) This implies that when deviations from Divine and clearly-defined instructions occur, the Lord charges that such deviations do not enhance His glory; neither is He sanctified in those who are guilty of such deviations.
III. The punishment inflicted on these men (Lev 10:2). The punishment indicates the unspeakable importance with which God regards implicit and strict obedience to the letter of all His ordinances.
IV. The conduct of aaron, the father of these two men. Held his peace.
1. How great the grace needed for this.
2. How exemplary the use of needed grace in such a trial as this.
V. The accustomed mourning for the dead was prohibited in respect to these men (Lev 10:6). Does not the rebellious element oftentimes enter into our mourning, and thus the grace of God, in bereavement, becomes of no practical value?
VI. The new prohibition (Lev 10:8-11). The connection in which this prohibition stands suggests–
1. That Nadab and Abihu were probably under the influence of some intoxicating liquor when led to offer strange fire before the Lord.
2. That such liquors have a tendency to unfit any one for any true spiritual exercise, because of their exciting nature.
Lessons:
1. How profound a lesson is here taught in regard to the only acceptable manner of administering the ordinances of Gods house–not with the strange fire of willworship, nor by the slightest deviation from the prescribed order.
2. We learn the unfitness of those who minister in holy things, who neglect the proper observance of the ordinances, and teach men so to do.
3. Let us learn to submit to Gods judgments, however severe.
4. Let us avoid everything that would disqualify us for acceptable worship. (D. C. Hughes, M. A.)
Lessons
1. No new or strange doctrine to be brought into the Church.
2. Gods election free, and of grace, not of any worthiness in man.
3. That God is no accepter of persons.
4. God is to be glorified even in His judgments.
5. Of a double power of the Word, to life or death.
6. The bodies of the dead to be reverently used, and after a seemly manner to be buried.
7. That it is lawful upon just occasion to be angry. (A. Willet, D. D.)
Moral observations
1. In prosperity we must think of adversity.
2. Not to present ourselves before God with carnal, vile, and strange affections.
3. Wherein a man sinneth, he shall be punished.
4. To submit ourselves to the will of God.
5. That men should not for the occasion of private grief neglect the public business, especially in Gods service.
6. Against the sin of drunkenness, especially in ministers.
7. That our sins are an offence unto Christ, and to all the celestial company.
8. Not to be too rigorous toward those who are in heaviness, and sin in weakness. (A. Willet, D. D.)
Strange fire
Their sin was that to burn incense withal, they took not the fire from the altar of that which came down from heaven, and was preserved by the diligence of the priests till the captivity of Babylon, but other fire, which therefore is called strange fire because it was not fire appointed and commanded. Which fault in mans eyes may seem to have excuse, and not to deserve so fearful a punishment. For they were but yet green in their office and so of ignorance might offend, being not yet well acquainted with the nature of their office. Again, of forgetfulness they might offend, not remembering or thinking of the matter as they ought. Thirdly, there was no malice in them, or purpose to do evil, but wholly they aimed at Gods service with a true meaning, although in the manner they missed somewhat. But all these, and whatsoever like excuses, were as fig-leaves before God, vain and weak to defend them from guiltiness in the breach of His commandment.
1. First, with what severity the Lord challengeth and defendeth His authority in laying down the way and manner of His worship, not leaving it to any creature to meddle with, but according to prescription and appointment from Him. Content He is that men shall make laws for human matters, concerning their worldly estate in this earth as shall be fittest for the place where they live. Laws against murder, theft, oppression, &c., but for His Divine worship He only will prescribe it Himself, and what He appointeth that must be done and that only, or else Nadab and Abihu their punishment expected, that is, Gods wrath expected, in such manner as He shall please.
2. But doth not a good intent and meaning prevail with God, albeit the thing be not expressly warranted? Yourself judge by that which you see here, and in many other Scriptures. Had Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, here any ill-meaning towards God, or did they of malicious purpose offend Him and procure their own destruction? No; you must needs think their intent was good, but because they swervest from the Word, that good intent served not. The words out of Deuteronomy are not, you shall not do ill in your own eyes, But you shall not do that which seemeth good–good I say, and I pray you mark it, you shall not do that, but shall keep you to My commandment. Be it never so good, then, in my conceit, that is, be my meaning never so good, it profiteth not, neither shall excuse Gods destroying wrath more than it did here these sons of Aaron. There is a way, saith Solomon, that seemeth good to a man and right, but the issues thereof are the ways of death. Such assuredly are all will-worships not grounded upon the Word, but upon mans will and good intent. They shall excommunicate you, saith our Saviour Christ, yea, the time shall come that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth God good service. What then? Shall his so thinking excuse his bloody murder? Joseph had no ill-meaning when he prayed his Father to change his hand and lay his right hand upon his elder sons head. What ill meant Joshua when he wished Moses to forbid those that prophesied? Micahs mother, when, according to her vow, she made her son two idols? Peters meaning had no hurt in it when he forbade Christ to wash his feet; with a number like places in Scripture. Yet you know no good intent was accepted in these cases. No more shall it ever be when it is not agreeing to the Word, which only is a Christian man and womans true and perfect guide. Let, therefore, these things take place within us, and never wrestle we against the Lord, for He is too strong for us, and His will must stand, not ours. Oh, why should it grieve me to be ruled by His word, seeing it is so sure a way for me to walk in? Or why should any teacher deliver to me that which he never received of God to be delivered to His people? If they crave obedience why should they be angry, that I pray to have it showed out of His Word whom only I must obey? Be hath prescribed a form of serving Him, that form He will accept and bless with eternal peace; all other forms He will abhor and punish. Nadab and Abihu preach so unto us and all flesh. They wish us to take heed by their harm. God is in other things full of patience, but in this He is full of wrath, and His authority to appoint His own worship, He will not endure it to be taken from Him by any man. (Bp. Babington.)
Nadab and Abihu
In this passage we have the law of worship announced, not in the measured statements of a statute, but in words of terror spoken with tongues of flame. What answer does the incident give us to the vital question, How can men worship God acceptably?
I. The character of the worshipper is a factor of importance. Those who, like the apostle, are in the Spirit on the Lords day–and every day may be a Lords day–are caught up into the realm of spiritual vision, and stand face to face with realities that on lower levels are at best the dreams and hopes of faith. Worship as an offering may be formal, though even for that to be acceptable there midst be some preparedness of heart; but worship, in order to prove a revelation, must be spiritual, and in securing that the attitude of soul is everything.
II. The purpose of the worshipper is an element of which god makes account. Whatever other reasons influenced Nadab and Abihu to offer strange fire, it is evident that they had some selfish end to serve. God looks down into every pulpit, and into every ministers heart, and judges every prayer, and criticises every sermon, and estimates the worth or worthlessness of the service offered, according as He finds or furls to find a singleness of purpose to honour Him the sovereign motive that originates and regulates it all. As God looks down on our Sabbath assemblies, in how many pews He sees men and women offering strange fire, instead of bringing the appointed sacrifice. The spirit of devotion that animates real service is omitted.
III. The preparation for worship is a matter to which god attaches great importance. The numerous directions in the Jewish ritual looking to personal purity were all symbolic and significant of the value of character in the office of worship (Psa 24:3-4; 1Ti 2:8; Heb 10:22). Both the old covenant and the new are imperative in insisting upon right character as essential to right worship.
IV. The mode of worship has its limits of importance. The Jewish ritual was complicated, but it was in all its parts significant. A distinguished writer has said that whoever would write out the spiritual symbolism of the Book of Leviticus, would give the world a fifth Gospel. Nadab and Abihu were punished for departing from the Divinely established order of service. The folly of men is never so apparent as when it sets itself up as being wiser than God. Under the Christian dispensation larger liberty of choice is allowed. Men are free to adopt such methods of worship as are most affluent in ministries to their spiritual life. But the old underlying principle which was sovereign in the Jewish ritual still remains in force. Any method of worship which is anything more than a means to an end, any ceremony which suffers the thought to go no further than itself, is radically defective. (E. S. Atwood.)
A sad incident
I. The grievous sin of nadab and abihu.
II. The severe punishment of their sin. The punishment in its severity seems out of proportion to the sin. But on this question two considerations of great importance should be duly weighed.
1. The time at which the sin was committed. They were now getting the sacred ritual into full operation; and it was of essential importance that a people such as the Israelites were at this time should be taught that all sacred things should be reverently regarded, and all religious services performed in a devout spirit and becoming manner, and with minute attention to Divine directions.
2. The persons by whom the sin was committed. They were the elder sons of the high priest, and were consecrated to the holy office of the priesthood, the very persons whose official charge it was to maintain the sacredness of religious institutions. A severe punishment was necessary for the welfare of the nation.
III. The exemplary submission of Aaron.
IV. The burial of the bodies of the offenders. What a sight that was passing through part of the camp–the dead bodies of two men recently so distinguished in relationship and office, now so distinguished as examples of the awful judgments of God, and in their priestly vestments too! How fitted to impress even the most frivolous with the sacredness of Divine institutions and the dread peril of violating Divine directions!
V. The mourning because of the judgment upon the offenders.
VI. The legislation to which these things gave rise (Lev 10:8-11).
1. The law. That the priests should abstain from every kind of intoxicating drink during their sacred ministrations (cf. Eze 44:21)
.
2. The reasons by which the law was enforced.
(1) That their perceptions might be clear, and their judgment true in the duties of their holy office (Lev 10:10).
(2) That they might teach the people all Gods statutes (Lev 10:11).
(3) The law was further enforced by a stern penalty for its violation, Lest ye die.
VII. THE SUBJECT SUGGESTS LESSONS:
1. On worship. We should worship God in the way which He has appointed–with humility, with reverence, &c.
2. On sin and its punishment. Every sin, unless repented and forgiven, must be punished. But presumptuous sins, such as that of Nadab and Abihu seems to have been, are specially heinous and ruinous (cf. Num 15:30-31; Psa 19:13)
.
3. On submission to the will of God. Imitate Aaron in this.
4. On fitness for the service of God. Aaron and his sons might not touch or even approach the dead, &c. The servants of God must keep themselves from everything that might defile them. Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord.
5. On temperance. The wise man wilt be temperate in all things and at all times. When about to enter upon sacred services it is specially advisable to abstain entirely from everything intoxicating. The inspiration for such services should not be spirituous, but spiritual. (William Jones.)
Strange fire
I. Who offered it. Nadab and Abihu. The last one would have expected to be guilty of such a sin. They were not ignorant, but over-zealous people, who only imperfectly knew the law. But they were the sons of Aurora Could hardly be ignorant of the sin they were committing. The best that can be said of them is that they were not sufficiently thoughtful. Ignorance and thoughtlessness are sinful in those with whom knowledge is possible, and who have many incentives to consideration. We should strive to know that we may more perfectly do the will of God. The great probability is that their sin was not merely sin of ignorance, but presumption. Preferred their choice to Gods.
II. What they offered. From chap. 16., Num 16:18; Num 16:46, it is clear that they should have taken a coal from off the altar. Every act of worship was strictly prescribed. Intention to beget in the minds of the people a profound reverence for the will of God. In everything to consider His will first. To find their happiness in obedience. Instead of acting in accordance with the will of God they obeyed the impulse of their own proud and selfish hearts. It is likely that the time of offering was also wrong.
III. How they were received. They draw near and swing their censers. And suddenly there went out fire, &c (verse 2). Their strange fire had been replied to with a fire more strange to them. They were struck dead as by a lightning-flash, h sudden and emphatic protest against their presumption. Learn–
1. To study earnestly that we may more perfectly obey the will of God.
2. To avoid trifling with holy things and ordinances.
3. The instruments of sin may become instruments of punishment. With fire they sinned, by fire they were overthrown.
4. The very gospel, if abused, may become an instrument of condemnation. (J. C. Gray.)
Strange fire
Ere that eighth day had closed (chap. 10:19), when Jehovah had sent fire from heaven to consume with delight the offerings laid upon His altar, in token of acceptance–yea, that very day Satan was again at work, this time with the sons of Aaron, leading them to offer–
I. strange fire, in direct violation of Gods command (Lev 10:1). His fire was to be ever burning upon His altar (Lev 6:12-13), continually fed by what ascended as a sweet savour to the Lord; and strange fire, like strange incense (Exo 30:9), was an abomination to Him. But man is ever prone to think his way, his fire, his incense as good or better than Gods. And where Gods Fire–i.e., the Holy Spirit–has been manifestly working, there surely does Satan begin to work by his emissaries, as in the case of Jannes and Jambres (2Ti 3:5-9; Exo 7:11; Exo 7:22; Exo 8:18); and again with the vagabond Jews, exorcists (Act 19:6-17), in the days of St. Paul. Satan inspires false teachers, seducing spirits (1Ti 4:1; 2Pe 2:1), who, like Nadab and Abihu, shall bring upon themselves swift destruction.
II. The sons of aaron had been specially privileged. The sons of Aaron represent–as we know–the Church, whose members are also partakers of many privileges (Heb 6:4). But–as they are not all Israel which are of Israel (Rom 9:6), so all called Christians are not Christs ; and it is just in the professing Church that we may expect to hear of strange fire, and false worship, inaugurated by false teachers, who shall bring in destructive heresies (2Pe 2:1, R.V.); and many shall follow their pernicious ways (Lev 10:2, A.V.). Especially will this be the case as we approach the end of the age–the last days–when perilous times shall come (2Ti 3:1).
III. fire from the lord, sent forth in judgment, as in the case of Nadab and Abihu. That fire is used of the Lord for judgment we learn from many passages in Scripture. See, as to the past–
1. The cities of the plain (Gen 19:24-29), making them an ensample, &c. (2Pe 2:6; Jud 1:7).
2. At Taberah, because of the complaining of the children of Israel (Num 11:1; Psa 78:21).
3. The two hundred and fifty men that offered incense (Num 16:2; Num 16:35; Psa 106:18).
4. The captains and their fifties (2Ki 1:10; 2Ki 1:12). Then as to the future, we read–Our God shall come:. . . a fire shall devour before Him, &c. (Psa 50:3; see also 97:3). The Lord Jesus shall be revealed . . . in flaming fire, &c (2Th 1:7-8); and that wicked–or lawless one referred to–shall be consumed (2Th 2:8). A fire . . . from God out of heaven shall devour those gathered against the saints and the beloved city (Rev 20:8-9). And the devil, that deceiveth them, shall be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone (Lev 10:10). He who had energised many with strange fire will be consigned to the everlasting fire prepared, &c. (Mat 25:41). Appalling indeed to think of these judgments to come; and while we speak of such things let us give good heed lest we should seem to have aught of the spirit of James and John, which called forth our Lords rebuke (Luk 9:51-56). Let us rather first test ourselves, and then in love warn others. He is ready to give the Holy Spirit–His purifying, guiding Fire to all who ask (Luk 11:13). Lastly, observe–
IV. Aarons attitude of silent submission to the swift and appalling judgment with which his sons were visited. Aaron held his peace. Think of the agony of the fathers grief, yet not a word l He knew his sons great sin, and Jehovahs perfect justice. The silence of Aaron may also teach that our Great High Priest could not intercede for any guilty of the sin He declared should not be forgiven (Mat 12:31-32; Mar 3:28-30): Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, to which the strange fire seems to point. (Lady Beaujolois Dent.)
Clerical apostasy and usurpation
Many a pious heart has been saddened, and sickened almost unto death, over the calamities that have befallen the camp of the Lord in the shape of apostasies, false doctrine, unholy living, and reckless usurpation. Who among us that could not tell the story of many a heart-rending fall in the Church of God! More than once have I seen the man in affluent prosperity a great patron of the Church, prompt in his place in all the services of the sanctuary, and esteemed as one of Israels elders; but when reverses and bankruptcy came I have seen him turn aside to walk in the ways of the ungodly, the forger, the counterfeiter, the robber, and even the ribald blasphemer. Many a time have I seen the poor man in his daily toil, seemingly walking humbly with his God, and attentive to the things that relate to heavenly treasures; but when the tide of fortune came and gave him riches, or advanced him to places of influence and distinction, he forgot his Church and pious associations, and drifted away into pride like Lucifers, or into covetousness as niggardly as Shylocks. I have seen men of the loudest professions; yea, men ordained to stand as watchmen on Zions walls, secretly dallying with the demon of vicious appetite, until they became the reeling sport of boys upon the street, the shame of their denomination, and the tenants of ignoble graves. And history tells again and again of men whose heads reached unto the clouds, who in an unguarded hour came down, like some tall pine of the forest which makes the wilderness howl in its fall; of impious hands touching the holy vessels of Gods sanctuary; of false incense burned in the holy place, until the very lamps and stars were hid, and the very house of salvation made a den of robbery and death. (J. A. Seiss, D. D.)
The sin of Nadab and Abihu
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. This is how we stand to-day: every man bringing his censer–his own censer–which means the prostitution of personality, the loss of the commonwealth-spirit and of the recognition of the unity and completeness of the Church. There are men who spend their time in amending Providence: Nadab and Abihu represent two such men to-day. There are men who are always trying to naturalise the supernatural: this is what Nadab and Abihu did. They said in effect, This evil fire will do quite as well; build your life on reason; order all the ministry of your life by coherent and cumulative argument; drop the ancient words, and choose and set new words of your own; there is no supernatural: let us banish superstition and inaugurate the reign of reason. Nadab and Abihu had a kind of church, but a church without the true God–an uninhabited shell, a mockery, a base irony–the baser because it was in a sense religious. There are men who substitute invention for commandment. This is what Nadab and Abihu did: they invented a new use of the common censer; they brought into new service common fire; they ventured to put incense thereon when only the pontiff of Israel was allowed to use such incense; they invented new Bibles, new laws, new churches, new methods; they were cursed with the spirit of extra independence and individuality, with the audacity of self-trust–not with its religious worship and adoration. This all occurs every day, and it occurs quite as rudely and violently in the current and flow of our own history. All this invention and all this deposition of God and of law comes just as swiftly after our conscious realisations of the Divine presence as this instance came swiftly upon the conscious benediction of God. There is but a step between me and death. It would seem as if a universe might intervene between true prayer and the spirit of distrust and cursing yet not a hairs-breadth intervenes. A man on his knees is next to the worst self, namely, a man with clenched fists defying the heavens. (J. Parker, D. D.)
A solemn judgment
This judgment that fell upon the two sons of Aaron seems very severe. But notice that the high and dignified position they occupied made sin, in their case, far more grievous and calculated to do much more extensive mischief among Israel, than if it had been perpetrated by some one occupying a less conspicuous position in the state. Though sin is in itself always the same, yet, committed in the high places of the land by those who occupy in Church or in State lofty and responsible positions, it has an aggravation and an enormity that it has not when committed by those who occupy lowlier and obscurer spheres in the land. Not that the sin differs in its absolute and personal guilt, but that it differs in the influence it spreads around it. Evil in high places is very contagious–is seen by many, and imitated by more. And, in the next place, this was the commencement of a new economy. The commander of an army, or the commander of a flexor, must insist upon rigid discipline at the commencement of the military expedition, or of the sailing of the fleet; if he do not, the issue is disastrous to the soldiers and the sailors, as it will be injurious to great interests and painful to him. Therefore, at the commencement of a new economy, it was requisite that it should be seen that the least of Gods laws may not be transgressed with impunity; and that the authority of God alone, struck upon the least and the loftiest, must be the great reason why there should be instant, unqualified, and undiluted obedience. (J. Cumming, D. D.)
Speedy judgment
If God had struck them with some leprosy in their forehead, as he did their aunt Miriam soon after, or with some palsy, or lingering consumption, the punishment had been grievous. But He, whose judgments are ever just, sometimes secret, saw fire the fittest revenge for a sin of fire; His own fire fittest to punish strange fire; a sudden judgment fit for a present and exemplary sin: He saw that if He had winked at this, His service had been exposed to profanation. It is wisdom in governors to take sin at the first bound, and so to revenge it that their punishment may be preventious. Speed of death is not always a judgment: suddenness as it is ever justly suspicable, so then certainly argues anger, when it finds us in an act of sin. Leisure of repentance is an argument of favour. When God gives a man law, it implies that He would not have judgment surprise him. (Bp. Hall.)
Gods orders must be carried out
If the architect of a house had one plan, and the contractor had another, what conflicts would there be! How many walls would have to come down, how many doors and windows would need to be altered before the two could harmonise! Of the building of life God is the Architect, and man the contractor. It is for God to give the orders, and for us to carry them out. (H. W. Beecher.)
No strange fire permitted
There is only one way of obeying God, and that is by doing just as God tells us to do. Satan began the trial of improving on Gods commandments in the Garden of Eden. Cain followed up the idea, and substituted the fruit of his own toil for the designated lamb, as a sinners acceptable offering Each of these attempts proved a curse as well as a failure; and so it will be to the end of time. The sons of Aaron were consecrated priests when they offered other fire on Gods altar than that which God had commanded. Saul was the anointed king over the Lords people when he offered sheep and oxen contrary to the command of God. Both priest and king were punished of God for their disobedience in failing to worship God in Gods commanded way. God is the same God to-day as then, His commands concerning worship are as binding now as four thousand years ago-binding on theological professors, preachers, and Bible-class teachers. It is not enough to proffer an offering to God in worship, you must worship Him according to His commandments, or you must take the consequences of your disobedience. It is important, then, that you know what is Gods law concerning His day, His house, His Word, His worship. Your eternal interests hang on your fidelity in little things as well as in great. (H. C. Trumbull.)
Reverence in holy things
Contrast with the conduct of Nadab and Abihu the reverence displayed by the young King Edward of England. One of his companions, wishing to aid him in his efforts to grasp something just beyond his reach, placed a large Bible for him to step on. No, said Edward, stooping to lift the volume, I shall never tread on Gods holy Word. Possibly there was a touch of superstition here; but was not the spirit commendable? What is sacred is to be held as sacred. The meanest thief is the one who runs off with a church-collection; for he adds sacrilege to his other crime. Show how we may in a very real sense offer strange fire. Is there not something of irreverence in the chipped coins and torn bills that find their way into the contribution-box? Custom may make us treat sacred things with levity. Luther tells us that he knew priests whose sacred office had become a mere form, and who, instead of repeating the proper formula in the consecration of the bread and wine, mumbled irreverently, Bread thou art, and bread thou wilt remain;-wine thou art, and wine thou wilt remain. Has our church-going degenerated into a meaningless form? (American Sunday School Times.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER X
Nadab and Abihu offer strange fire before the Lord, and are
destroyed, 1-5.
Aaron and his family forbidden to mourn for them, 6, 7.
He and his family are forbidden the use of wine, 8-11.
Directions to Aaron and his sons concerning the eating of the
meat-offerings, c., 12-15.
Moses chides Aaron for not having eaten the sin-offering, 16-18.
Aaron excuses himself, and Moses is satisfied, 19, 20.
NOTES ON CHAP. X
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, Lu 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 Ps 141:2; Ro 8:34; Heb 8:1-2; Heb 9:24; Re 8:3-4😉 for the priests under the law served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things; Heb 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 De 4:2; Pr 30:6; and Re 22:18-19.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Strange fire; so called, as not appointed for, nor belonging to, the present work; fire not taken from the altar, as it ought, but from some common fire.
Before the Lord; upon the altar of incense.
Which he commanded them not; for seeing Moses himself neither did nor might do any thing in Gods worship without Gods command, which is oft noted of him, for these to do it was a more unpardonable and inexcusable presumption. Besides, not commanding may be here put for forbidding, as it is Jer 32:35. Now as this was forbidden implicitly, Lev 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. the sons of Aaron, c.Ifthis incident occurred at the solemn period of the consecrating anddedicating the altar, these young men assumed an office which hadbeen committed to Moses or if it were some time after, it was anencroachment on duties which devolved on their father alone as thehigh priest. But the offense was of a far more aggravated nature thansuch a mere informality would imply. It consisted not only in theirventuring unauthorized to perform the incense servicethe highestand most solemn of the priestly officesnot only in their engagingtogether in a work which was the duty only of one, but in theirpresuming to intrude into the holy of holies, to which access wasdenied to all but the high priest alone. In this respect, “theyoffered strange fire before the Lord”; they were guilty of apresumptuous and unwarranted intrusion into a sacred office which didnot belong to them. But their offense was more aggravated still; forinstead of taking the fire which was put into their censers from thebrazen altar, they seem to have been content with common fire andthus perpetrated an act which, considering the descent of themiraculous fire they had so recently witnessed and the solemnobligation under which they were laid to make use of that which wasspecially appropriated to the service of the altars, they betrayed acarelessness, an irreverence, a want of faith, most surprising andlamentable. A precedent of such evil tendency was dangerous, and itwas imperatively necessary, therefore, as well for the prieststhemselves as for the sacred things, that a marked expression of thedivine displeasure should be given for doing that which “Godcommanded them not.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron,…. His two eldest sons, as seems from Ex 6:23:
took either of them his censer; a vessel in which coals of fire were put, and incense upon them, and burnt it, and so it follows:
and put fire therein, and put incense thereon; which, as Aben Ezra says, was on the eighth day, that is, of their consecration, the day after their consecration was completely finished, and the same day that Aaron had offered the offerings for himself and for the people, see Le 9:1:
and offered strange fire before the Lord; upon the golden altar of incense, which stood in the holy place right against the vail, within which were the ark, mercy seat, and cherubim, the symbol and seat of the divine Majesty: this fire was not that which came down from heaven, and consumed the sacrifice, as related at the end of the preceding chapter Le 9:24, but common fire, and therefore called strange; it was not taken off of the altar of burnt offering, as it ought to have been, but, as the Targum of Jonathan, from under the trivets, skillets, or pots, such as the flesh of peace offerings were boiled in, in the tabernacle;
which he commanded not; yea, forbid, by sending fire from heaven, and ordering coals of fire for the incense to be taken off of the altar of burnt offering; and this, as Aben Ezra observes, they did of their own mind, and not by order. It does not appear that they had any command to offer incense at all at present, this belonged to Aaron, and not to them as yet; but without any instruction and direction they rushed into the holy place with their censers, and offered incense, even both of them, when only one priest was to offer at a time, when it was to be offered, and this they also did with strange fire. This may be an emblem of dissembled love, when a man performs religious duties, prays to God, or praises him without any cordial affection to him, or obeys commands not from love, but selfish views; or of an ignorant, false, and misguided zeal, a zeal not according to knowledge, superstitious and hypocritical; or of false and strange doctrines, such as are not of God, nor agree with the voice of Christ, and are foreign to the Scriptures; or of human ordinances, and the inventions of men, and of everything that man brings of his own, in order to obtain eternal life and salvation.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Nadab and Abihu took their censers ( machtah , Exo 25:38), and having put fire in them, placed incense thereon, and brought strange fire before Jehovah, which He had not commanded them. It is not very clear what the offence of which they were guilty actually was. The majority of expositors suppose the sin to have consisted in the fact, that they did not take the fire for the incense from the altar-fire. But this had not yet been commanded by God; and in fact it is never commanded at all, except with regard to the incense-offering, with which the high priest entered the most holy place on the day of atonement (Lev 16:12), though we may certainly infer from this, that it was also the rule for the daily incense-offering. By the fire which they offered before Jehovah, we are no doubt to understand the firing of the incense-offering. This might be called “strange fire” if it was not offered in the manner prescribed in the law, just as in Exo 30:9 incense not prepared according to the direction of God is called “strange incense.” The supposition that they presented an incense-offering that was not commanded in the law, and apart from the time of the morning and evening sacrifice, and that this constituted their sin, is supported by the time at which their illegal act took place. It is perfectly obvious from Lev 10:12. and 16ff. that it occurred in the interval between the sacrificial transaction in ch. 9 and the sacrificial meal which followed it, and therefore upon the day of their inauguration. For in Lev 10:12 Moses commands Aaron and his remaining sons Eleazar and Ithamar to eat the meat-offering that was left from the firings of Jehovah, and inquires in Lev 10:16 for the goat of the sin-offering, which the priests were to have eaten in a holy place. Knobel’s opinion is not an improbable one, therefore, that Nadab and Abihu intended to accompany the shouts of the people with an incense-offering to the praise and glory of God, and presented an incense-offering not only at an improper time, but not prepared from the altar-fire, and committed such a sin by this will-worship, that they were smitten by the fire which came forth from Jehovah, even before their entrance into the holy place, and so died “ before Jehovah.” The expression “before Jehovah” is applied to the presence of God, both in the dwelling (viz., the holy place and the holy of holies, e.g., Lev 4:6-7; Lev 16:13) and also in the court (e.g., Lev 1:5, etc.). It is in the latter sense that it is to be taken here, as is evident from Lev 10:4, where the persons slain are said to have lain “before the sanctuary of the dwelling,” i.e., in the court of the tabernacle. The fire of the holy God (Exo 19:18), which had just sanctified the service of Aaron as well-pleasing to God, brought destruction upon his two eldest sons, because they had not sanctified Jehovah in their hearts, but had taken upon themselves a self-willed service; just as the same gospel is to one a savour of life unto life, and to another a savour of death unto death (2Co 2:16). – In Lev 10:3 Moses explains this judgment to Aaron: “ This is it that Jehovah spake, saying, I will sanctify Myself in him that is nigh to Me, and will glorify Myself in the face of all the people.” is unquestionably to be taken in the same sense as in Exo 14:4, Exo 14:17; consequently is to be taken in a reflective and not in a passive sense, in the Eze 38:16. The imperfects are used as aorists, in the sense of what God does at all times. But these words of Moses are no “reproof to Aaron, who had not restrained the untimely zeal of his sons” ( Knobel), nor a reproach which made Aaron responsible for the conduct of his sons, but a simple explanation of the judgment of God, which should be taken to heart by every one, and involved an admonition to all who heard it, not to Aaron only but to the whole nation, to sanctify God continually in the proper way. Moreover Jehovah had not communicated to Moses by revelation the words which he spoke here, but had made the fact known by the position assigned to Aaron and his sons through their election to the priesthood. By this act Jehovah had brought them near to Himself (Num 16:5), made them = “ persons standing near to Jehovah ” (Eze 42:13; Eze 43:19), and sanctified them to Himself by anointing (Lev 8:10, Lev 8:12; Exo 29:1, Exo 29:44; Exo 40:13, Exo 40:15), that they might sanctify Him in their office and life. If they neglected this sanctification, He sanctified Himself in them by a penal judgment (Eze 38:16), and thereby glorified Himself as the Holy One, who is not to be mocked. “ And Aaron held his peace.” He was obliged to acknowledge the righteousness of the holy God.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Death of Nadab and Abihu. | B. C. 1490. |
1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. 2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
Here is, I. The great sin that Nadab and Abihu were guilty of: and a great sin we must call it, how little soever it appears in our eye, because it is evident by the punishment of it that it was highly provoking to the God of heaven, whose judgment, we are sure, is according to truth. But what was their sin? All the account here given of it is that they offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not (v. 1), and the same Num. iii. 4. 1. It does not appear the they had any orders to burn incense at all at this time. It is true their consecration was completed the day before, and it was part of their work, as priests, to serve at the altar of incense; but, it should seem, the whole service of this solemn day of inauguration was to be performed by Aaron himself, for he slew the sacrifices (Lev 9:8; Lev 9:15; Lev 9:18), and his sons were only to attend him (Lev 10:9; Lev 10:12; Lev 10:18); therefore Moses and Aaron only went into the tabernacle, v. 23. But Nadab and Abihu were so proud of the honour they were newly advanced to, and so ambitious of doing the highest and most honourable part of their work immediately, that though the service of this day was extraordinary, and done by particular direction from Moses, yet without receiving orders, or so much as asking leave from him, they took their censers, and they would enter into the tabernacle, at the door of which they thought they had attended long enough, and would burn incense. And then their offering strange fire is the same with offering strange incense, which is expressly forbidden, Exod. xxx. 9. Moses, we may suppose, had the custody of the incense which was prepared for this purpose (Exod. xxxix. 38), and they, doing this without his leave, had none of the incense which should have been offered, but common incense, so that the smoke of their incense came from a strange fire. God had indeed required the priests to burn incense, but, at this time, it was what he commanded them not; and so their crime was like that of Uzziah the king, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16. The priests were to burn incense only when it was their lot (Luke i. 9), and, at this time, it was not theirs. 2. Presuming thus to burn incense of their own without order, no marvel that they made a further blunder, and instead of taking of the fire from the altar, which was newly kindled from before the Lord and which henceforward must be used in offering both sacrifice and incense (Rev. viii. 5), they took common fire, probably from that with which the flesh of the peace-offerings was boiled, and this they made use of in burning incense; not being holy fire, it is called strange fire; and, though not expressly forbidden, it was crime enough that God commanded it not. For (as bishop Hall well observes here) “It is a dangerous thing, in the service of God, to decline from his own institutions; we have to do with a God who is wise to prescribe his own worship, just to require what he has prescribed, and powerful to revenge what he has not prescribed.” 3. Incense was always to be burned by only one priest at a time, but here they would both go in together to do it. 4. They did it rashly, and with precipitation. They snatched their censers, so some read it, in a light careless way, without due reverence and seriousness: when all the people fell upon their faces, before the glory of the Lord, they thought the dignity of their office was such as to exempt them from such abasements. The familiarity they were admitted to bred a contempt of the divine Majesty; and now that they were priests they thought they might do what they pleased. 5. There is reason to suspect that they were drunk when they did it, because of the law which was given upon this occasion, v. 8. They had been feasting upon the peace-offerings, and the drink-offerings that attended them, and so their heads were light, or, at least, their hearts were merry with wine; they drank and forgot the law (Prov. xxxi. 5) and were guilty of this fatal miscarriage. 6. No doubt it was done presumptuously; for, if it had been done through ignorance, they would have been allowed the benefit of the law lately made, even for the priests, that they should bring a sin-offering, Lev 4:2; Lev 4:3. But the soul that doth aught presumptuously, and in contempt of God’s majesty, authority, and justice, that soul shall be cut of, Num. xv. 30.
II. The dreadful punishment of this sin: There went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, v. 2. This fire which consumed the sacrifices came the same way with that which had consumed the sacrifices (ch. ix. 24), which showed what justice would have done to all the guilty people if infinite mercy had not found and accepted a ransom; and, if that fire struck such an awe upon the people, much more would this.
1. Observe the severity of their punishment. (1.) They died. Might it not have sufficed if they had been only struck with a leprosy, as Uzziah, or struck dumb, as Zechariah, and both by the altar of incense? No; they were both struck dead. The wages of this sin was death. (2.) They died suddenly, in the very act of their sin, and had not time so much as to cry, “Lord, have mercy upon us!” Though God is long-suffering to us-ward, yet sometimes he makes quick work with sinners; sentence is executed speedily: presumptuous sinners bring upon themselves a swift destruction, and are justly denied even space to repent. (3.) They died before the Lord; that is, before the veil that covered the mercy-seat; for even mercy itself will not suffer its own glory to be affronted. Those that sinned before the Lord died before him. Damned sinners are said to be tormented in the presence of the Lamb, intimating that he does not interpose on their behalf, Rev. xiv. 10. (4.) They died by fire, as by fire they sinned. They slighted the fire that came from before the Lord to consume the sacrifices, and thought other fire would do every jot as well; and now God justly made them feel the power of that fire which they did not reverence. Thus those that hate to be refined by the fire of divine grace will undoubtedly be ruined by the fire of divine wrath. The fire did not burn them to ashes, as it had done the sacrifices, nor so much as singe their coats (v. 5), but, like lightning, struck them dead in an instant; by these different effects of the same fire God would show that it was no common fire, but kindled by the breath of the Almighty, Isa. xxx. 23. (5.) It is twice taken notice of in scripture that they died childless,Num 3:4; 1Ch 24:2. By their presumption they had reproached God’s name, and God justly blotted out their names, and laid that honour in the dust which they were proud of.
2. But why did the Lord deal thus severely with them? Were they not the sons of Aaron, the saint of the Lord, nephews to Moses, the great favourite of heaven? Was not the holy anointing oil sprinkled upon them, as men whom God had set apart for himself? Had they not diligently attended during the seven days of their consecration, and kept the charge of the Lord, and might not that atone for this rashness? Would it not excuse them that they were young men, as yet unexperienced in these services, that it was the first offence, and done in a transport of joy for their elevation? And besides, never could men be worse spared: a great deal of work was now lately cut out for the priests to do, and the priesthood was confined to Aaron and his seed; he has but four sons; if two of them die, there will not be hands enough to do the service of the tabernacle; if they die childless, the house of Aaron will become weak and little, and the priesthood will be in danger of being lost for want of heirs. But none of all these considerations shall serve either to excuse the offence or bring off the offenders. For, (1.) The sin was greatly aggravated. It was a manifest contempt of Moses, and the divine law that was given by Moses. Hitherto it had been expressly observed concerning every thing that was done that they did it as the Lord commanded Moses, in opposition to which it is here said they did that which the Lord commanded them not, but they did it of their own heads. God was now teaching his people obedience, and to do every thing by rule, as becomes servants; for priests therefore to break rules and disobey was such a provocation as must by no means go unpunished. Their character made their sin more exceedingly sinful. For the sons of Aaron, his eldest sons, whom God had chosen to be immediate attendants upon him, for them to be guilty of such a piece of presumption, it cannot be suffered. There was in their sin a contempt of God’s glory, which had now newly appeared in fire, as if that fire were needless, they had as good of their own before. (2.) Their punishment was a piece of necessary justice, now at the first settling of the ceremonial institutions. It is often threatened in the law that such and such offenders should be cut off from the people; and here God explained the threatening with a witness. Now that the laws concerning sacrifices were newly made, lest any should be tempted to think lightly of them because they descended to many circumstances which seemed very minute, these that were the first transgressors were thus punished, for warning to others, and to show how jealous God is in the matters of his worship. Thus he magnified the law and made it honourable; and let his priests know that the caution which so often occurs in the laws concerning them, that they must do so that they die not, was not a mere bugbear, but fair warning of their danger, if they did the work of the Lord negligently. And no doubt this exemplary piece of justice at first prevented many irregularities afterwards. Thus Ananias and Sapphira were punished, when they presumed to lie to the Holy Ghost, that newly-descended fire. (3.) As the people’s falling into idolatry, presently after the moral law was given, shows the weakness of the law and its insufficiency to take away sin, so the sin and punishment of these priests show the imperfection of that priesthood from the very beginning, and its inability to shelter any from the fire of God’s wrath otherwise than as it was typical of Christ’s priesthood, in the execution of which there never was, nor can be, any irregularity, or false step taken.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
LEVITICUS- CHAPTER TEN
Verses 1-7:
This incident likely took place on the day of Aaron’s investiture as high priest, and following the manifestation of Divine presence and approval by the fire which consumed the sacrifice upon the altar.
Nadab and Abihu were the two oldest sons of Aaron. The text implies that they placed in their “censers” live coals from one of the fires used to boil the sacrificial flesh, and put incense thereon.
“Censer,” machtah, a vessel used for holding embers or tinder.
The “incense” was probably that prescribed in Ex 30:34-38. This implies that they were going into the tabernacle to offer this upon the golden altar of incense. Comparison of verse 12 with verse 16 indicates that the time was between Aaron’s sacrifice and the festive meal. Incense was to be offered on the golden altar at the morning and evening sacrifices only.
“Strange,” zar, “alien.” The word in the Septuagint is allotrion, meaning “not one’s own; alien,” from allos, meaning “another of a different kind.”
Le 16:12 specifies that on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the fire for the incense altar was to be taken from the brazen altar. This implies that the same rule was to be followed on all occasions.
God’s reaction to this was swift and terrible. The same fire which consumed the offerings on the altar came forth to destroy Nadab and Abihu. This was in judgment of their sin, which was two-fold:
1. They had not sanctified the Lord in their heart;
2. They offered worship to Jehovah of their own devising, by using fire other than what God had prescribed, 1Pe 3:15.
Verse 3 is the Lord’s explanation of His action, see Ex 19:22; 28:41; 29:44; Le 8:33. God will glorify Himself, either in the service of those who are consecrated to Him; or in judgment upon those who rebel against Him, see Eze 38:16.
Aaron was silent, indicating his submission to the judgment of God, see Ps 39:9; Job 1:22.
Mishael and Elzaphan were sons of Uzziel, the younger brother of Aaron’s father Amram, Ex 6:18-22. Moses instructed these two to remove the corpses of Nadab and Abihu outside the camp and bury them.
Aaron and his family were to make no show of mourning whatever. This signified their assent to God’s righteous judgment. This illustrates the attitude God’s child today should have toward His judgments upon the rebellious, even of one’s own family.
The people of Israel were to observe the customary period of mourning because of the death of Nadab and Abihu.
Aaron and his surviving sons were to continue in the tabernacle, in fulfillment of their priestly duties, until they had eaten the sacrificial feast. This symbolizes the primacy of God’s service, that it must come first before all else, see Mt 8:21, 22.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron A memorable circumstance is here recorded, from whence it appears how greatly God abominates all the sins whereby the purity of religion is corrupted. Apparently it was a light transgression to use strange fire for burning incense; and again their thoughtlessness would seem excusable, for certainly Nadab and Abihu did not wantonly or intentionally desire to pollute the sacred things, but, as is often the case in matters of novelty, when they were setting about them too eagerly, their precipitancy led them into error. The severity of the punishment, therefore, would not please those arrogant people, who do not hesitate superciliously to criticise God’s judgments; but if we reflect how holy a thing God’s worship is, the enormity of the punishment will by no means offend us. Besides, it was necessary that their religion should be sanctioned at its very commencement; for if God had suffered the sons of Aaron to transgress with impunity, they would have afterwards carelessly neglected the whole Law. This, therefore, was the reason of such great severity, that the priests should anxiously watch against all profanation. Their crime is specified, viz., that they offered incense in a different way from that which God had prescribed, and consequently, although they may have erred from ignorance, still they were convicted by God’s commandment of having negligently set about what was worthy of greater attention. The “strange fire” is distinguished from the sacred fire which was always burning upon the altar: not miraculously, as some pretend, but by the constant watchfulness of the priests. Now, God had forbidden any other fire to be used in the ordinances, in order to exclude all extraneous rites, and to shew His detestation of whatever might be derived from elsewhere. Let us learn, therefore, so to attend to God’s command as not to corrupt His worship by any strange inventions. But if He so severely avenged this error, how horrible a punishment awaits the Papists, who are not ashamed obstinately to defend so many gross corruptions!
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Reckless Ministry Sternly Rebuked
SUGGESTIVE READINGS
Lev. 10:1.Nahab and Abihu offered strange fire. Whether they were prompted by impetuous religious feeling, or were confused with wine, the act was reckless; they offered before the Lord incense on fire which was unsanctified. Probably, instead of holy fire taken from the altar, they lit their censers from the fire burning at the door of the tabernacle, used for boiling the flesh. [See Lev. 8:31.] To act in Gods service from heated impulse is as blameworthy as to act under intoxication. Strong feeling makes a man as confused in thought and rash in conduct as does strong drink. When God commands what should be done, that and that only should be done: and done in the manner He prescribes Self-will, heedlessness, impetuosity, must be absolutely arrested on the very threshold of sacred service. God asks obedience: literal and absolute: and behold to obey is better than sacrifice; and to hearken than the fat of rams.
Lev. 10:2Went out fire from the Lord. That fire had only just before fallen upon the altar victim instead of falling on the sinner: God thus expressed His pleasure in sparing man and accepting the substituted atonement offering And He is not willing that any should perish. But if man will act disobediently, notwithstanding Gods desire to spare him, man must bear his penalty. And now the fire falls direct on the sinner and devours him. For our God is a consuming fire. The cross of Jesus shelters all who will hide beneath its grace, but on the presumptuous the wrath of God must surely fall. They died before the Lord.
Lev. 10:3.This is it that the Lord spake. Moses appeals to a well-known divine utterance, which, however, is not to be found in the written Scriptures. Just so, the apostle Paul quotes a saying of the Lord Jesus, which nowhere appears in the Gospels (Act. 20:35). There were sayings of Jehovah living in the peoples memory which the pen had not transcribed to the sacred page. There is an unwritten Bible: for Gods messages, in which He spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, were so numerous that all could not be gathered into the written Bible.
In this sense must be understood Johns statement that much of our Lords lifeHis words and deedsis left unrecorded in the pages of the evangelists (Joh. 20:30; Joh. 21:25). Yet, lest any should use this fact as a warrant for adding aught to the words of the book of this prophecy (Rev. 22:18) John declares that the written Gospels are sufficient for our faith, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing ye might have life through His name (Joh. 20:31).
I will be sanctified in them that come nigh Me. Aaron and His sons had been most solemnly consecrated for their ministries: and, because of their perfected sanctification (ceremonially), were to be allowed near access to Jehovahs awful presence. Should they presume upon their privilege and act heedlessly, violating their sanctity by thoughtless and irreverent conduct? God would not have it so. The presumptuous soul is offensive to Jehovah. [See Num. 20:29.] If we do not honour Him by our reverence, He will get honour to Himself in our punishment.
Aaron held his peacebowing to the appalling judgment of God with acquiesence: recognising that his sons had summoned upon themselves the doom which befel them. It was the silence of a soul overwhelmed with grief, but grief regulated by the sense that the Judge of all the earth doeth right.
Lev. 10:5.Carried them in their coats out of the camp. Their priestly tunics were not burned by the fire which had struck the wearers with death. The garments were symbols of the sanctity God approved: they remained unharmed. What a hush of awe must have gone through the camp, as the crowds of Israel watched the carrying of the blanched corpses through their midst. It told the warning truth that God was so jealous for His holiness that He would not spare even the young priests so newly consecrated if they failed to sanctify Him. Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire.
Lev. 10:6.Uncover not your heads. To let the hair fall dishevelled was the custom of mourners, the sign of bereavement. For them to express open and violent grief would appear like casting blame upon God, like strife against His providence. They must submit. I was dumb, I opened not my mouth, because Thou didst it. Hard indeed it is not to complain and rebel when the hand of God lays bitter strokes upon us: but piety will manifest itself best in meek submission and quiet endurance.
Much grace will be needed, however, in mourners if they are to yield up their treasures of affection thus uncomplainingly to the Lord. Yet let it be remembered that Jesus had no rebuke for the tears shed over Lazarus death; yea, more, that as He stood by the grave and beheld the scene of weepers, Jesus wept (Joh. 11:35). The case was exceptional with these young priests, and Gods prohibition of mourning for them must not be regarded as a divine interdict of the tears of love.
Lev. 10:7.For the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you. They who are dedicated to Gods service must let that be supreme; its claims subordinate all private duties; even the burial of their dead was insufficient as a warrant for them however briefly to desert their sacred offices. Let the dead bury their dead, said Jesus; and come, follow me (Mat. 8:21-22). For religious claims are superlative, and our human affections (in themselves becoming) may prove a snare if permitted to assert themselves against divine claims.
Lev. 10:8-11.Do not drink wine, etc. Certainly such a possible cause for excited action, confused thought, or ungoverned feeling must be scrupulously shunned by all when occupied in sanctuary ministrations and sacred employ. Jesus would not drink (Mat. 27:34) when the narcotic drug was offered Him at Calvary; for He was at that moment engaged in divinest employoffering Himself unto God as mans atonement. Pauls admonitions to bishops and deacons (1Ti. 3:2-3) not to be given to wine, is in the same direction; any cause of false excitement or possible rashness must be sedulously avoided by those occupied in Gods service The prohibition is, however, not all-inclusive; it only applies to specified persons, and to specified occasionswhen ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation.
Lev. 10:12-15.Take the meat offering, etc. Moses pressed upon the priests to turn to their spiritual functions and ministries without delay. For the best solace in grief is activity. Sit not in repining because of Gods stroke, turn to Him in holy service. Possibly the dread of God, lest He be angry, urged all to quick attention to duty. Sad it is that we need often the startling visitation of God to awaken us to vigilance in religion. When thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness (Isa. 26:9).
Lev. 10:16-20.Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering. The flesh of this sacrificial offering should have been eaten by the priests; and Moses grew angry with the surviving sons of Aaron that they had neglected this part of the prescribed ritual. But Aaron produced an explanation of the omission: that all the sacred regulations for the sin offering had been observed by them, except the festive part which was an obligation upon the priest and his family; and that the calamity which had befallen them unfitted them for this social repast or rendered the festivity inappropriate. This was an error; express commands should not be evaded even by plea of untimeliness or impropriety; duty must be first: but Moses was touched by his brothers great grief, and was content. For is it not written, I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings (Hos. 6:6)? Where the spirit is right the letter is less important.
SECTIONAL HOMILIES
Topic: REPULSIVE INCENSE (Lev. 10:1-2)
Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire before the Lord.
Nadab and Abihu were priests, ministers of the tabernacle; therefore lessons from their example possess a special fitness to ministers of Christ. To preach to others, forgetting admonitions to ourselves, were deplorable, fulfilling the lament, They made me the keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyard have I not kept (Son. 1:6). Yet, though the lesson of this incident is special to ministers of the sanctuary, it is not exclusive; for ye are a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices (1Pe. 2:5). Every redeemed soul is consecrated by grace to be Gods priest in His great universe. Christ hath made us kings and priests unto God
From every priest God looks for incense; of affection, influence, service, possessions, praises, prayers. God called us into the temple of His grace that we might offer living sacrifices; holy and acceptable, our reasonable service. This is our mission on earth, the design of our conversion; for this the Spirit works in us; we must be priests.
And each of us, as a priest, does take his censer, and the fire ascends to the Lord. Each is doing something in work, or worship, or ministry, to fill the temple of earth with offerings to the Lord. But it is for us solemnly to ask in presence of this incident
WHAT INCENSE ARE WE OFFERING? Even priests may err here: burn strange fire, offer what God will abhor, and imperil their souls in the action. Consider therefore
I. THEIR OFFENSIVE OFFERING. Offered strange fire.
1. What rendered their incense odious to God? The fire was strange. It lacked two essential and acceptable qualities
(a) It had not been kindled by God. The fire on the altar was kindled from heaven. The divine origin of that fire changed human offerings laid on that altar into atoning sacrifices. They became thereby sanctified. Without this divine element the human offerings were not acceptable (Lev. 9:24). But these priests took their censers and put fire therein; and thus the fire had nothing of divinity in it; the offering was altogether earthly and human; strange fire.
(b) It had not been mingled with blood. Sacrificial victims were being continuously offered on that altar; that fire never went out; the fire was never free, therefore, from the blood. This rendered the tire sacred. Consecrated by blood. Nothing came to God pleasing Him except mingled with blood. But their fire had nothing of the savour of blood in it: it was, therefore, strange, offensive to God.
2. What corresponding offensiveness may mar our offerings?
In the Christian church to-day, not a little strange fire is burned before the Lord. The motive that prompts what we do is not divine; the fire is earthly, human. The incense is not sanctified by blood; for much we do is done without associating it with the atonement of Christ, and resting on the merits of His blood for acceptableness and worth. Thus, the fire is strange when our religion or work is the outcome of
(a) Mere emotional fervour. The wild fire of hot sensationalism, the religion of boisterous emotion and animal tumult, the raging vulgarity of noise, these are no acceptable substitute to offer before the Lord, in place of calm devoutness and holy earnestness. There may be the noisiness of the crackling of thorns, without fervid glow or quiet heat. Emotional people are not the most devotional. Sensation is no test or measure of sincerity.
(b) Mere intellectual excitement. Public prayers which are voluble and boisterous, lacking thoughtful reverence, how are they rebuked by the homage of the veiled cherubim, repudiated by the emphatic command: Be not rash with thy mouth, for God is in heaven and thou upon earth; therefore let thy words be few (Ecc. 5:2). Preaching which abandons itself to the mere fire of oratory, though rousing an audience, may be more human than divine; souls are never converted by excellency of speech (1Co. 2:1; 1Co. 2:4-5).
(c) Mere feverish activity. There is an evil under the sun into which very young converts are betrayed. Before becoming themselves enriched in the Christian life, before they have nourished and fortified their minds in divine truth, without giving any one opportunity of instructing them in the way of the Lord more perfectly, as Paul did Aquila and Priscilla (Act. 18:26), they seize their censer, and with restless eagerness rush out to wave their incense forth. Not a novice, says Paul, lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil (1Ti. 3:6).
(d) Mere self-glorifying religious effort. He who rejects Christs righteousness, but labours, by diligent efforts, to establish his own righteousness, offers strange fire. The Christian who is active for love of eminence or observation, zealous or liberal for the sake of praise or distinction, offers strange fire.
(e) Mere spiritual rhapsody. Spiritual moods and frames of feeling which are elevated, ardent, rapturous, are not the divinest in which a child of God may be found. God does not intend that we live in the cloud-land of ecstasy, for elation of feeling may be but self-elevation. God brought even Paul down from the third heaven by a thorn in his flesh, that he might rather glory in his infirmities; for much of that lofty sentiment of piety is strange fire. [See Addenda, p. 151, Sensationalism.]
II. THEIR RASH IMPIETY. Offered strange fire before the Lord.
To ordinary observers that fire looked like altar fire, as prayers which are sensational, and services which are self-seeking, look like ardent piety; but God seeth not as man seeth, he looketh at the heart. Their act was one of
1. Fearless presumption. Even amid the solemnities of the sanctuary they were reckless, frivolous. They took fire and swung their censers, as if it mattered not how they ministered; as if God deserved no special reverence. To enter Gods awful presence without awe, to engage in His worship without adoration, seems a repetition of this careless swinging of censers. It is as though God still addressed the trifler: When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hands that ye should tread my courts (Isa. 1:12).
Lo God is here; let us adore,
And own how dreadful is this place.
Their conduct seems to have resulted from festive indulgence. The command of Lev. 10:9 indicates that in a state of intoxicated excitement they rushed into the holy place. But indulgence of any sort, if it unfits us for Gods presence or service, should be shunned. Human nature is likely to be overbalanced when the senses are gratified; therefore Paul kept his body in subjection, and crucified the flesh. We may come before the Lord drunk, but not with wine (Isa. 29:9); intoxicated with worldly thoughts, with foolish vanity; the mind excited with delirious readings; and whatever takes solemnity from us must be shunned as we come before the Holy One of Israel. [See Addenda, p. 151, Intemperance].
2. Wilful disobedience. By lighting their own fire, and by assuming an office strictly assigned to the high priest, they violated Gods commands.
Analogy of their conduct:Refusing divine provisions made for us in the sacrifice of Christ, and making a religion of our own. When God has given a name under heaven whereby we must be saved, and said: Neither is there salvation in any other (Act. 4:12), what is it but wilful disobedience to set up other trusts? Pitiful the wrongly directed efforts of mistaken souls, whether of those who, not animated with the love of Christ, are yet doing Christian work in their own strength; or those who, seeking salvation, are relying on other merits than those of the blood poured out on the altar.
III. THEIR ALARMING DESTRUCTION.
They offered offensive fire; God sent out devouring fire. Before the Lord they burned their fire; before the Lord they were burned with fire. With what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again. Let this admonish us to remember
1. The God with whom we have to do. Hitherto, in the tabernacle service, God had not asserted indignation against the sinful, so much as provided for pardon and redemption. But He who is gracious can also show Himself just, as he who presumes upon His mercy will prove. [See Addenda, p. 150, Presumption.]
2. The rebuke which presumption will receive.
(a) The complete overthrow of their rash efforts. For what is not of God shall not stand. He will put every human thing to confusion. The fire shall try every mans work. Much work which is thought the outcome of seal for God, will prove but wood, hay, stubble, merely human; and, therefore, if the work be burned he shall suffer loss.
(b) More terrible rebuke may be given than the frustration of our work: the fire may fall upon ourselves. For the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2Th. 1:7). And if judgment begin at the house of God, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of Gods? (1Pe. 4:17). [See Addenda, p. 151, Punishment.]
Topic: YOUTHFUL PROFANATION OF A SACRED OFFICE (Lev. 10:1-2)
Special grace is indeed needed by those occupying highest offices in the Church of God.
Nadab and Abihu were the first young men called into the ancient priesthood; and in their career a warning is offered to the young who think it easy to bear, and covet precipitately to secure, the dignity and gravity of a sacred office.
Paul gives warning against calling out the young to prominent positions in the Church; and commanded not a novice: lest, etc. (1Ti. 3:6).
If only the foe of the Church can secure that a young and incautious spirit be placed in the forefront of Gods people then he will bring all his artifices for his overthrow; and in the fall of a leader there will be great cause for the enemy to blaspheme.
God grant that many young men may be led out into usefulness in the Church, and, if He will, into high stations in the Church of Christ; into the ministry of the gospel, into influential scenes of witness for truth; but God also grant to such the measure of special grace they will need, lest they stumble on the high places, and enable them to bear the standard of the Lord with steady hand to victory!
I. SOLEMN PREPARATION FOR A SACRED CAREER.
Nadab and Abihu saw the God of Israel (Exo. 24:1; Exo. 24:9-10). This was Jehovahs method of preparing a man for a sacred career, e.g, Moses at the burning bush (Exo. 3:3; Exo. 3:6); Isaiah and Ezekiel for prophetic work (Isa. 6:1; Isa. 6:6; Isa. 6:8; Eze. 1:1); Saul of Tarsus for apostleship (Act. 9:27).
That sight gave them qualification. It taught them who God was; how glorious and holy (Exo. 24:10). As also saith Isaiah, I have seen the King the Lord of Hosts. They would surely be reverent and solemn hereafter in all their service within the tabernacle in presence of resplendent Deity.
Have you seen God for yourselves? It is your qualification for serving Him. You cannot minister before the Lord unless. Hold back from all sacred work until you have seen the King. But if God has revealed Himself to you it is both a qualification and call to His service. For He wants those who have seen Him to tell the vision, to go from that secresy of blessed experience, saying, That which our eyes have seen, which we have looked upon, declare we unto you, that ye may have fellowship with us (1Jn. 1:1-3).
II. ENTIRE SEPARATION TO SANCTUARY MINISTRY (Exo. 28:1).
1. Their designation to this office was to be accompanied by most solemn rites of consecration (Exodus 29). Washing (Exo. 29:4); clothing with priestly robes (Exo. 29:5; Exo. 29:8-9); reconciliation offerings (Exo. 29:10-18); sanctifying unction (Exo. 29:20-21).
Note: that a year intervened between the directions given for their dedication and the event. An interval of serious thought, meditation on their high calling, forming of resolves and prayerful preparation for their future.
2. Obeying these minute directions, Moses did then consecrate them (Lev. 8:4; Lev. 8:30) in the sight of all Israel. They were thus publicly set apart to the holy office.
From all this it appears how careful God is that they who are to engage in His service should be spiritually prepared. It was God s idea, Gods work, wrought through Moses. And ye are Gods workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that ye should walk in them.
God wants you, who are called to sacred service and high trust in His Church, not less hallowed and consecrated than Nadab and Abihu. Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord. God must have holiness in those who serve Him.
III. STARTLING MISDEMEANOUR AND PROFANITY.
O how great a fall is here! (Lev. 10:1-2).
1. For awhile they maintained a reverent demeanour. They gave good promise (Lev. 8:36); were observant and obedient to Gods word; and attended to the duties of their office (Lev. 9:8-9; Lev. 9:12-13). Not instantaneously did they fall from their eminence. The castle must first be undermined before it crumbles into ruins.
Ye did run well. Young Christians began their spiritual life with every promise of adorning the doctrine of God their Saviour in all things, conversion seemed thorough; and Christian service was entered on with seriousness and earnestness, consecration seemed real. But a vast difference exists between a hopeful beginning and continuing therein with all perseverance: holding fast the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end.
Many a ship made a good startwrecked! Many a well formed budblighted! Many a promising youthdestroyed!
2. What explains and accounts for their fall?
Was it a mere mistake, an act of ignorance? No; the Lord commanded them not. Emphatic prohibition: Ye shall burn no strange incense thereon, etc. (Exo. 30:9). It arose from recklessness. They may have thought their own fire as good as that on the altar; but they had no right to think on such a matter; God had commanded.
When God has made the way of obedience, the way of salvation, the way of holiness plain, to substitute anything is an act of daring presumption and a horrible offence to God.
What could have led them to this act of presumption? With Gods express command, how dared they disobey? In a festive moment they seemed to have lost sobriety; and their act was done under the confusion of drink. How fearful the act! What bitter woes and wrongs has not the baneful indulgence wrought! O what homes desolated, what characters destroyed, what souls ruined! True, indeed of intemperance
When once the demon enters,
Stands within the door,
Peace and hope and gladness
Dwell there nevermore.
Alas for the young who have fallen thereby!
Put away from you all indulgence which imperils your character and piety. Have a just fear of yourselves. Do not think you stand, lest you fall. [See Addenda p. 151, Intemperance.]
IV. PUNISHMENT OF YOUTHFUL PROFANITY. They died before the Lord.
1. Though exalted in religious privileges: how terrible their doom. Thou Capernaum, exalted unto heaven, shalt be cast down to hell.
Yes: the divine grace with which men trifle will invoke most fearful retribution. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trampled under foot the Son of God. Therefore, kiss the Son lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little.
That high All-Seer which I dallied with
Hath turned my feigned prayer upon my head,
And given in earnest what I begged in jest.
Thus doth He force the swords of wicked men
To turn their own points on their masters bosom.
2. In the beauty and fulness of youth, how instant their destruction! Dread the possibility of being thus arrested: life arrested in an act of sin! Leave the way of godliness but for a moment; you may never return! Adventure upon one rash step of impiety: it may be your last. There is but one step between you and death!
God is angry with the wicked every day: but He holds back judgment; yet it may leap forth any day. Wherefore, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire. [See Addenda p. 151, Rashness]
Topic: THE SIN OF AARONS SONS (Lev. 10:1-2)
Not many hours had elapsed since Nadab and Abihu were consecrated to the sacred office of the priesthood. They knew that only the high priest was to officiate with the holy incense, and that the fire to be employed must be taken from the brazen, and put upon the golden altar. Yet they usurped the functions of the high priest, kindled common fire, and offered it on the golden altar, which the Lord had not commanded. Such an act was a flagrant exhibition of insubordination, and a direct insult to Jehovah. In their heinous sin we see
I. HOW ELEVATION TO HIGH AND HOLY POSITIONS DOES NOT PLACE MEN BEYOND THE TEMPTATION AND LIABILITY TO COMMIT SIN.
Consecrated to the priestly office, they were henceforth expected to be examples to the people of purity, and piety. They would be amid scenes, and engage in services, calculated to restrain them from wrong-doing, and to stimulate them to good works. It was reasonable to expect that, while the solemn ceremony of consecration and inauguration was fresh in their memories, they would be conscientious, circumspect, and magnify their office; but a day did not elapse without a strong temptation to desecrate their office; a day did not elapse before they yielded to the temptation. They were proud and presumptuous; intoxicated with the elevation they had received to the priestly office (if not with drink), and snatching up common fire, went unbidden into the holy place before the Lord, and insulted Him to His face. The temptation was peculiar to their position; flatterered their vanity; promised them equality with Moses and Aaron in authority and power; they yielded to it and fell. By unholy ambition fell the angels and our first parentsno position, however exalted, seems to be exempt from temptation to pride and presumption. We learn that (i.) having pious parents; (ii.) being in holy places; (iii.) holding sacred offices; (iv.) seeing divine manifestations, will not place us beyond the reach of temptation to commit sin, or screen us from punishment if we commit it. Even Jesus Christ was assailed by the shafts and insinuations of the wicked one. Being a servant, and even a son of God, does not exempt from temptation, but temptation is not in itself sin, yielding is sin.
II. HOW THE COMMITTAL OF SIN MERITS, AND MAY MEET WITH SUDDEN CORRESPONDING RETRIBUTION.
Their punishment may seem severe, but it must be remembered that the sin was committed (a) by persons in high position, (b) enjoying great privilege, (c) possessing great light and knowledge, (d) deliberately, and (e) daringly, on the floor of the holy place, and before the face of the holy God. It was a sin, which, if not signally and immediately punished, would have been a precedent for presumption of the highest kind. Had they sinned ignorantly, they would have been allowed the privilege of the sin offering. We may not always be able to trace resemblance between sin and its punishment, in kind or degree, but the Judge of all the earth is equitable, and allots His punishments according to the deeds done, and in the end will render unto every man according to his works. Position, circumstances, knowledge, intention, abilityall will be taken into account in adjusting penalty and awarding bliss.
III. HOW SUCH RETRIBUTION, WHILE IT CONDEMNS THE SINNER, VINDICATES THE BROKEN LAW AND GLORIFIES THE LAWGIVER.
We may note that the punishment they received
(1) condemned them here in the eyes of all Israel;
(2) showed the exceeding sinfulness of sin; and
(3) the exacting demands and exalted dignity of the law. The Lord had said to Moses that He would be sanctified in them who drew near Him, and glorified by all the people; and He would make even the wrath, or wickedness of man, to praise Him. Nadab and Abihu treated the law and the Lawgiver with contempt, and the Lord showed, by visiting them with immediate retribution, that such sins deserve death, and that He is able to vindicate His own glory. God thus manifesting Himself as a consuming fire, showed
(1) His jealousy, that He could not be openly and grossly insulted;
(2) His power, that the fire which glowed in the cloud, which had kindly led them out of Egypt, protected them from their foes, and which consumed the burnt offering on the day of consecration, had power to destroy, and, unless held in check, would consume all sinners;
(3) His mercy, that while sin deserved punishment, and God had the right and power to destroy, He made judgment His strange work, and such retributionas that which visited Aarons sonsan exceptional thing. Let us learn that, though worship must be voluntary, yet it must be according to Gods own appointed way. Liberty is not to be perverted into lawlessness. Knowledge of God will be good or ill to us according as we use or abuse it. The law set before men life and death, and left them to choose. The gospel is a savour of life unto life, or of death unto death, according as men accept or reject it. Sacred fire renders divine worship acceptable, strange fire renders divine worship abominable; the former God longs for, the latter God loathes. Strange fire is offered upon Gods altar when worship is presented with
(1) unsolicited materials, or from
(2) unsanctified motives. Enthusiasm is holy ardourliterally, God in usHis own fire ascending to Himself.F. W. B.
Topic: MANS DEGRADATION OF WHAT IS HOLY (Lev. 10:1-3)
The page of human history has ever been a sadly blotted one. It is a record of failure from first to last. Amid all the delights of Eden man hearkened to the tempters lie (Genesis 3). When preserved from judgment by the hand of electing Love and introduced into a restored earth, he was guilty of the sin of intemperance (Genesis 9). When conducted by Jehovahs outstretched arm into the land of Canaan, he forsook the Lord, and served Baal and Ashtaroth (Jdg. 2:13). When placed at the very summit of earthly power and glory, with untold wealth at his feet, and all the resources of the world at his command, he gave his heart to the uncircumcised stranger (1 Kings 11). No sooner had the blessings of the gospel been promulgated, than it became needful for the Holy Ghost to prophecy concerning grievous wolves, apostasy, and all manner of failure (Act. 20:29; 1Ti. 4:1-3; 2Ti. 3:1-5; 2 Peter , 2; Jude). And, to crown all, we have the prophetic record of human apostasy from amid all the splendours of millenial glory (Rev. 20:7-10). Thus:
I. MAN SPOILS EVERYTHING. Place him in position of highest dignity, and he will degrade himself. Endow him with most ample privileges, and he will abuse them. Scatter blessings around him in richest profusion, and he will corrupt them. Such is man! Such is nature in its fairest forms, and under the most favourable circumstances. Here, with Nadab and Abihu
1. Hardly had the divine position been assumed ere it was deliberately abandoned, through neglect of the divine commandment. Hardly had the echo of the shout of victory died away ere the elements of a spurious worship are prepared.
2. Man has always proved himself ill-disposed to walk in the narrow path of strict adherence to the plain word of God. The by-path has ever seemed to present resistless charms to the poor human heart. Stolen waters are sweet (Pro. 9:17); such is the enemys language.
3. Nadab and Abihu took their own way: they should have acted according to the word of the Lord.
II. DIVINE HOLINESS REJECTS THAT WHICH IS THE FRUIT OF MANS CORRUPT WILL.
There went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them. How deeply solemn.
1. By the outgoing of fire Jehovah had signified His acceptance of a true sacrifice (chap. 9).
2. By the outgoing of fire He sends His judgment upon erring priests (chap. 10). The strange fire was rejected as an abomination. The Lord was glorified in the former; but it would have been a dishonour to accept the latter.
Mens corrupt will is never more hideous and abominable than when active in the things of God. But
III. MAN CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO DESECRATE THE SANCTUARY OF THE DIVINE PRESENCE. I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, etc.
1. The dignity and glory of the entire economy depended on Jehovahs maintenance of His righteous claims. If these were to be trifled with all was forfeited. If men were allowed to defile the sanctuary by strange fire there was an end to everything.
2. Nothing could be permitted to ascend from the priestly censer but the pure fire, kindled from off the altar of God, and fed by the pure incense beaten small.
3. Man must not be allowed to introduce his devices into the worship of God. All his efforts can only issue in the presentation of strange fire, unhallowed incense, false worship. His very best attempts are an absolute abomination in the sight of God.C. H. M.
Topic: THE LAW OF WORSHIP (Lev. 10:1-11)
Religious history is a continuous series of revelations of God: every incident freighted with significance and suggestiveness. The gleam of the seraphs sword at the gates of Eden declares the sinners banishment from God: the roar of the deluge is the voice of many waters attesting the terrible might of Divine judgments: the lightnings of Sinai write out in letters of fire the sovereignty of the decalogue. And so in the doom of Nadab and Abihu we have announced in tongues of flame the law of worship. What answer does the incident give us to the vital question, How can men worship God acceptably?
I. THE CHARACTER OF THE WORSHIPPER is a factor of importance.
While the people were yet trembling at the judgments sent upon the offending priests, God ordained certain restrictions to be observed by those who ministered at His altars, as a statute for ever throughout your generations, that ye may put differences between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean.
1. The numerous directions in the Jewish ritual relating to personal purity, were all significant of the value of character in the office of worship.
2. Yet the soundness of the inward life as pre-requisite to a real approach to God is seldom considered. This material age exalts the form above the spirit. If a man observe the formalities of public worship his spiritual condition is assumed to be correct.
3. But character, the style and stamp of the man, is the one thing needful. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
II. THE PURPOSE OF THE WORSHIPPER is the element of which God makes account.
Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire in obedience to some selfish end. Their proper offices in the ministry were subordinate; the adoption of a new method would secure them reputation. Egotism, vanity, prompted them.
1. When a minister at Gods altar now cultivates eccentricities and extravagances of manner to attract a crowd and become famous, he is offering strange fire. A singleness of purpose to honour God should be the sovereign motive in every ministers heart.
2. Attendance in Gods house is not proof of true worship. Why are they there? Coming to be charmed with eloquence is not worship. Attendance from force of habit is not worship. Ceremony is easier than consecration; so men satisfy themselves with the outward observance, while the essential need of the inward aspiration is overlooked.
It is averred that the offices of public worship are waning in interest and influence. The reason is not far. It is not from lack of facilities and appliances. There are wheels enough, but not enough of the living spirit within the wheels. Abolish the intellectual and sthetic theory of worship, and restore the spiritual, and the evil is corrected. Let every man feel that only the outgo of His heart to God is worship, and our places of prayer will become true temples where the glory of the Shekinah burns, and where hushed assemblies gather to sun themselves in the light of the Divine Presence.
III. THE PREPARATION FOR WORSHIP is a matter to which God attaches great importance.
1. Men should be at their best when they approach the place and hour of worship. In the house of God things suffered elsewhere were forbidden (Lev. 10:8-9). Every faculty should be in highest exercise; every barrier to Gods freest access to the soul should be broken down.
2. Now, as then, true worship requires preparation. It cannot be extemporised. We cannot turn to it at a moments notice, and realise it while our ears are full of the babble of the market and our hands are clenched in the grip of gain. As Moses in sight of the flaming bush must put off his shoes because he was standing on holy ground, so those who would meet God in their worship must prepare themselves. A hushed season of reverence is a pre-requisite; a ready soul, and no other, finds a waiting God.
IV. THE MODE OF WORSHIP has its limits of importance.
Nadab and Abihu were punished for departing from the divinely established order of service. Under the Christian dispensation larger liberty is allowed. Men are free to adopt such methods of worship as are most affluent in ministries to their spiritual life. But the old underlying principle is still in force.
1. Forms of worship are only to help men to get to God. All claims to antiquity, or beauty of diction, or appeal to the sensuous in men, are barred out; the one question is, Do they help us to push open the doors of the invisible world, and make our way to the presence of our Lord?
2. In the nature of the case there is no one set method for reaching this end. The ritual which gives wings to the soul in Christian lands may prove a drag weight to the Zulu.
3. The soul owes no loyalty to ceremonials of human contriving. Along which way it can quickest find God it is bound to travel There is no best way for the whole world.
Right character, earnest purpose, due preparation, helpful method, these are the essentials to acceptable worship. These will open a door through which the divine Spirit shall come in, until the soul of the worshipper is filled with all the fulness of God.Rev. Edward S. Atwood, in Sermons on the International S. S. Lessons.
Topic: SPURIOUS WORSHIPPERS: THEIR DARING AND DOOM (Lev. 10:2-5)
I. GOD DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN TRUE AND SPURIOUS WORSHIP.
1. Earnest spirits, honest in their struggles in searching after peace with God, may make mistakes in coming nigh Him. They may bring what He cannot receive; self-reliant efforts. If I wash myself in snow-water, and make my hands never so clean (Job. 9:30); repentant tears, hoping to appease by contrition; generous acts, endeavouring to win by deeds of mercy. Such efforts, though erronious, may be sincere endeavours of upright, but unenlightened consciences to attain a knowledge of sins forgiven. Hence eager souls are seeking God by works of the law, or the ordinances of systematic religion.
2. All such will doubtless issue through the exceeding goodness of God, in the clear light of a known and enjoyed salvation. There never yet was one who followed the faintest glimmerings of light which fell upon his understanding, who did not, in due time, receive more. To him that hath shall be given. The path of the just is as the shining light, which shineth more and more unto the perfect day. All this is as plain as it is encouraging.
3. Yet they who bring their own impious wills into the worship and service of God can expect no graciousness from God; on them, sooner or later, the solemn judgments of a righteous God, who cannot allow His claims to be trifled with, must fall. I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me.
II. GOD DEALS WITH WORSHIPPERS ON THE TERMS OF THEIR OWN PROFESSION.
1. If men come near Him, honestly seeking Him, He will meet them as seekers, and they shall surely find Him.
2. But when men approach as priests, He will demand from them such worship and incense as priests should offer.
3. They who come before God as worshippers are regarded by Him as no longer seekers, enquirers, asking the right way to Him, but as those who believe they know and profess to have found. From such He requires the true worship, the acceptable offering. If their censer smokes with unhallowed fire, if they offer unto God the elements of a spurious worship, if they essay to tread His courts unwashed, unsanctified, unsubdued, if they place on His altar the workings of their own corrupt will, judgment must be the result. There will be (a) the immediate rejection of all worship which has not the Father for its goal, Christ for its substance and hope, the Holy Spirit for its sanctity and acceptableness; and there will be (b) the fearful judgment at the last, when all folly and wrong will be accursed.
4. Gods holiness is as quick to reject all strange fire, as His grace is quick to accept the faintest, feeblest breathings of a true heart. He must pour out His righteous judgment upon all false worship, though He will never quench the smoking flax, or break the bruised reed.
III. YET WHAT AN ENORMITY OF SPURIOUS WORSHIP GOES UP BEFORE GOD.
1. Very much of that which passes among men for worship of God is but strange fire after all. There is neither the pure fire nor the pure incense, and therefore heaven accepts it not.
2. Attainment to the true qualities of hallowed worship is a result of divine grace in the soul. He who knows through grace the pardon which the blood of Christ brings, he who has received the illumination of the Holy Ghost, can worship the Father in spirit and in truth.
3. It is consolatory to turn our thoughts from the vain worship which within so many shrines is burned before the Lord, to consider the true worship which from so many honest and Christian hearts is ascending to Gods sanctuary.
IV. THE JUST JUDGMENT, WHICH FALSITY OF WORSHIP EVOKES, CANNOT FAIL TO COME.
1. It tarries now, because of the interposing grace of Christ, staying the plague, arresting the doom. During this age of grace, God is in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. Therefore the judgment falls not direct, as on Nadab and Abihu it did, on spurious worshippers.
2. Yet the throne of God cannot ever continue to be insulted by clouds of impure incense ascending from unpurged worshippers. Strange fire will ultimately be quenched for ever, and all that is spurious be abolished, and the whole universe become as one hallowed temple wherein the true God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, shall be adored in acceptable and reverent worship throughout the everlasting ages.
Topic: A WARNING TO WORSHIPPERS (Lev. 10:1-2)
There are three circumstances in which the Old Testament dispensation deserves our notice.
(1) As it prefigured the times of the gospel and the sacrifice of Christthe law a shadow.
(2) As it showed the true requisites of acceptable worship.
(3) As it plainly marks the solemnity which God attaches to all the institutions of His own appointment. Everything was marked by severity. The Sabbath breaker was punished with death, disobedience to parents with death, the slightest infraction of a solemn ordinance was punished with death. Instance before us, Nadab and Abihu. Say not we have no concern. The dispensation differs, but the Lawgiver is still the same (Heb. 12:28-29). Tabernacle typified Christ (Heb. 9:8).
Consider the circumstances, warnings, inferences. Necessary to mark these.
I. THE CHIEF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH THE HISTORY RECORDS.
1. The setting up of the tabernacle. This had been erected at a great expense, and was truly a national work, and the completion of it was a subject of universal congratulation. No labour was withheld, no cost spared, no difficulty considered; all ages, all classes, all ranks, almost all hands were employed in forwarding it (Exo. 35:20). It had been framed after the pattern in the mount, by Gods express appointment, as the Lord commanded. The most consummate skill had been employed in its erection; and as they saw its hallowed curtains finished, they rejoiced with an elevated and a reasonable joy. They felt that they were no longer aliens; they had the visible symbol of Gods presence; they were raised to the dignity of moral life; they had a sanctuary to which they might repair, and, amidst the toils of the wilderness, there was one object on which the eye might rest, one sacred enclosure which formed the link between earth and heaven. It was their refuge in danger, their guide in perplexity, their solace in weariness, and their hope when every other hope failed them.
2. The acceptance of their sacrifices. At length the expected day arrived when the tabernacle should be publicly consecrated and the first services performed. Ten thousand hearts beat with warm devotion when the solemnities began. Moses and Aaron, the elders of Israel, the Levitical priesthood, the great congregationall were assembled. And now the sin offering for Aaron was to be presented. The beasts were slain, the ceremonies performed, the blood was sprinkled, the wave offering was offered; Aaron, in the ardour of devotion and with a heart overflowing with love, blessed the people (23, 24). The sacrifice was accepted.
3. The death of Nadab and Abihu. And Nadab and Abihu took each a censer and put fire. This had been distinctly prohibitedwent beyond Gods ordinance. It was a virtual contempt of the authority of God, a dishonour to the spiritual nature of that institution. They were, probably, over-elated with the honour of their new function, and perhaps, with the headstrong vanity of irreligious youth, anxious to overstep the ordinary forms and show their independence of the example and authority of Aaron. The Jewish doctors suppose that these young men were intoxicated with wine, and had also neglected to make the proper distinctions in the sacrifices (from 8 and 9).
Their sin was compounded of impiety, presumption, and sacrilege. And there went out fire from the Lord. Fire was their sin, fire their punishment. God saw that fire was the fittest vengeance for a sin of firehis own fire for their strange fire; the same fire which consumed the sacrifice now consumed the sacrificers. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. They had to do with one who was wise to prescribe His own worship, just to require what He hath prescribed, and powerful to avenge what was in opposition to His command.
There is something inexpressibly awful in the thought that the service of the sanctuary began with death and judgment before the mercy-seat (46).
II. THE WARNINGS WHICH THE TEXT PERPETUATES.
Lay it to heart, and remember that it is as effectual to all the purposes of solemn caution as though it had occurred but yesterday and had taken place within the precincts of a Christian temple. Is is recorded for your instruction. God is the same, religion is the same, worship is the same, and the sanctions of Gospel ordinances are the same; the only difference is that the punishment is deferred till death, and that instead of earthly and material fire, those who mock God in His ordinances will be exposed to a fire never quenched, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
1. The awful solemnity which God attaches to the ordinances of religion. I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me. This law has never been repealed, but it has been renewed and perpetuated by Christ Himself God is a spirit. Exo. 10:22. Sanctified God will be, either in the spirituality of mens worship, or the severity of their condemnation. Let us beware of falling into their sin. When we come with prayerless and unsanctified hearts, with worldly affections, with profane imaginations, when we worship without spirituality of mind, without imploring the grace of the Holy Spirit, and without a lively faith in the sacrifice and intercession of Christ, we bring common fire, strange fire, to the altar. These flames were never of His kindling. He hates both altar and fire, priest and sacrifice. Who can calculate our guilt?
Remember this, ye who only come to trifle, who never pray before you come, who make no conscience of spiritual worshipremember, you never leave His house as you enter it. You leave it with a heavier weight of guilt. Keep thy foot, etc. (Ecc. 5:1).
2. No outward profession, no forms of religion, however specious, will avail without internal piety. Nadab and Abihu had been anointed with holy oil, set apart by God Himself, clad with beautiful garments, had taken part in a sacrifice which had been accepted (Lev. 9:9). But all this was as nothing. What a lesson to ministers! Well may we tremble, answerable for the spirit we diffuse in prayer, etc.
3. The piety of parents will form no shield for the iniquity of children Aarons sacrifice had been accepted, his sons were smitten instantly. We might have pleaded their youth and inexperience, a first offence, their relation to Aaron. Even Aaron had not a word.
III. THE INFERENCES WHICH THIS EVENT SUPPLIES.
1. Bless God for the more gracious age in which you live, that mercy now rejoices against judgment
2. Mourn the iniquity of your holy things. Even our very approaches to God, our prayers, hymns, services, are all marred by our sad defects, in spirit, manner, and aim.
3. Implore the divine Spirit to help your infirmities, for we know not what to pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered, and maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God (Rom. 8:26-27).Rev. Samuel Thodey, A.D. 1822.
Topic: THE SILENCE OF AARONS SORROW (Lev. 10:3)
The sudden and awful destruction of Nadab and Abihu filled the heart of their father with unutterable grief. It must have been a most appalling sight to see two young men clad in priestly vestments smitten dead before the Lord in the midst of an iniquitous act of innovation. But Aaron held his peace. Let us notice
1. THE POIGNANT CHARACTER OF AARONS SORROW. The blow came and smote (i.) his patriotismhe would feel that Israel as a nation was disgraced; (ii.) his pietyreligion was dishonoured and God insulted; (iii.) his paternity. As a man, he would have felt deeply had any two men of Israel met with such a doom; but for the victims to be HIS SONS, the flower and promise of his family, this would make his grief exceedingly great. He may have looked upon them with pardonable pride the day before, when they stood by his side and received the commendation of the Lord; now he stands beside them with unutterable shame, as well as sorrow, as he sees them lying lifeless under the condemnation of the Lord.
(1) It is a great grief for parents to watch their children die when they have seen the end approaching, and have prepared their hearts to meet the bereavement by its slow approach; but in Aarons case the bereavement was sudden, there were no premonitions to prepare the fathers heart to meet it.
(2) It is a great grief for parents to surrender their children even when they feel sure they die in the Lord, and that God gently takes their life away; but, in Aarons case, his sons died under the frown of the Lord, and concerning their future he could have no sure and certain hope. To lose two sons under such circumstances was sorrow of the most poignant kind.
II. THE PATIENT CONDUCT OF AARON UNDER SUCH SORROW.
The catastrophe struck him dumb. He restrained himself, and refrained from uttering any comment on the event, any complaint against God. It was not the silence of stoicism, or sullenness, or obstinacy; but of devout and reticent submission. He heard what Moses had to say upon the event; he felt his sons had grossly insulted the Lord; that Gods glory must be vindicated; that the punishment was merited; so, he held his peace. He offered no objection, asked for no explanation; knew he could not reverse the verdict, could not restore the victims; it was an irreparable loss! He held his peace; no language of his could have described his grief, or conveyed a fair idea of his sorrow. He held his peace with men, but by thought, which is inarticulate speech, he could tell his grief to God. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth sometimes cannot speak; at such a time as this, in the hidden depths of the spirit, the heart only knows its own bitterness. This incident of Aaron silently and meekly bearing his great grief teaches us that one of the most consistent and expressive ways to show our sincere sorrow in the hour of any great calamity, is by holding our peace. Silence at such a time is (a) safe, (b) devout, (c) consistent. The silence must be holy and resigned; for there may be rebellion and anger in the heart when the lips are dumb.F. W. B.
Topic: PRIESTLY ELEVATION ABOVE PRIVATE SORROW (Lev. 10:6-7)
Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar were to remain unmoved in their elevated place, their holy dignity, their position of priestly sanctity. Neither the failure, nor the judgment consequent thereon, was to be allowed to interfere with those who wore the priestly robes and were anointed with the oil of the Lord. Those outside might bewail the burning, but as for Aaron and his sons, they were to go on in the discharge of their hallowed ministries.
I. WORSHIP, NOT LAMENTATION, IS THE SOLEMN FUNCTION OF PRIESTS.
Priests in the sanctuary were not to bewail but to adore; not to weep as in the presence of death, but to bow their anointed heads as in the presence of the divine visitation. The fire of the Lord might act and do its solemn work of judgment, but to a true priest it mattered not what that fire came to doto express divine approval by consuming the sacrifice, or divine displeasure by smiting sin; that fire was the known manifestation of God, and whether it acted in mercy or judgment the business of all true priests was to worship. I will sing of mercy and of judgment; unto thee, O Lord, will I sing.
II. They who have the anointing of the Holy Ghost must MAINTAIN AN ELEVATION OF SOUL ABOVE NATURES WEAKNESSES.
1. Priestly nearness to God gives the soul an insight into all Gods ways, and such a sense of the rightness of all His dispensations that one is enabled to worship in His presence, even though the stroke of His hand has removed from us the object of tender affection.
2. Though godly souls feel as men, they worship as priests. They are not stoics; but an elevated spiritual life opens up a region to the soul brought nigh to God of thought, feeling, experience, in which nature can never move; a region in which, with all its boasted refinement and self-sufficiency, nature (unhallowed by Gods grace and unsustained by the Lords sufficiency) knows nothing. We must tread the sanctuary of God with true priestly energy, in order to enter into the depth, the meaning, and power of such holy mysteries.
The prophet Ezekiel was called, in his day, to sit down to this difficult lesson (Eze. 24:16-18); and it proves that in prophetic testimony, as well as in priestly worship, we must rise superior to all the claims and influences of nature and of earth.
III. OUR HIGH PRIESTLY PRIVILEGES MAY BE FORFEITED BY THE ASSERTION OF NATURES FRAILTIES.
Too often sanctified and hallowed souls fall below their divine elevation.
1. Nothing save realised priestly nearness to God can preserve the heart from the power of evil or maintain its spiritual tone.
2. All believers are priests unto God, and nothing can deprive them of their position as such. But though they cannot lose their position they may grievously fail in the discharge of their functions. While looking at the precious truth of the believers security we may forget the possibility of our failing to discharge our sacred duties.
3. There is continual need of watchfulness and prayer, that the hallowed elevation of priests unto God be preserved. His heavenly grace alone will preserve us from every species of failure, whether it be personal defilement, or the presentation of any of the varied forms of strange fire, which abound so in the professing Church, or in the yielding to personal weakness of grief and complaint of our frail human nature.Developed from Notes on Leviticus, by C. H. M.
Topic: EXCITATIONS PERILOUS TO COMMUNION (Lev. 10:8-11)
The effect of wine is to excite nature; and all natural excitement hinders that calm, well-balanced condition of soul which is essential to the proper discharge of the priestly office.
I. Each should discover for himself WHAT ACTS UPON HIM AS A DELETERIOUS EXCITEMENT.
1. The causes which excite are manifold indeed; wealth, ambition, politics, the varied objects of emulation around us in the world, as well as wine and strong drink.
2. Acting upon us with exciting power, they entirely unfit us from every department of priestly service. If the heart be swollen with (a) feelings of pride, covetousness or emulation, it is utterly imopssible that the pure air of the sanctuary can be enjoyed, or the sacred functions of priestly ministry discharged. Men speak of the versatility of genius, or a capacity of turning quickly from one thing to another; but the most versatile genius ever possessed could not enable a man to pass from (b) an unhallowed arena of literary, commercial or political competition, into the holy retirement of the sanctuary of the divine presence; nor could it so adjust the eye that has become dimmed by the influence of such scenes as to enable it to discern, with priestly accuracy, the difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean.
II. GODS PRIESTS MUST KEEP THEMSELVES APART FROM UNHALLOWED EXCITATIONS.
1. Theirs is a path of holy separation and abstraction. They are called aside from and raised far above the influence of merely earthly joy as well as earthly sorrow. In other words, the joy of Gods priests is not the joy of earth, but the joy of heaven, the joy of the sanctuary. The joy of the Lord is their strength.
2. Hence, everything that incapacitates us for our priestly function, that tends to derange our priestly relation or dim our priestly vision, must unfit us for the service we are called to render. The heart must be kept right, the conscience pure, the eye single, the spiritual vision undimmed.
3. The souls business in the holy place must be faithfully and diligently attended to, else all will go wrong. Private communion with God must be kept up, else we shall be fruitless as servants, and defeated as men of war. It is vain for us to bustle about, and run hither and thither in what we call service, or indulge in vapid words about Christian valour and warfare. If we are not keeping our priestly garments unspotted, if we are not keeping ourselves free from all that would excite nature, we shall assuredly fail and be defeated. Our success in every department depends on our cultivating a spirit of worship.
(a) Let us then exercise a spirit of self-judgment over our habits, our ways, our associations. It is the business of each one to be fully aware of what is to him as wine and strong drink, what blunts his spiritual perceptions. It may be the auction mart, a cattle show, a newspaperthe merest trifle. But if it tends to excite, it will disqualify us for future ministry.
(b) When by grace we discern aught that in the slightest degree unfits us for the elevated exercises of the sanctuary, let us put it away, cost what it may. Let us not suffer ourselves to become slaves of a habit.
(c) Communion with God should be dearer to our hearts than all besides; and just in proportion as we prize that communion shall we watch and pray against everything that would rob us of it, against everything that would excite, ruffle or unhinge.
(d) The more we live in the presence of God, the less we can bear to be out of it; and no one who knows the deep joy of being there could lightly indulge in aught that would take or keep him thence. There is not that object within the compass of earth which would, in the judgment of a spiritual mind, be an equivalent for one hours fellowship with God.
By abiding in the secret retirement of His holy presence, and keeping implicitly to His truth, we shall be kept from false worship of every kind, and fleshly excitement in all its forms; so shall we be enabled to carry ourselves aright in every department of priestly ministration, and to enjoy all the privileges of our priestly position. The communion of a Christian is easily hurt by the rude influences of an evil world; within the sacred precincts of the divine presence all is pure, safe, and happy.
Far from a world of grief and sin,
With God eternally shut in.
[See Addenda, p. 151, Sensationalism.]Vide, C. H. M.
Topic: THE UNRELAXING STRICTNESS OF THE RITUAL (Lev. 10:12-20).
The Lord having spoken unto Aaron (Lev. 10:8), showing that he was not dismissed from service on account of the sins of his sonsMoses now addresses him and his two surviving sons upon the law of eating the holy things; showing they were still as priests to draw near to the Lord, and mediate for the people.
Workers may sin and die, but Gods work must go on. The reiteration of the law of the meat offering was useful and timely, as Aaron and his sons may have forgotten it in alarm and confusion at the calamity just occurred. They were to partake of their portion according to the law of the Lord, as their due, according to the commandment of the Lord.
Then having given these directions concerning the offerings, Moses betrays some misgivings respecting the full observance of the sin-offering ritual: and Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold it was burnt; this made him angry, he questioned the sons of Aaron upon their delinquency, and assured them that they might and ought to have eaten what was appointed them as their share of the sacrifice in the holy place [See Lev. 6:26-29.] Aaron offered an apology for the omission, and Moses accepted it. Let us look
I. AT THE FAILURE OF THE PRIESTS TO FULFIL THE REQUIRED RITUAL.
Moses reminded them that he had enjoined it upon them; that what he enjoined he received from the Lord; the portion allotted them was the gift of God, and given in connection with the privilege of acting as typical sin bearers of the congregation. How jealous Moses was for the honour and strict observance of the ritual: he would not have any part of it neglected under any circumstances or pretext. They were to be performed in the right time, place, and manner, as well as in the right spirit. Neither priests nor people were at liberty to innovate upon the details of the offerings.
II. AT THE CAUSES OF THE FAILURE, (a) An overwhelming feeling of sorrow. Aaron said: Such things have befallen me, and they were such things of sorrow as no language could describe; he had held his peace under the stroke of a double simultaneous bereavement, but such things had not been known by him before, nor had he heard of any such things occurring in connection with any other family. He had been overwhelmed, and that had contributed to the failure to comply with what was required of him and his sons. (b) An overawing fear of sin. He feared that if he had eaten of the sin-offering it might not have been accepted of the Lord, that too much sin clung to him and his sons, and he would rather leave the rite uncompleted than perform it in a wrong spirit. Aaron apprehended the great truth that God is a Spirit, and that those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Aaron felt that with such feelings as pervaded his breast, to have eaten his portion of the sin-offering would have been a mere empty and meaningless form. Such a full and frank acknowledgment of deviation and unworthiness satisfied Moses, and he said no more.
III. AT THE FORGIVENESS OF THE FAILURE. It is not directly stated that Aaron and his sons were forgiven, but doubtless they were. The Lord allowed the omission to pass unnoticed; and evidently, Mosesalthough he was angry at firstsaw that, in the exceptional circumstances under which the failure occurred, no dishonour was intended, and no offence was offered to the Lord. The sin of Aarons sons in offering strange fire was a positive outrage. The sin of Aaron and his two surviving sons was a simple failure. Forgiveness was granted on the ground (a) of human infirmity. Aaron and his sons must have been physically, as well as mentally and morally, exhausted by the sorrow into which they were so suddenly plunged; they felt constrained to fast as well as to weep. The flesh was weak, though the spirit may have been willing. (b) Of spiritual sincerity. Aaron declared he was afraid that if he ate he might do so unworthily and unacceptably; that he shrank from a forced and false compliance with the letter of the law. (c) Of Divine clemency. Moses knew that God was a jealous God, that the ritual was very rigid and exacting; and yet he knew that the Lord was merciful and ready to forgive. He pointed out the error and failing to his brother, then held his peace, content with what Aaron had to say in his defence. In all our service and worship we have to do with a God who pities those who fear Him, even as a father pities his children; who knows our frame, and remembers that we are dust. All errors and failings, yea, all sin, may now be forgiven through Christs one great atonement, if only the penitent ask in faith and sincerity.F. W. B.
Topic: NO JOY BEFORE GODS ALTAR (Lev. 10:18-19)
Origen (A. D. 185254) in his Commentary on Leviticus (In Levit., Hom. viii.) supplies suggestions based on Aarons grief amid his priestly ministrations which may be headed
CHRISTS GRIEF AT GODS HEAVENLY ALTAR:
And reflects thus: My Saviour even now is mourning for my sin. How can He, who is the Advocate for my sins, drink the wine of gladness when I am grieving Him with my transgressions? He is therefore in sorrow as long as we remain in error For we cannot think that while Paul mourned for sinners and wept for the guilty, my Lord Jesus abstains from weeping when He approaches the Father, when He stands near the Altar and offers the propitiation for us. And this is the meaning of the prohibition against drinking the wine of gladness when coming near the altar, for Christ suffers still the bitterness for our sins.
In the Benedictine Breviary this passage from Origen formed one of the lectures or readings, and its teaching became thus diffused over the whole Catholic Church.
St. Bernard (A.D. 10911153) recognising the erroneousness of doctrinal teaching in this comment of Origen, wrote a special discourse [S. Bernardi Serm. xxxiv. de verbis Origenis, see Canon Jenkins Devotion to the Sacred Heart] pointing out the error and danger of extending the sufferings of Christ, either in body or mind, into the reign of His glory. On earth he exclaims, Jesus truly wept, was truly sorrowful, truly suffered, truly died, was truly buried. But now that He is risen again, old things are passed away. Seek not then thy Beloved on His bed; He is risen, He is not here Now He is no longer among the dead, but is taken from the midst of them, changed in body, changed in heart, He hath entered into the majesty of the Lord Though our Lord wept over Jerusalem, now He weeps no more for ever (even as raised from the dead He dieth no more); and as rising from His bed He is no more found therein. Yet He hath now an unspeakably larger and more effectual feeling than they have who mourn for sinners, or lay down their lives for their brethren; although He who hath finished His work can no longer do either of these acts of mercy.
OUTLINES ON VERSES OF CHAPTER 10
Lev. 10:1.Theme: SELF-EXALTING ZEAL.
Sounds of high joy had first been swelling through the holy court: sure tokens of approving love had rested on the altar.
But a vile foe is always near. Satan sees the sacred hour, and flies to mar. He sees the gospel of that heaven-sent fire, and will strive to quench.
I. NO STATION IS TOO HIGH FOR TEMPTATION TO ASSAIL.
The foe has keys for every gate. Though the place is sacred and the office holy, no consecrated functions scare him back. He seeks the side of Aarons first-born sons. Their calling to be priests is no protecting shield. He can ascend the altar steps. He knows the fit temptation for the holiest place. So now he fosters self-exalting zeal. He leads to worship, but the worship must be strange. Such was his bait: mark its success.
II. SELF-WILL OFFERINGS HAVE NO PLACE IN GODS WORSHIP.
1. Their first step strays. Each takes his censer. God did not require this act: it was not His will.
2. The next act errs more. They add fire. Whence was it brought? God has provided what alone He would receive. An outstretched hand might instantly obtain the divinely sanctioned fire.
3. Was there defiant reasoning on their part? What, will no other flame avail? Will His altar fire alone cause incense to ascend? Impious self-will thus reasons unto ruin.
4. A strange service is acted Their hands feign holy work, but rebel feet tread down Gods ordinance.
III. TO DESPISE GOD IS RAPID DOWNFALL.
1. His frown is withering blight: it arms each creature with destructive sting. Behold a proof. The pledge of favour, fire, inflicts sudden death! The symbol of accepted service now hurls the disobedient into ruins gulf.
2. The fire thus scorned, puts forth its mighty strength; acts out Gods indignation. It vindicates its sacred import. They who rejected the fire of God cannot now cast it off. It wraps them in its burning arms, and lays their blackened corpses in the dust. Thus Nadab and Abihu perish from the earth.
IV. THE JUDGMENT OF GOD STILL LIVES FOR TRANSGRESSORS.
This story stands as a dark beacon on a rocky coast. It cries, beware! to all despisers of the gospel scheme. It shows that
1. They who stray from Gods appointed path, fall into quicksands of tremendous wrath. It declares that
2. If men despise, reject, neglect the atonement God has provided, death without a remedy is near.The Very Rev. Henry Law, D.D.
Lev. 10:2Theme: DESPISING GODS ALTAR.
I. ON THAT ALTAR BURNED THE SYMBOL OF GODS GRACE FOR MEN.
Fire given by Him, as
1. A seal of His acceptance of human offerings.
2. A sanctifying element rendering sacrifice efficacious.
II. FROM THAT ALTAR SCORNERS TURN IN WILFUL PRESUMPTION.
They despise the grace, they reject the provisions of God. There are Nadabs and Abihus still. Who are they?
1. They hear of Christ and refuse His sufferings and merits for their own salvation.
2. They see the cross and reject it as the symbol of faith. They rather choose a self-created fire: merits of their own. They develop an obedience of their own contriving.
III. ALL SUBSTITUTED MERITS ARE HATEFUL TO A GRACIOUS GOD.
The sin of Nadab and Abihu, therefore, re-appears to-day in the
1. Self-righteous. A round of duties towards God, of charity towards men: and they ask, what lack we more? But what is mans best? Rags and pollution. Yet for these, Gods well-beloved Son is scorned, His righteousness put aside.
2. Self-reformation. Flagrant faults are shunned. Foul transgressions have soiled their lives. These they own and flee. But they bring self-reformation fruits, Cain-like, and lay them on fire for offerings. Self-amendments are their incense. But outward changes are not inward grace; a painted surface will not purify a tomb.
3. Contrition is offered. Feelings are stirred, tears flow. The tempter whispersthere is merit in tears. The mourning spirit fondly hopes that mourning can bring peace. Sorrow when brought as the price of pardon is strange.
4. Formalists crowd Gods courts in studied reverence. Their lips drop holiest words, their hands touch holiest symbols. If rites and outward decorum were devotion, they worship indeed. But such worshippers reject the substance and rest on signs. They stay no wrath, purge no sins.
(a) What does your censer contain?
(b) Christs merits alone are delightful incense to God.
Lev. 10:3.Theme: VIOLATION OF SANCTITY. I will be sanctified, etc.
I. THE ESSENCE OF THEIR SIN in their conduct before the Lord.
1. The emphasis is to be placed on the word I. I will be sanctified. God must be served with sanctity: and He must be alone considered in our worship, and not ourselves or others.
2. This implies that when deviations from divine and clearly defined instructions occur, the Lord charges that such deviations do not enhance His glory: neither is He sanctified in those who are guilty of such deviations.
II. THE REQUISITES IN WORSHIP which are hereby enforced.
1. The only acceptable manner of administering the ordinances of Gods housestrict observance of the prescribed order. Not with the strange fire of will worship.
2. The unfitness of those who minister in holy things who neglect the proper observance of the ordinances, and teach men so to do.
3. Avoid everything which would disqualify us for acceptable worship.D. C. Hughes, A.M.
Lev. 10:3.Theme: THE SILENCE OF AARON.
Of the silence of grief there is no example more renowned than that of Aaron. This was truly the silence of grief, and no reproach of insensibility can be attached to him.
I. THE CONDUCT OF AARON MUST BE EXPLAINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE WHOLE EVENTS.
1. The slaying of his sons was a necessity. in order to arrest further presumption and profanity spreading throughout all Israel.
2. Gods holy ordinances had been outraged, whose penalty was death.
II. It is the case of GODLY HUMILITY to be thus silent in the bosom of an irreparable loss, of a profound affliction.
III. In this mute sorrow, there is also more than wise humility; as we must see there also ACQUIESCENCE.
Aaron cannot bide from himself that his sons merited their fate.
IV. It is just to recognise in this conduct LOWLY AND FIRM RESIGNATION.
1. Rebellion speaks.
2. Resignation holds its peace. A. Coquerel.
Lev. 10:3Theme: MUTE SUFFERING.
I. HOW GREAT THE GRACE NEEDED FOR THIS.
II. How exemplary THE USE OF NEEDED GRACE in such a trial as this.
Let us learn to submit to Gods judgments however severe.D. C. Hughes, A.M. [See Addenda p. 151, Submission.]
Lev. 10:3.Theme: SUBMISSION TO GOD IN AFFLICTION. And Aaron held his peace
The becoming behaviour of a servant of God under very great and sore affliction: who, through divine assistance, stilled the murmurings of nature and replied nothing against God. Observe
I. That the CHILDREN OF GOD ARE SOMETIMES LIABLE TO SEVERE AFFLICTION, both personal and relative. David complains (Psa. 38:2). Job also (Job. 9:27). Pauls testimony (2Co. 5:4). And it is in heaven only where all tears shall be wiped from their eyes (Rev. 7:17). The blessed God intends by their afflictions their advantage in time and eternity.
1. He never afflicts till there is a real necessity (1Pe. 4:16).
2. He afflicts in wisdom (Heb. 12:9-10).
3. In measure (1Co. 10:13).
4. In love and tenderness (Pro. 3:12; Heb. 12:5-6; Rev. 3:19).
5. To sanctify our hearts and affection (Heb. 12:10).
6. To save us from condemnation (2Co. 4:17).
7. They are but light and momentary (Psa. 30:5; Isa. 54:7-8; 2Co. 4:17).
II. What is implied in being SILENT IN TRIALS AND AFFLICTIONS?
Not a careless indifference (Heb. 12:5).
Not a sullen, daring obstinacy (Jer. 5:3).
Not a restraint of prayer before God, nor a restraint of communication before a real friend (Job. 19:22). But
1. A deep sense of Gods hand in what we suffer (Psa. 39:9; Isa. 38:15; 1Sa. 2:6)
2. An humble acquiesence in the justice of His proceedings.
3. A resigning ourselves to His pleasure (Mat. 26:39).
4. Acknowledging His right in us, to do as He thinks best Job. 1:21).
III. Considerations by which TO INDUCE SUCH A GRACIOUS TEMPER OF MIND.
1. God has an unquestionable right to dispose of us and ours as He pleases (Rom. 9:21-22).
2. He grants many daily mercies which we do not deserve.
3. We have sinned against Him (Mic. 7:9).
4. The sufferings of Christ for us were infinitely greater than are ours (Isa. 53:4-5; Heb. 2:10).
5. We shall be adjudged unworthy to reign with Him if we do not suffer with Him (Mat. 10:39)
6. In afflicting His people God has a view to His own glory (Lev. 10:3).
Improvement
1. To be impatient under affliction is unbecoming in a child of God, considered as a new creature.
2. To oppose our wills to the will of God is high presumption (Isa. 6:9).
3. It is inconsistent with our prayers.
4. It would subject us to the charge of ingratitude to our best Friend and Benefactor, who has drawn us to Christ, pardoned our sins, given us the spirit of adoption, and made us heirs of a glorious immortality, and who is, by these very afflictions, preparing us for our heavenly state (2Co. 4:17)Hannum.
Lev. 10:6.Theme: PUBLIC LAMENTATION.
Aaron and his sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, were to refrain from exhibiting outward signs of grief; were not to uncover their heads so that their hair might not become dishevelled; nor rend their clothes, as was the custom at such times of sorrow. They were to suppress their grief, lest they seemed to rebel against the retributive providence of God and unfit themselves for their duties; lost they die. and wrath come upon all the people. They were to show in the presence of the people supreme love to the Lord, and unmoved, exalted devotion to His service. Although Aaron and his two sons were not to disengage themselves from their duties nor exhibit outward signs of grief there was to be a general lamentation, evincing:
I. PUBLIC RECOGNITION OF A SIGNAL JUDGMENT. The sin was too great to be passed unnoticed by the people, and the judgment was too solemn to be hushed up and treated as of transient moment; the whole house of Israel was to bewail the burning which the Lord had kindled. They were to lament the sin that had caused the judgment, and the sudden transformation of a joyful ceremony into a scene of lamentation and woe. Such a public and sorrowful recognition of the divine judgment would impress the people with the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and be calculated to deter them from repeating a similar offence; would teach them the dignity of the Law, and jealousy of the Lawgiver for His own glory. The people were to show, by an act of national humiliation and sorrow, that they deplored the sin, and deprecated the divine anger. The general lamentation also evinced
II. PUBLIC SYMPATHY WITH A SIGNAL SORROW. Slight sorrows are loquacious, deep anguish has no voice. The sight of the whole congregation mourning, weeping, and wailing, would help Aaron and his sons to bear their griefs; especially when they knew that the Lord had commanded the public lamentation. The expressed grief of the sympathising people would be the counterpart of the suppressed grief of the sorrowing priests. Similar judgments following flagrant sins are recorded in 2Sa. 6:7; 1Ch. 13:10; Num. 15:32-36. We further learn
(a) That when the leaders of a people sin, the whole community shares in the blame.
(b) That when the leaders of a people are signally punished, the whole community shares in the sorrow.
(c) That bereavement, even of the most painful kind, must not prevent us discharging sacred duties.
(d) That sympathy with the bereaved is in keeping with the instincts of our nature, and in harmony with the will of God.
(e) That when Gods righteous wrath is made manifest against sin, penitential grief should be prompt and general.F. W. B.
Lev. 10:9Theme: HELP TO TEMPERANCE.
Combine with this verse, Jer. 35:6; Eph. 5:18; Ephesians
1. Thess. Lev. 5:7.
Intemperance, one of the giant evils of the land, is self imposed. This is its saddest feature All the evils connected with it might be swept away if men so willed.
I. THE NATURAL. Use no intoxicants: and thus never acquire a passion for them.
II. THE MEDICAL. Some treat drunkenness as a disease: and by medicine seek to destroy the appetite for alcohol
III. THE SANITARY. Asylums for inebriates have been opened, which combine physical and moral means to effect a cure: and with success.
IV. THE LEGAL. Its object is to control or arrest the evil; and by prohibition of its manufacture and sale, to remove it from the land.
V. THE VOLUNTARY. This involves the pledge and membership in societies banded together for mutual help and safety. Earnest work for others is a good preventative, so long as it is actively continued.
VI. THE SPIRITUAL. Grace, wherever received, casts out the demon of drink.
VII. THE PHILANTHROPIC. Here is a reform in which to engage. Intemperance is the fruitful source of crime, misery and ruin. The resources it wastes are enormous. Its results on the individual, the family, friends, and country, are appalling.
Dark as is the picture of its ravages, yet the progress made towards sobriety within this century has been considerable. Sidney Smith said that at the beginning of his life, even in the best society, one third of the gentlemen, at least, were always drunk. To-day the use of liquors at public tables is the exception, not the rule.
This beneficent change in public sentiment demands devout thankfulness, and is prophetic of what shall be achieved.Rev. Lewis O. Thompson. [See Addenda p. 151, Intemperance]
Lev. 10:9.Theme: A DIVINE PROHIBITION.
The prohibition, occurring here, seems to indicate the secret of the rashness and rebellion of Nadab and Abihu; that they offered the strange fire before the Lord when under the unhallowed excitement of intoxicating drink. Let us regard the prohibition
I. AS A PRECAUTION AGAINST IMPIOUS PRESUMPTION. The position the priests occupied and the duties they performed would be calculated to excite them. They would require no artificial stimulants to inflame their passions. Participation of wine and strong drink may lead to indulgence and excess, which are the sources of many evils; such as (a) Offensive carelessness; persons become careless about the promises they have made and the duties they have to discharge, heedless of the smiles or frowns of those they profess to please and obey. (b) Offensive independence; persons get puffed up with a vain notion of their dignity and importance, assume absurd airs, and forget their position in, and relation to society around them. (c) Offensive arrogance; persons become overbearing and disrespectful, employ words and perform actions most insulting, and of which they would feel ashamed in their sober hours. (d) Offensive indolence; persons become paralyzed for useful and holy employment; although, frequently they become infuriated and enthusiastic in useless and unholy engagements. None of these things could be tolerated in the service of Jehovah in the tabernacle, for the priests were to be devout, careful, vigilant, were to exercise self-restraint and control; with concentration of strength, and consecration of spirit give themselves up wholly to the Lord. Such a prohibition was therefore necessary and merciful. We may also regard it
II AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST SINFUL INDULGENCE. Tarrying in wine and strong drink is directly opposed to reasonable and acceptable religious service; it perverts the powers of body, mind, and soul. It leads to the perversion (a) of personal endowments. Bodily strength becomes abused, health deteriorated and undermined; mental faculties weakened and frequently deranged; natural geniality and amiability soured. (b) Of Providential bestowments. Princes have been brought to pauperism, fortunes have been wasted at the shrine of Bacchus; homes and friends have been brought to a common ruin by its degraded devotees. (c) Of reasonable enjoyment. The priests were not commanded to abstain from wine and strong drink, except when they were in the tabernacle officiating at the services. They might partake at other seasons, but were to use and not abuse what they were allowed, (d) Of religious ordinances. The various directions of the ritual were so minute and numerous, that except the head was kept clear, the nerves calm, there was a great risk of mistakes being made, of some parts of the ceremonies being omitted. The memories of the priests were to be kept unclouded, their imaginations unexcited, their animal passions uninflamed. Ancient historians speak with great ardour and decision upon the fact, that in connection with heathen worship, the priests were prohibited taking wine during their attendance upon the gods and the performance of their worship. The reasons given are, that indulgence in wine and strong drink induces hesitation, forgetfulness, sleep, folly, and insanity. The prohibiton under consideration subserved divine purposes during the Levitical economy, conduced to the safety and well-being of the priests and the glory of Jehovah. Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty; we may under the gospel abstain from meat as well as wine, if thereby we can be the means of saving a soul from death, and hiding a multitude of sins.F. W. B.
ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 10
PRIDE
In general pride is at the bottom of all great mistakes.RUSKIN, True and Beautiful.
But man, proud man!
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what hes most assurd,
His glassy essencelike an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As makes the angels weep.
Measure for Measure, II. 2.
Pride in their port, defiance in their eye.
GOLDSMITH, The Traveller.
It thrust proud Nebuchadnezzar out of mens society; proud Saul out of his kingdom; proud Adam out of paradise; proud Haman cut of court; proud Lucifer out of heaven.Henry Smith.
What is pride? A whizzing rocket
That would emulate a star.
Wordsworth.
PRESUMPTION
Presumption is a firework made up of pride and foolhardiness. It is indeed like a heavy house built upon slender crutches. Like dust, which men throw against the wind, it flies back in their faces and makes them blind. Wise men presume nothing but hope the best; presumption is hope out of her wits.T. Adams.
Sequitur superbos ultor a tergo Deus.
SENECA.
[An avenging God closely follows the haughty.]
Omne animi vitium tanto conspectius in se
Crimen habet, quarto major, qui peccat habetur.JUVENAL.
[Every vice makes its guilt the more conspicuous in proportion to the rank of the offender.]
It is a dangerous thing in the service of God to decline from His own institutions. We have to do with a Being who is wise to prescribe His own worship, just to require what He hath prescribed, and powerful to revenge that which He hath not required.Bishop Hall.
RASHNESS
Audax omnia perpeti
Gens humana ruit per vetitum nefas
HORACE.
[The human race, afraid of nothing, rushes on through every crime.]
Faucis temeritas est bono, multis malo.
PHAEDRUS.
[Rashness brings advantage to few, misfortune to many.]
Juvenile vitium regere non posse impetum.
SENECA.
[It is the fault of youth that it cannot control its own impetuosity.]
SUBMISSION
Calamity is mans true touch-stone.
Fletcher.
All are not taken! there are left behind
Living beloveds, tender looks to bring
And make the daylight still a happy thing,
And tender voices to make soft the wind.
But if it were not soif I could find
No love in all the world for comforting,
Nor any path but hollowly did ring:
Where Dust to dust the love from life disjoined
And if before these sepulchres unmoving
I stood alone (as some forsaken lamb
Goes bleating up the moors in weary dearth)
Crying, Where are ye, O, my loved and loving?
I know a voice would sound, Daughter, I AM:
Can I suffice for heaven and not for earth?Mrs. Browning.
During the siege of Barcelona by the Spaniards and English, in 1705, an affecting incident occurred, which is thus related by Captain Carleton in his Memoirs: I remember I saw an old officer, having his only son with him, a fine young man, about twenty years of age, going into the tent to dine. While they were at dinner a shot from the bastion of St. Antonio took off the head of his son. The father immediately rose up, first looking down upon his headless child, and then lifting up his eyes to heaven, while the tears ran down his cheeks, only said, Thy will be done!
SENSATIONALISM
Violent fires soon burn out themselves:
Small showers last long, but sudden storms are short:
He tires betimes that spurs too fast betimes:
With eager feeding, food doth choke the feeder:
Light vanity, insatiate cormorant,
Consuming means, soon preys upon itself.
Shakespeare.
INTEMPERANCE
Bonarum rerum consuetudo pessima est.
[The too constant use even of good things is hurtful.]
Touch the goblet no more!
It will make thy heart sore
To its very core!LONGFELLOW, Cristus.
Drunkenness is an immoderate affection and use of drink That I call immoderate that is besides or beyond that order of good things for which God, hath given us the use of drink.JEREMY TAYLOR, Holy Living II. 2.
PUNISHMENT
Punishment is the recoil of crime, and the strength of the back-stroke is in proprotion to the original blow.Trench.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
3. THE SIN AND PUNISHMENT OF NADAB AND ABIHU 10:120
a.
THEIR SIN Lev. 10:1
b.
THEIR PUNISHMENT Lev. 10:2
c.
THE WARNING Lev. 10:3
d.
DISPOSAL OF THE BODIES Lev. 10:4-7
e.
INSTRUCTIONS TO AARON AND HIS SONS Lev. 10:8-11
f.
DISPOSAL OF THE OFFERINGS Lev. 10:12-20
TEXT 10:120
1
And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which he had not commanded them.
2
And there came forth fire from before Jehovah, and devoured them, and they died before Jehovah.
3
Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that Jehovah spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.
4
And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Draw near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.
5
So they drew near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp, as Moses had said.
6
And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Let not the hair of your heads go loose, neither rend your clothes; that ye die not, and that he be not wroth with all the congregation: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which Jehovah hath kindled.
7
And ye shall not go out from the door of the tent of meeting, lest ye die; for the anointing oil of Jehovah is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.
8
And Jehovah spake unto Aaron, saying,
9
Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
10
and that ye may make a distinction between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean;
11
and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which Jehovah hath spoken unto them by Moses.
12
And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meal-offering that remaineth of the offerings of Jehovah made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar; for it is most holy;
13
and ye shall eat it in a holy place, because it is thy portion, and thy sons portion, of the offerings of Jehovah made by fire: for so I am commanded.
14
And the wave-breast and the heave-thigh shall ye eat in a clean place, thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they are given as thy portion, and thy sons portion, out of the sacrifices of the peace-offerings of the children of Israel.
15
The heave-thigh and the wave-breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave-offering before Jehovah: and it shall be thine, and thy sons with thee, as a portion for ever; as Jehovah hath commanded.
16
And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin-offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar, the sons of Aaron that were left, saying,
17
Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin-offering in the place of the sanctuary, seeing it is most holy, and he hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before Jehovah?
18
Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within: ye should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.
19
And Aaron spake unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before Jehovah; and there have befallen me such things as these: and if I had eaten the sin-offering to-day, would it have been well-pleasing in the sight of Jehovah?
20
And when Moses heard that, it was well-pleasing in his sight.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 10:120
180.
Just what is involved in strange fire? Strange as compared with what?
181.
Was the sin in the choice of the fire or in the attitude of those who offered it?
182.
From where did the fire originate that devoured them? Where were they when they died?
183.
Moses interpreted the death of Aarons sons as being a vindication of what?
184.
Evidently Nadab and Abihu were not near the Lord. Explain. What did Aaron say to Moses words?
185.
Who were Mishael and Elzaphan? Why call on them for this task?
186.
Why werent their coats consumed by the fire?
187.
What is meant by the phrase: Do not let the hair of your head hang loose?
188.
Why not mourn these deaths?
189.
How long were Aaron and his sons to stay with the tabernacle?
190.
Were Nadab and Abihu drunk when they were slain?
191.
Just what is involved in the use of the terms clean and uncleanholy and common?
192.
Please notice the vast import of Lev. 10:11. Discuss the full work of the priests.
193.
What possible purpose did Moses have in giving careful instructions to Aaron and his sons as in Lev. 10:12 ff?
194.
Moses was upset about the goat of the sin offering. What was the problem? What was the answer of Aaron?
PARAPHRASE 10:120
But Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, placed unholy fire in their censers, laid incense on the fire, and offered the incense before the Lordcontrary to what the Lord had just commanded them! So fire blazed forth from the presence of the Lord and destroyed them. Then Moses said to Aaron, This is what the Lord meant when He said, I will show Myself holy among those who approach Me, and I will be glorified before all the people, And Aaron was speechless. Then Moses called for Mishael and Elzaphan, Aarons cousins, the sons of Uzziel, and told them, Go and get the charred bodies from before the tabernacle, and carry them outside the camp. So they went over and got them, and carried them out in their coats as Moses had told them to. Then Moses said to Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, Do not mourndo not let your hair hang loose as a sign of your mourning, and do not tear your clothes. If you do, God will strike you dead too, and His wrath will come upon all the people of Israel. But the rest of the people of Israel may lament the death of Nadab and Abihu, and mourn because of the terrible fire the Lord has sent. But you are not to leave the tabernacle under penalty of death, for the anointing oil of Jehovah is upon you. And they did as Moses commanded. Now the Lord instructed Aaron, Never drink wine or strong drink when you go into the tabernacle, lest you die; and this rule applies to your sons and to all your descendants from generation to generation. Your duties will be to arbitrate for the people, to teach them the difference between what is holy and what is ordinary, what is pure and what is impure; and to teach them all the laws Jehovah has given through Moses. Then Moses said to Aaron and to his sons who were left, Eleazar and Ithamar, Take the grain offeringthe food that remains after the handful has been offered to the Lord by burning it on the altarmake sure there is no leaven in it, and eat it beside the altar. The offering is most holy; therefore you must eat it in the sanctuary, in a holy place, It belongs to you and to your sons, from the offerings to Jehovah made by fire; for so I am commanded. But the breast and the thigh, which have been offered to the Lord by the gesture of waving it before Him, may be eaten in any holy place. It belongs to you and to your sons and daughters for your food. It is your portion of the peace offering sacrifices of the people of Israel. The people are to bring the thigh that was set aside, along with the breast that was offered when the fat was burned, and they shall be presented before the Lord by the gesture of waving them. And afterwards they shall belong to you and your family, for the Lord has commanded this. Then Moses searched everywhere for the goat of the sin offering and discovered that it had been burned! He was very angry about this with Eleazar and Ithamar, the remaining sons of Aaron. Why havent you eaten the sin offering in the sanctuary, since it is most holy, and God has given it to you to take away the iniquity and guilt of the people, to make atonement for them before the Lord? he demanded. Since its blood was not taken inside the sanctuary, you should certainly have eaten it there, as I ordered you. But Aaron interceded with Moses. They offered their sin offering and burnt offering before the Lord, he said, but if I had eaten the sin offering on such a day as this, would it have pleased the Lord? And when Moses heard that, he was satisfied.
COMMENT 10:120
Lev. 10:1-2 We do want to understand as best we can the exact nature of the sin of these two sons of the high priest. It would seem to be the sin of presumption on several counts: (1) they did not have a word from God concerning the time they chose to burn the incense. They presumed to enter the holy place and burn incense for a reason that did not originate with God; (2) they did not wait until they were within the holy place to burn the incense. Just why they would walk in the outer court with incense burning in their censers can only be accounted for in the assumption that they were drunk, the place was wrong; (3) the fire was wrongthis was the count upon which God struck them dead. They had evidently approached the door of the tabernacle when the same fire that kindled the sacrifice on the altar of burnt offering flashed across the mercy seat and across the golden altar to consume those who presumed on Gods law without knowing itor better statedthose who knew His will but for reasons best known to them, chose to ignore it. The specific sin was using fire not from the altar to kindle the fire for the incense. Cf. Lev. 16:12. To obey is better than sacrifice regardless of the intentions for the sacrifice.
Lev. 10:3 Moses sees a very literal fulfillment of the words of Exo. 19:22; Exo. 28:41; Exo. 29:44. God will either be sanctified (i.e. set-apart) by obedience or by punishment of those who draw near to Him as priests. Increase of privilege involves increase of responsibility and of danger. Aaron accepted the evaluation of his brother.
Lev. 10:4-7 Uzziel was the youngest brother of Amram, the mother of Moses and Aaron, therefore his sons were second cousins to the slain. (Cf, Exo. 6:18-22) Their sin was public; their death was public; their burial must also be public. What an awesome scene! Word must have spread rapidly throughout the camp. The area around the tabernacle must have soon been crowded with curious worshippers. When Mishael and Elzaphan reached for the dead bodies they knew at once it was God who did it, for the priestly coats were not burnedonly the instrument of the sin was punished. Like the unclean portion of the sacrifice the bodies must be removed from the camp. We see some definite similarities in this action to the impression the death of Ananias and Sapphira made upon the whole church and the community of Jerusalem. Cf. Act. 5:1-11.
Moses was very explicit in his instructions about mourning. There was to be no expression of griefunder the penalty of death and the threat of death to the whole congregation; they were to suppress their grief. They were not to mourn, i. e. to give outward expression to their deep sorrow. We believe Aaron and his remaining sons must have felt the deepest pain. Indication of this follows in the fact that Aaron and his sons did not eat the meat of the sin offering because they were just not hungryso they burned it. Cf. 1620. Willing, personal submission to Gods clearly revealed will is ultimately a real relief to the saved. A genuine recognition of Gods control in the affairs of men has a wonderful calming influence upon us. This was the response of Job (Job. 1:18-21) and of David (2Sa. 12:15-23) and it can be ours (Rom. 8:28).
The service within the tabernacle must be completedHis ministers must remain within the tabernacle until it is done. The anointing oil separated Aaron and his sons to the service of God and there was no one else to take their place! Burying the dead is never as important as following the will of the Lord!
Lev. 10:8-11 It seems to be particularly meaningful that the Lord spoke to Aaron and not to Moses. It was Aaron, not Moses, who was responsible for the actions of his sons. A calm, clear head and heart are needed as men minister about sacred things. The Lord is mercifully strict. Lest ye die seems unduly severe, but Satan is not easy with those who follow him. He has but one end for his followersdeath. The reason for this prohibition is seen in the little expression, You are to distinguish between the holy and the common. Such would have to do with moral as well as physical distinctions. The Corinthians had a similar problem, because they were filled with wine they could not make such moral evaluations and were sick and some dead. In addition to making such decisions these men were the only means God had for dispensing His word among His people. They were His teachers. Cf. Deu. 24:8; Mal. 2:7. When we are responsible for the proper decision of right and wrong among others and when they look to us as teachers we must not, we cannot, fail them. We shall be responsible for their death as well as our own.
Lev. 10:12-15 It would seem that Moses is concerned that the needs of the day be met even if personal tragedy had struck. Or it could be that he wanted to encourage Aaron and his sons in their continued service. He was saying in essence: take up your duties, you still have all the rights and privileges God gave you earlier. How good are the words of C. H. MacKintosh just here:
There are few things in which we are more prone to fail than in the maintenance of the divine standard when human failure has set in. Like David, when the Lord made a breach upon Uzzah because of his failure in putting his hand to the ark, he was afraid of God that day, saying, How shall I bring the ark of God home to me? (1Ch. 13:12). It is exceedingly difficult to bow to the divine judgment and, at the same time, to hold fast the divine ground. The temptation is to lower the standardto come down from the lofty elevationto take human ground. We must ever carefully guard against this evil, which is all the more dangerous as wearing the garb of modesty, self-distrust, and humility. Aaron and his sons, notwithstanding all that had occurred, were to eat the meat-offering in the holy place. They were to do so, not because all had gone on in perfect order, but because it is thy due, and so I am commanded. Though there had been failure, yet their place was in the tabernacle; and those who were there had certain dues founded upon the divine commandment. Though man had failed ten thousand times over, the word of the Lord could not fail; and that word had secured certain privileges for all true priests, which it was their place to enjoy. Were Gods priests to have nothing to eat-no priestly food, because failure had set in? Were those that were left to be allowed to starve, because Nadab and Abihu had offered strange fire? This would never do. God is faithful, and He can never allow any one to be empty in His blessed presence. The prodigal may wander and squander and come to poverty, but it must ever hold good that in my Fathers house is bread enough and to spare.
And the wave breast and the heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; thou and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they be thy due, and thy sons due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace-offerings of the children of Israel . . . by a statute forever, as the Lord hath commanded (Lev. 10:14-15). What strength and stability we have here! All the members of the priestly family, daughters as well as sonsall, whatever be the measure of energy or capacity, are to feed upon the breast and the shoulderthe affections and the strength of the true Peace-offering, as raised from the dead, and presented, in resurrection, before God. This precious privilege is theirs as given by a statute forever, as the Lord hath commanded. This makes all sure and steadfast, come what may. Men may fail and come short, strange fire may be offered, but Gods priestly family must never be deprived of the rich and gracious portion which divine love has provided and divine faithfulness secured by a statute forever.
Lev. 10:16-20 What was the objection of Moses? Was it justified? How did Aaron answer him? Why was Moses content with Aarons answer? Moses does not address himself directly to Aaron, but to Eleazar and Ithamar who were personally responsible for the infraction. According to Lev. 6:26-29 the remains of the sin offering were to be eateninstead these two burned it! It was a privilege to share in the forgiveness of the worshipper and you have missed it, is the thought of Moses. He expands on it in Lev. 10:17-18. The blood was not brought into the holy place and sprinkled before the veil. You certainly ought to have done it! You have failed yourselves, the congregation and God! The first answer of Aaron has to do with the fact that he and his sons up to the death of Nadab and Abihu had kept the law without exception. Whereas Moses addressed his sons, both men knew Aaron was ultimately responsible, Aaron says in essence: Behold, even today they (Eleazar and Ithamar) have obeyed the Lord and have offered the sin offerings and the burnt offeringsconsider what we have done as well as what we havent done. Aaron freely admits his deficiency but pleads for patience and mercy because of such things as these have befallen me i.e. because of the sudden death of his sons. Aaron is saying he and his sons felt unworthy to share in the momentous responsibility of bearing the iniquity of the congregation in the act of eating the sin offering. In a very real sense Aaron is entering into the spirit of the sacrifice as well as the letter. He is saying he and his sons did not feel up to the task of taking upon themselves the iniquity of the congregation. There must have been something emotionally exhausting about identifying with the sins of the worshipper. Because of their grief, loss, shockAaron and his sons were not able to fulfill this task. Such an explanation satisfied Moses and he held his peace. This chapter began with the violation of the law of sacrificeit ended with the same act. Death the result of the oneacceptance or permission the result of the other, but how vastly different were the motives.
FACT QUESTIONS 10:120
237.
What was the basic motive behind the sin of Nadab and Abihu? Explain.
238.
What is meant by strange fire?
239.
Mention the two possible ways God can bewill be, sanctified in the eyes of the people.
240.
Show how Exo. 19:22; Exo. 28:14; Exo. 29:44 relate to this chapter.
241.
Did Aaron know of the motives of his sons? Why accept Moses explanation of their punishment?
242.
Who was Uzziel? Why involve him and his family?
243.
Those who buried the bodiesand all othersknew these deaths were supernaturalhow so?
244.
Discuss the similarities of this incident and that of Act. 5:1-11.
245. Why did God prohibit mourning? Is God saying the father and brothers were to feel no sorrow? Discuss.
246.
Show how the words of our Lord, Let the dead bury the dead have real application here.
247.
Why did God speak to Aaron about the non-use of wine and strong drink in the tabernacle service?
248.
What was involved in discerning between the holy and the common?
249.
The priests had a large responsibility beyond officiating at the sacrifices. What was it?
250.
Discuss the comment of C. H. MacKintosh on Lev. 10:12-15.
251.
Moses objected to the use of a goat in the sin offeringwhat was the objection?
252.
Show how the explanation of Aaron really answered the problem.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
X.
(1) And Nadab and Abihu.Immediately after the Divine manifestation of Gods acceptance of the services connected with the institution of the priesthood, and whilst the congregation are still giving utterance to their profound expressions of thankfulness and joy, the assembled people see a most daring act of sacrilege committed by two of the five newly-installed priests, and have to witness the most awful punishment which befals the offenders. The offenders are the two eldest sons of Aaron, who had received the high distinction to be invited to accompany their father and Moses to the summit of the hallowed mount (Exo. 24:1); the lesson to the Israelites being that the priests, though mediators between God and the people, are beset with the same infirmities as the laity, and must not presume upon their office.
Took either of them his censer.The sin of Nadab and Abihu was of a complicated nature, and involved and consisted of several transgressions:(1) They each took his own censer, and not the sacred utensil of the sanctuary. (2) They both offered it together, whereas the incense was only to be offered by one. (3) They presumptuously encroached upon the functions of the high priest; for according to the Law the high priest alone burnt incense in a censer. (Sec Lev. 16:12-13; Num. 17:11.) The ordinary priests only burnt it on the golden altar in the holy place (Exo. 30:7-8), or on the brazen altar as a part of the memorial. (See Lev. 2:2-3; Lev. 2:16, &c.) The case of Korah and his company was an exception, since it was ordered by Moses for an especial purpose (Num. 16:6-25). (4) They offered the incense at an unauthorised time, since it was apart from the morning and evening sacrifice.
And offered strange fire.They filled their vessels with common fire instead of taking it from the holy fire of the altar, which was always to be used in burning incense. (See Lev. 9:24; Lev. 16:12.) It is with reference to this practice that we are toldAnd the angel took the censer and filled it with fire off the altar (Rev. 8:5). Ancient tradition says that Nadab and Abihu had partaken too freely of the drink offering, and performed their service in a state of intoxication, when they were incapacitated to distinguish between what was legal and illegal. So general was this tradition that it is actually embodied in the Palestinian Chaldee Version of Lev. 10:9, which contains the solemn warning against wine to those engaged in the service of the sanctuary, and which is regarded as a sequel to this awful catastrophe. Others, however, suppose that the phrase strange fire denotes not offered according to the prescribed law, just as strange incense is used in the sense of incense not prepared in the manner ordered by the Law (Exo. 30:9).
Before the Lord.This may mean before the door of the sanctuary (see Lev. 1:5), or in front of the holy of holies. (See Lev. 4:6.) As the dead bodies are said in Lev. 10:4 to have lain in the court of the tabernacle, the former must be the meaning in the passage before us.
Which he commanded them not.According to a figure of speech frequently used in Hebrew, where the negative form is used for the emphatic affirmative, this phrase is better rendered, which he had strongly forbidden them. Though the command is only expressed in Lev. 16:12, there can hardly be any doubt that it was previously given by Moses, since it is implied in Lev. 1:7; Lev. 6:12. A similar reference to a well known statement, though not here recorded, we have in the following verse.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
NADAB AND ABIHU SLAIN BY JEHOVAH, Lev 10:1-7.
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.”
Lev 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 Lev 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 Lev 6:9; Lev 6:13. For various theories respecting this sin, see Num 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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Disobedience Brings Death For the Disobedient And A Test For The Faithful ( Lev 10:1-7 ).
Lev 10:1
‘And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire in it, and laid incense on it, and offered strange fire before Yahweh, which he had not commanded them.’
Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, transgressed against the holiness of God. They treated holy things lightly, and brought God’s judgment on themselves. When dealing with God we too need always to remember with Whom we have to do.
As sons of Aaron Nadab and Abihu might possibly one day have had the right as his deputies to put fire in the holy censers from the altar of incense, and to put incense on it, and bear it within the veil (if Aaron was unwittingly ceremonially unclean or ill on the Day of Atonement), and they would certainly have had the right to offer incense on the altar of incense at the time of the morning and evening sacrifices that its odour might go within the veil. But the right was carefully restricted and limited. God must not be demeaned, nor must His holy things be treated lightly. He had given no authority otherwise to burn incense in censers.
So what they had not the right to do was to ‘do their own thing’. Indeed at such a time at this when the very priesthood was new, such an attitude would only lead swiftly into error. It had to be severely dealt with. We must recognise that what they did was done deliberately and with an ungodly attitude. They would certainly have had to hide what they were about from Aaron and their other brothers.
“Strange fire.” It was strange fire because it was unauthorised fire. It may be that the coals had not been taken from the altar of incense, the altar ‘before Yahweh’ (Lev 16:12), and thus were not holy (they probably had to sneak in their ashes for otherwise Aaron would have asked what they were doing), that the censers were their own and not sanctified, and that the incense was not of the prescribed type and was therefore also not holy (Exo 30:9, compare Exo 30:34-38; Exo 37:29). Thus would they be bringing in what was not holy to the Holy Place. That was bad enough. But what was far worse was that they did in His Holy Place what Yahweh had not commanded. They grossly slighted Yahweh. They took to themselves the right to worship in ways that Yahweh had not commanded or revealed, in a way that was not acceptable, and they did it in Yahweh’s very presence. It revealed an attitude of heart that was thoroughly blasphemous.
Had it not been stopped it would have led to an ‘anything goes’ situation. Compare how later Uzziah would sin in a similar way and also paid the penalty (2Ch 26:16-21). We may hesitate at the seriousness of the penalty. But consider the situation. They had been by their own voluntary will sanctified as God’s priests. They had taken on a holy appointment. They had sworn to obey Yahweh absolutely. They had been made ‘holy to Him’. But now they had demonstrated that in heart they were not so. They could not be allowed therefore to continue as priests. What then was to be done? They were holy to Yahweh. They could not therefore return to what they had been. There could only be one solution, that Yahweh would remove them by fire as was done with all sanctified things that were no longer of use or that were offered to Him. (What happened to them then was between God and them).
That censers could be used in this way when commanded by Yahweh comes out in Num 16:46 but the incident in Num 16:6-38 had similarities to this. There Moses challenged the malcontents sarcastically that if they wished to take on themselves the Aaronite priesthood against God’s clear commandment they follow the example of Nadab and Abihu. He was warning them that men do not take such privileges on themselves. He wanted them to remember what had happened to Nadab and Abihu when they went outside Yahweh’s remit and burned incense in censers. They should all have remembered and taken heed. But foolishly they ignored the warning, they too burned incense in censers before Yahweh and they too were consumed with fire.
Lev 10:2
‘And there came forth fire from before Yahweh, and devoured them, and they died before Yahweh.’
We do not know whether Aaron’s sons were just rash and arrogant, or foolishly deliberately blasphemous, recklessly following examples that they had seen elsewhere, but either way they were deliberately doing the very thing that Yahweh had warned against, following the ways of the nations. They were being deliberately disobedient ‘with a high hand’ (Num 15:30). There is no hiding from that. And the penalty for that, as they well knew, was death. It had to be dealt with severely for the sake of future generations. For the lesson must be learned at any cost that there must be no innovations on top of what Yahweh had commanded. They offered up strange fire, Yahweh dealt with it by the fire of judgment. They were ‘devoted’ (given over to judgment) to Yahweh (compare Jos 7:25). ‘They died before Yahweh’ might be seen as indicating that it was within the Holy Place. God took His disobedient ‘holy ones’ to Himself.
It must be noted that this was not just a rash mistake. It was a deliberate flouting of Yahweh’s prescribed way of worship because of their contempt for what was prescribed. And such flouting of His ways had to be cut off immediately before it became worse. If God’s revelation was to continue unmarred then there was no alternative to severe action that would be a once for all warning (but still unheeded by the foolish) of what would happen to those who distorted God’s ways. (Compare Num 16:1-50; Jos 7:1-26; 2Sa 6:6-7; Act 5:1-11).
Note the contrast with Lev 9:24. There Yahweh had consumed with His fire the offerings on the altar which were dedicated to Him. They were pleasing to Him. Here he consumes with fire what is an insult to Him. The one was consumed with great pleasure, the other with great anger. God cannot be treated lightly, especially by those who have dedicated themselves. He must be obeyed.
Lev 10:3
‘Then Moses said to Aaron, “This what Yahweh spoke, saying, “I will be sanctified in those who come near me, and before all the people I will be glorified.” And Aaron held his peace.’
Moses then communicated to the grieving father a message from Yahweh, explaining why He had done what He had done. Those who approached Him as priests must do so in a way that reveals Him for what He is, (‘sanctifies’ Him, sets Him apart in His distinctive holiness) not in a way that disparages Him or reveals Him as just another local god looking for titbits, and they must do it in a way that glorifies Him before the people. It was a serious responsibility. Aaron did not reply. He had to recognise that what God had done was just. By their action his sons had at their very inauguration reduced the living God to a nonentity who flew around in the air looking for sweet odours (compare Jer 44:25). They had demeaned God before the people.
Lev 10:4-5
‘And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said to them, “Draw near, carry your relatives from before the sanctuary out of the camp.” So they drew near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp, as Moses had said.’
But the priesthood, now established, had to continue unchecked. Moses therefore called on close relatives of the dead men to remove their bodies. Their bodies had to be taken outside the camp, the fate of all ‘devoted’ things, and had to be buried by close relatives. But this could not be by Aaron and his sons for it would have rendered them ‘unclean’. Thus he chose the best alternative.
They ‘carried them in their coats’. The question is whether this means the dead men’s coats, or the coats of the bearers. Either way it was possibly referring to a way of limiting ritual defilement by not touching the bodies, which were no doubt seen as ‘most holy’, possibly for fear of the consequences. They could be levered into the coats, or carried by the loose folds. All such detail confirms the genuineness of the account. Even so they would probably then have to go through a period of ‘cleansing’ (Num 19:11). This was why the serving priests could not do it.
Lev 10:6
‘And Moses said to Aaron, and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons, “Do not let the hair of your heads go loose, nor rend your clothes, so that you do not die, and that he be not wroth with all the congregation, but let your brothers and sisters, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which Yahweh has kindled.” ’
Then Moses warned Aaron and the two surviving brothers that in spite of their natural grief they must not show signs of mourning while still serving in the tabernacle, for to bring tokens of death into the tabernacle was forbidden. They must retain their caps and their robes in place, and fulfil their duties in the required way, lest they die. For they were now the anointed of Yahweh ministering in the Holy Place, and for them to fail to do such things would be to incur the holy wrath of God, not only on themselves, but on the whole of Israel. It would be to defile the Holy Place. Their unique ministry must continue at all costs. They must leave the mourning to the remainder of their family and to the people of Israel, each until his time of service was complete.
The fact that these were on duty may suggest that the two who died had been off duty and had come to the tabernacle deliberately in order to carry out their folly. For not all would necessarily be on duty at the same time, although as this was ‘the first day’ after the seven day consecration it is always possible that all were on duty. Lev 10:9 may suggest that they were indeed drunk.
Lev 10:7
“And you shall not go out from the door of the tent of meeting, lest you die, for the anointing oil of Yahweh is on you.” And they did according to the word of Moses.’
“For the anointing oil of Yahweh is on you.” The point would seem to be that their time of duty must be completed because they were anointed priests and must fulfil their duties as such. These could not be broken into by outside circumstances. Those in special positions of privilege must live in accordance with the privilege, and not allow personal matters to interfere. Great privilege brings great responsibility. As men set apart to Yahweh by the holy oil their first duty was to His service. It came even before the demands of family.
It did not, of course, mean that they could never leave the tabernacle, only that they could not leave it while they were on duty. Now that they were mediators and representatives of Israel, there must always be priests on duty, for otherwise there would be no mediator or representative before God. And without God’s protection and care where would they be?
Fortunately, unlike their brothers they were determined to remain faithful to the command of Yahweh even though it might prove difficult in trying circumstances, and they remained to carry out their responsibilities. Sometimes God asks hard things of us, and by our faithfulness to Him and His service we will be assessed.
Because of what has happened Yahweh now speaks directly to Aaron about the priestly responsibility for the maintenance of the holiness of the Sanctuary. This, coming after what has happened, links the words back to the previous events and may serve to confirm that Nadab and Abihu had been drunk. His warning is threefold. The lesson that must be learned is that priests must never enter the tabernacle under the influence of alcohol and therefore in a state unworthy of being in the presence of Yahweh, they must be careful to distinguish the clean from the unclean, so that they do not enter the tabernacle unclean and defile it, and they must ensure that all the people are fully aware of all God’s requirements so that they also do not offend in these ways. Each of these instructions is to ensure the maintenance of the holiness of the Sanctuary and its precincts, stressing the holiness of God.
If we in our turn had more concern for the holiness of God there would be much that we now do which we would not do. Our great problem is that we fail to recognise how by our behaviour we defile the holy name by which we are called. But the consequences will not be less, they are merely delayed. That is why we must come to His light continually for cleansing through His blood (1Jn 1:7).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
Lev 10:1
Exo 30:9, “Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt sacrifice, nor meat offering; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon.”
Because the biblical text is not more specific about the offense of Nadab and Abihu, scholars debate over the details of this offering. There are a number of possibilities suggested by Jewish tradition that are carried into modern biblical scholarship.
(1) Drunkenness – Lev 10:8-9 implies that Nadab and Abihu may have been drunk when they offered strange fire on the altar of incense, having feasted on the peace offerings and wave offerings and drink offerings made that day. This view is mentioned by the medieval French rabbi Rashi (A.D. 1040-1105). [16]
[16] In his commentary on Leviticus 10:2, Jarchi [Rashi] says, “Rabbi Ishmael says: [They died because] they had entered the sanctuary after having drunk wine. The proof is that after their death, [Scripture] admonished the survivors that they may not enter the sanctuary after having drunk wine.” See Rashi, Commentary on the Tanakh, in The Judaica Press Complete Tanach (Judaica Press, 1998) [on-line]; accessed 25 November 2010; available from http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16508/showrashi/true; Internet, comments on Leviticus 10:2.
Lev 10:8-9, “And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:”
(2) A Violation of Levitical Procedures – Lev 16:2 suggests that they made the offering on the altar of incense in violation of the Levitical procedures that God had given to Moses, such as the wrong time of day. This view is mentioned by the medieval French rabbi Rashi (A.D. 1040-1105). [17]
[17] In his commentary on Leviticus 10:2, Jarchi [Rashi] says, “Rabbi Eliezer says: Aaron’s sons died only because they rendered halachi decisions [interpretations of the Law] in the presence of Moses, their teacher.” See Rashi, Commentary on the Tanakh, in The Judaica Press Complete Tanach (Judaica Press, 1998) [on-line]; accessed 25 November 2010; available from http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16508/showrashi/true; Internet, comments on Leviticus 10:2.
Lev 16:2, “And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.”
(3) Wrong Source of Coals – In Lev 16:12-13 the Lord told Moses that the burning coals for the censer must be taken from the burnt altar. Perhaps Nadab and Abihu took “strange fire” from a source other than the burnt altar, which had just been ignited by fire from the Lord in Lev 9:24. This view is mentioned in The Targum of Jonathan. [18]
[18] The Targum of Jonathan reads, “But the sons of Aharon, Nadab and Abihu, took each man his censer, and put fire therein, and laid sweet incense upon it, and offered before the Lord strange fire taken from (under) the hearth-pots, which had not been commanded them. [Jerusalem. Outside fire.] And a flame of fire came out from before the Lord (as) with anger, and divided itself into four streams, (or lines,) and penetrated their nostrils, and burned their lives (souls) without destroying their bodies ; and they died before the Lord.” See J. W. Etheridge, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch; with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum: from the Chaldee (London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, 1865), 173.
Lev 16:12-13, “And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail: And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not:”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Sin of Nadab and Abihu and its Punishment
v. 1. And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. v. 2. And there went out fire from the Lord, v. 3. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh Me, and before all the people I will be glorified. v. 4. And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Aaron, v. 5. So they went near and carried them in their coats out of the camp, as Moses had said, v. 6. And Moses said unto Aaron and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes, v. 7. And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
THE DEATH OF NADAB AND ABIHU, THE SONS OF AARON (Lev 10:1-7). The first day of Aaron’s ministry had not yet closed. He had offered the sacrifices, and had entered into the holy place with Moses, and had returned to the court of the tabernacle, where the people had been standing in mute expectation, and God had shown his approval and his confirmation of him in his priestly acts by consuming the sacrifices, as they lay on the altar, with a miraculous fire emblematic of himself, when a rash act on the part of his two eldest children changed the day from one of rejoicing to one of mourning. It would seem that Nadab and Abihu, being already in a slate of exaltation from the events of the day, in which they had taken so prominent a part, felt bound, when the fire came forth from God, and the people shouted and fell on their times, to lake some step whereby to acknowledge on the part of the people the graciousness displayed so visibly by the Lord. Moses and Aaron had been parted from them when they went into the tabernacle, and were now facing the congregation, the ministers rather of God to man than of man to God, and Nadab and Abihu appear to have regarded themselves as the representatives of tile people. Without waiting for instructions, they rose from their prostration, and, preparing to make a return to God for his gift of fire by the offering of incense symbolical of prayer, they lit their censers from one of the fires which had been made for boiling the sacrificial flesh, and, putting incense upon them, started forward, with the intention of carrying the burning incense to the golden altar of prayer in the holy place. They reached the door of the tabernacle, where Moses and Aaron were standing, when they were met by a blast of the same fire which had already swept to the brazen altar, and they fell dead. They had acted presumptuously. They had not, like Eleazar and Ithamar, waited for the Divine command, but, in their haste, they had irreverently broken the custom, which rested upon a Divine command, of taking the fire for the altar of incense from the altar of burnt sacrifice alone. The fact that this offense was the transgression of a positive rather than of a moral precept, would have made the lesson the more complete and emphatic. Theythe newly ordained priestshad, with whatever good intentions, done what God had not commanded, and in doing it had done what he had forbidden. Like Uzzah afterwards (2Sa 6:7), they died for it, that others might fear to do the same. Will-worship (Col 2:23) received thereby an emphatic condemnation, and priests and people were taught, in a manner not to be forgotten, that “to obey is better than sacrifice” (1Sa 15:22).
Lev 10:1
Nadab and Ahibu are said to have each taken his censer. This is the first time that the word used in the original is translated “censer.” It means any vessel or pan that will hold embers or tinder (see Exo 25:38; Exo 27:3, 23; Exo 28:3). They put fire therein, and put incense thereon. No doubt they used the incense ordered in Exo 30:34. They are not found fault with for the incense, but for the fire that they used. They offered strange fire, that is, fire not taken from the altar of burnt offering, which they might have feared to approach after the miracle that had occurred. In Exo 16:12 it is ordered that, on the Day of Atonement, the incense fire should be taken from the brazen altar, and this was no doubt the rule on all occasions, though the law has not been recorded.
Lev 10:2
And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured. These are the exact words used in Le Lev 9:24 of the fire that consumed the sacrifices. The fire was the same; its source was the same; its effect was the same, and yet how different! They died before the Lord; that is, they were struck dead at the door of the tabernacle.
Lev 10:3
This is that the Lord spake (see Exo 19:22; Exo 28:41; Exo 29:44; Le 8:33). God will be sanctified either by the obedience or by the punishment of those that come nigh him, that is, his priests. If they have greater privileges, they have greater perils (cf. Mat 11:21). Aaron held his peacein submission (see Psa 39:9; Job 1:22), acknowledging that Moses had justified the act of God in executing so terrible a judgment.
Lev 10:4
Uzziel was the youngest brother of Amram (see Exo 6:18-22). His sons, Mishael and Elzaphan, were therefore second cousins of Nadab and Abihu, who are here called their brethren. (Cf. the use of the term “brothers of the Lord,” applied probably to his first cousins in the New Testament.)
Lev 10:5
They went near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp. Their coats were the tunics which they had put on as their priestly attire (Lev 8:13). The lightning flash which had struck them down had not injured their clothes. As Mishael and Elzaphan became ceremonially defiled by contact with the corpses, and as the Passover was now at hand, it has been thought that it was in reference to their case that the concession was made, that those d, filed by a dead body might keep the Passover on the fourteenth day of the second instead of the first month (Num 9:6-11). The defilement caused by death ceased when Christ had died.
Lev 10:6
Uncover not your heads. They are to abstain from all the conventional signs of mourning, in order to show that they acknowledged the justice of the punishment. The whole house of Israel, that is, the people in general, might mourn the death of their priests, but the high priest and his remaining sons must prove their submission to the Divine chastisement by crushing their individual feelings of sorrow. A murmur on their part would have brought God’s wrath on themselves and on the whole congregation, which they represented (Lev 4:3). Uncover not your heads may be otherwise translated, Let not your hair fall disheveled (see Le Lev 21:10).
Lev 10:7
The priests are not to be taken away from their duties at the door of the tabernacle, that is, the court in front of the tabernacle, even for the sake of burying their dead. They had now been in the court for eight days continuously, and they had to remain there until, in the fulfillment of their public function, they had eaten the sacrificial meal. Cf. Mat 8:21, Mat 8:22, “Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me.” God’s service comes before all things.
HOMILETICS
Lev 10:1, Lev 10:2
The sinfulness of man mars the full effect of the good purposes of God
on the very day of the consecration of the priests.
I. THE SIN OF NADAB AND ABIHU. Presumption. They chose their own method of returning thanks and giving praise to God, a method unsanctioned by God’s command, unauthorized by their official superiors.
II. THEIR PUNISHMENT. Death. We might have thought that a lesser penalty would have sufficed for such a sin, if we had not had their example before us.
III. ITS LESSONS.
1. The necessity of obedience to positive precepts as well as moral commands. Moral commands, which rest for their basis on some reason which we can apprehend, being in their nature of far greater importance than positive precepts, which are binding simply because they have been ordered, we are tempted to undervalue the latter. We say, “I know God’s purpose, and will carry it out; it is slavish to be bound by the letter. He will prefer the course which has now become the best to that which he commanded under perhaps altered circumstances.” This arises from pride. We make ourselves judges of God’s purposes, in respect to which we are in truth ignorant or can at best guess blindly. There may be a thousand other objects of the Divine counsels beside that which we think that we see, which we regard as the only one. The questions which alone we must ask are, “Does this injunction come from God? and does it affect me?” If so, we must obey it without respect to consequences, and we may not substitute for it a course of action which appears to ourselves better adapted to effect the end which we suppose to be in view.
2. The special necessity of this obedience in Divine warship. God knows how he wills to be worshipped, and why he should be so worshipped. Man does not. Under the old dispensation, the forms of worship appointed by him were typical. What they were typical of’ he knew, but man did not; therefore man could not judge of their propriety. Under the new dispensation, he has by positive injunction appointed two ritesthe sacrament of Baptism and the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. To dispense with either of them would be an act of the highest presumption. He appointed certain forms by which they were to be administered. Human authority may not in baptism change water for any other element, or substitute other words than those appointed, nor may it alter the form of the consecration in the administration of the Holy Communion; nor when Christ has said, “Drink ye all of this,” may it, without sin, enjoin, “Ye shall not all drink of it.”
3. Human authority to be obeyed where God has not spoken. There must be regulations of some kind for Divine worship, and these it is the office of the Church to supply, ordaining, abolishing, and changing, as it seems good from time to time. “Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain ceremonies or rites of the Church;” and also “to change and abolish” them when “ordained by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying” (Art. 34). When once ordained, they have a binding force over the conscience until abolished by the same authority. “Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the tradition and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, as he that offendeth against the common order of the Chinch, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren” (Ibid.). Although the intention be good, though the purpose be to improve the worship of God, and, as in the case of Nadab and Abihu, to light up in the sanctuary the golden altar of incense and prayer, yet, if a man act without the authority of his Church, he is guilty of presumption, and will have to bear his iniquity,
Lev 10:2
Fire
was the instrument of the destruction of Nadab and Ahihu, whilst just before it had been the means of consuming the sacrifice, and in passing to the altar it had probably bathed Moses and Aaron in its harmless flames as they stood at the door of the tabernacle. Thus it is that the same thing serves as a means of glorification or of destruction, according to the qualities of that with which it comes in contact. The discipline of daily life makes one a saint, another a more determined sinner. The discipline of suffering softens one heart, hardens another. The difficulties of religious belief make one the more submissive, another an unbeliever. God is the joy of the believer and the misery of the infidel. And so we may suppose that it will be hereafter. The presence of God will be the exceeding great reward of those who have sought him, and that same presence would be the torture of those who have not submitted their wills to his. It may be that this in itself will be sufficient to constitute the punishment of the unrighteous in the world to come.
Lev 10:3
Increase of privilege involves increase of danger.
The nearer men are brought to God, the more liable they are to chastening at his hands. This is more particularly the case with those who are made his ministers. What might pass unpunished in others will be punished in them. What would be allowed in others will not be allowed in them (Lev 10:6). Had Nadab and Abihu not been called to be priests, they would not have met their untimely fate; and had Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar been laymen, they would have been permitted to make use of the ordinary signs of mourning for their dead. But God’s work must come before any other duty, and if it be not done as God has willed it to be done, a sorer punishment will fall upon those who have specially devoted themselves to the immediate service of God than on others. This is a solemn thought for those who are ordained to be the ministers of God.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Lev 10:1-11
Counterfeit fire.
cf. Act 5:1-42. We have considered the consecration both of the high priest and of the minor priests, and how, entering upon their office in expectation of a sign, they got it in the outflash of the “consuming fire.” But sad to say, two of the minor priests so provoke the Lord by their presumption that they are instantly consumed. Having already contrasted the high priest’s consecration with Christ’s baptism, and the descent of the fire with the effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost, we cannot resist the parallel presented by the case of Ananias and Sapphira to this case of Nadab and Abihu. If believers are rightly regarded as “priests unto God,” then the case of Ananias and Sapphira is one of presumption in an assumed priesthood. The parallel will help us to definite ideas about the sin.
I. HONOUR IS OFTENTIMES TOO MUCH FOR SOME MINDS. And it is generally a minor class of mind that gets intoxicated with position and success. Nadab and Abihu, elevated to the priesthood, are so elated as to suppose that everything becomes them. Moreover, allied with this mental intoxication and excitement there often is physical intoxication. Indulgence is thought a proper thing for the upstart, and so he leads his presumption by excess. The probabilities are in favour of supposing that Nadab and Abihu had indulged in wine or strong drink immediately on their elevation to the priesthood (cf. Act 5:9, Act 5:10), and, in consequence, were incapacitated for distinguishing between the holy fire and its unholy counterfeit. It is not every one who can stand a “full cup,” or walk with it steadily. If with honour there comes not a quiet spirit, it becomes a curse rather than a blessing.
II. SELF–CONFIDENCE IS THE NATURAL RESULT OF THE INTOXICATION OF SUCCESS. Nadab and Abihu, in their folly, think that they can guide themselves in priestly duty. Their venerable uncle, Moses, is not to be consulted by such dignitaries as they are. They can approach the Divine presence in a perfectly new and original way. The fire which came originally from heaven, and which has been most carefully preserved as a sacred deposit, is not, they believe, a bit better than fire they themselves can kindle. They will not depend upon it, but furnish a good fire themselves. Their spirit is sell-confidence all through. The license of innovation was most uncalled for at such a time, seeing that the ritual was only in process of reception from heaven. There was no excuse for their course at all.
III. GOD NEVER GRANTS A MANIFESTATION, BUT SATAN GETS UP THROUGH SELF–CONFIDENT MEN A COUNTERFEIT. Nadab and Abihu believed they could produce as good a fire as God. Ananias and Sapphire believed that hypocrisy could conduct itself as creditably as Pentecostal devotion. To every suggestion of a “year of grace,” there comes the counter-suggestion of a “year of delusion.” All fire is equally common, or, for that matter, equally sacred, to the self-confident mind. Special inspirations are incredible. Censers can be filled on the most rational principles, and God does not refuse any man’s person.
Paul, in 1Co 13:1-13, conveys the idea of counterfeit eloquence, a loveless exhibition of oratory that casual observers might pronounce angelic; of counterfeit enthusiasm, and even faith, so that neither mysteries nor mountains can retard the loveless spirit’s prayers; of counterfeit martyrdoms, giving up the body to be burned after giving up fortune to the poor; and yet, because love is wanting in such cases, they constitute an unacceptable and profitless service.
IV. THOSE WHO PRESUME WITH THEIR COUNTERFEITS MUST ACCEPT OF THE JUDGMENT THEY DESERVE. Nadab and Abihu, despising the Divine fire, and coming into competition with their own, are consumed by it. In a moment they experience how God is a “consuming fire’ to all presumption. Ananias and Sapphira feel the same. They fall before the deserved vengeance of the Most High. God offers us the great alternativeeither sanctification through the fire of the Holy Ghost, or destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power. God will be sanctified in some way: if the wrath of man does not turn to praise, it will glorify God in being restrained (Psa 76:10).
V. IT IS CLEAR THAT GOD ONLY ACCEPTS WHAT HE HIMSELF INSPIRES. This is the lesson of this sad providence. We must bring back to God what he has given. Independent offerings are not acceptable. To come to him in a way of our own devising, instead of by Jesus Christ; to come to him in a self-confident spirit, instead of in the humility inspired by the Holy Ghost; to come to him with proud, cold hearts, instead of with warm and ardent ones, is to be sent empty away. He refuses all such counterfeit offerings; he must have Divine fire or none.R.M.E.
Lev 10:3-7; 12-20
Submission in bereavement.
cf. 2Sa 12:15-23; Job 1:18-21; Joh 11:1-57; 1Th 4:13-18. The conduct of Aaron under the bereavement is most instructive. He holds his peace and is prepared to do whatever Muses commands. And here we have to notice
I. GOD‘S SERVICE AND GLORY MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE OF EVERY OTHER CONSIDERATION. The surviving priests were to leave the mourning and the funeral arrangements to their brethren. The bereavement is not to interfere with their priestly service and consecration. God asserts his claims as paramount. “He that loveth father or mother more than me,” said God incarnate, “is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Mat 10:37). It is ideally possible, therefore, to be so filled with a sense of consecration to God that every other consideration is made to dwindle into insignificance. Is not this what we shall realize in heaven?
II. SUBMISSION TO GOD‘S CLEARLY EXPRESSED WILL IS A RELIEF TO THE SOUL WHICH HAS BEEN UNCERTAIN BEFORE IT. The thought that God willed the death of those dear to us, has a wonderfully calming influence upon us. We may see no reason for the stroke, and God may not for a long season show us his reason, but we can believe he has one and a good one, and. that “he doeth all things well.” The death of Nadab and Abihu was as clearly a token from God as the previous manifestation. Job, again, shows the same submissive spirit under a still greater bereavement (Job 1:18-21). So did David on the death of his child (2Sa 12:15-23). So did Mary and Martha on the death of Lazarus (Joh 11:1-57.). All these worthies rested, as we all may rest, and there is no other rest but in the will of an all-wise God. Uncertainty is trying, but even the certainty of bereavement and of sorrow has an element of rest in it.
III. AARON IS CAUTIONED AGAINST ANY USE OF WINE OR STRONG DRINK WHEN ENGAGED IN PRIESTLY SERVICE. Doubtless the primary significance of this injunction was, as already noticed, that Nadab and Abihu had erred therein. But it seems to carry also a beneficial caution. For at no time are people more tempted to resort to wine and strong drink than when in bereavement. A little stimulus, they fancy, will sustain them. So they take to “the bottle” to replenish their courage. The result is that they fall into deeper troubles than ever. Aaron is the better of this injunction to abstain at this time when his sorrow is so keen.
IV. SORROW NECESSITATED FASTING INSTEAD OF FEASTING. After the terrible trial, Aaron and his surviving sons had no appetite for the feasting to which they were entitled; and so they seem to have burned the sin offering in its entirety instead of eating of it. Moses, in directing the sorrowing priests to proceed to the feast of fellowship, made no due allowance for their condition. Aaron instinctively saw the incongruity of feasting when his heart was so sore, and therefore he acted in the spirit of the Law, which disposed of what could not be used in the fire of the altar.
And might not those who turn a house of mourning into a house of feasting learn a lesson of propriety here? Eating and drinking in connection with wakes and funerals have been carried oftentimes to most unseemly excess. The whole spirit of sorrow evaporates before the copious offerings to the “belly-god,” and instead of spiritual profit there is spiritual deterioration.
Fasting is an effort of nature to say a word for the spirit within. Sorrow takes the edge off appetite, and rebukes feasting that the soul may have a season of repair. If the sad heart gets fair play, it will emerge from its sorrows purified and elevated.
V. THE SPIRIT MAY SOMETIMES MOST PROPERLY SUPERSEDE THE LETTER. We have seen how fatal was the innovation of the presumptuous priests. But in this same chapter we come across an innovation on the part of Aaron, at which Moses and God were content. There is all the difference between rigidity which must not be broken, and a law whose spirit can move freely amid its forms. It was the latter which God gave. There are necessities which arise from time to time and are themselves laws to the spiritual mind. We should be jealous of ourselves in the exercise of our liberty, but, at the same time, we ought to realize our freedom as God gives it to us in his Law.R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Lev 10:1, Lev 10:2
Disobedience swiftly punished.
What a contrast between the two scenes! Aaron and Moses entering the tabernacle and returning to bless the people and to participate in the rejoicing caused by the appearance of God’s glory, and Nadab and Abihu approaching the same sacred place only to be consumed by the fire of judgment, their offerings rejected, themselves destroyed! The judgments of God are not pleasing to contemplate, but they are necessary to completeness of view, and to the begetting in us of due caution when we venture into his presence, lest our holy boldness degenerate into a presumptuous disregard of his regulations.
I. THE ACT OF RASH DISOBEDIENCE.
1. We see two brothers sinning against God. Brothers may be mutually helpful or injurious. To witness the union of members of a family in pious zeal is delightful, but too often relationship is provocative of harm rather than of blessing. Elder brothers, beware of leading your younger relations into sin!
2. Two that were intimately related to holy men were not thereby shielded from thoughtless action and severe judgment. Alas! that the children of godly parents should ever belie their ancestry. Here the sons of Aaron and nephews of Moses dishonoured their relationship.
3. Two young men brought destruction upon themselves and grief upon their friends. They died childless, and, if more than youths, could yet hardly have attained to any great age. Eleazar, the next brother, was perhaps not twenty at this time, for he was not included in the list of the men forbidden to see or enter the land of promise. We are apt to censure the evil deeds of young men too gently, and to look upon youth as more of an excuse than God seems here to regard it. Experience proves that if youth naturally inclines to sin, so also is it, equally with age, visited with righteous retribution.
4. Two that had been openly dedicated to the service of God were unmindful of his precepts. They had just been consecrated as priests. This did not prevent them from violating the Law, nor protect them from the consequences of their behaviour. There is danger as well as honour involved in waiting upon God. If Peter had not been called to the lofty position of discipleship, he had not denied his Master. By smiting these two priests, sons of the high priest, Jehovah taught the people that sin could be committed by, and would not be pardoned in, the most exalted of the nation. It was a conspicuous, forcible demonstration of the majesty and holiness of God.
5. Two that had recently beheld the glory of the Lord forgot the obedience their position demanded. Perhaps it was the very excitement consequent on such s scene that unduly elevated them, so that, becoming giddy, they reeled into the abyss of impetuous self-will and awful penalty. We must guard against imprudent familiar handling of Divine things after the grace of God has visited us with wondrous revelations of his mercy and favour. It is evident that even if displays of supernatural power were frequent, they would not prove a security against transgression. Some have turned the grace of God manifested in full and free salvation through Christ into a covering for licentiousness and irreverence.
II. THE GLOOMY CHANGE EFFECTED BY SIN.
1. A day of hallowed joy becomes a day of mourning. This is the bitter chequered experience of life. The sunny skies soon grow dark with clouds, the quiet waters are lashed into tempestuous fury. Men are almost afraid of seasons of ecstatic rejoicing, as if a reaction must quickly ensue; the gladness seems itself a presentiment of coming trouble. Sorrow treads close upon the heels of mirth. Sin may well excite in us sentiments of aversion when we see how it has disfigured the fair features of creation’s landscape, changing songs into sighs and smiles into tears. Many a day that began with singing and prayer has ended with wailing and remorse.
2. The fire of Divine approval is changed in, to the fire of Divine wrath. The men became a sacrifice to God’s glory indeed, but were not an offering voluntarily laid upon his altar. It seemed fitting that the punishment should bear an analogy to the sin. Strange fire was punished with hallowed fire. The conception of a mild Deity unmoved to indignation at acts unaccordant with his will is not justified by Scripture, nor is it in harmony with the utterances of conscience or the testimony borne by the existent laws of his moral government of the world.
3. Not even the profession of desire to honour God excuses the willful neglect of his injunctions. To substitute human inventions for scriptural institutions is a dangerous practice. Reason may discern little difference of moment, but it is not safe to argue that therefore the particular observance is immaterial, and rests on no rational ground of distinction. The loyalty that will presume to alter the king’s ordinances is of doubtful character and certain of rejection.S.R.A.
Lev 10:3
A bereaved parent.
Who can stand in the presence of death unmoved? A gulf separates us from the departed friend; the past is like a dream. The partnership between soul and body has been dissolved, and already the clay tabernacle, deprived of its tenant, shows signs of crumbling into decay. The form is the same, but the animating principle has fled. The casket has been rifled of its jewel; we survey the husk, but the kernel has vanished.
I. HERE WAS AN INSTANCE OF SUDDEN DEATH. This is the more startling. The festival is changed into a funeral. The active frame is motionless, the busy brain that teemed with thought is still; we call aloud, but there is no reply; we bend down to touch the lips, but we receive no responsive kiss. How weak is man, when a stroke deprives him of all his faculties, removes him from earthly ken, and his place knows him no more!
II. IT IS SAD WHEN CHILDREN DIE BEFORE THEIR PARENTS. Then the cup of bereavement contains an added element of bitterness. The natural order is inverted. Pathetic was the expression of Burke’s grief at the loss of his only son. “I am stripped of all my honours; I am torn up by the roots, and lie prostrate on the earth. I have none to meet my enemies in the gate. They who ought to have succeeded me have gone before me. They who should have been to me a posterity are in the place of ancestors.” To see the budding rose suddenly blighted, all the promise of life unrealized, is enough to rend a parent’s heart with disappointment.
III. IT IS SADDER STILL WHEN DEATH IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF THOUGHTLESS, SINFUL CONDUCT. Then no gleam of light tempers the darkness. If the flower be transplanted to adorn the heavenly garden, there will be joy at the thought to alleviate the sorrow. But when the removal appears like that of tares to be burned, who shall assuage the pangs of bereavement? Children! strive so to live that if Providence call you away in early life, the memory left behind may be sweet and fragrant, pleasant and reassuring. Let us not too hastily assume the death of the youthful to be a judgment. We may have no Moses at our side, as here, to interpret the harrowing scene. We would not rush instantly to adverse conclusions, nor misconceive the dispensation. Even in the case before us we are not warranted in deciding upon the ultimate fate of Nadab and Abihu. Death is truly in every case a particular instance of a general law. “This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified,” etc. It ever reminds us of its connection with sin, and every time we are called to stand by the grave we should be impressed with a deeper sense of the enormity and awfulness of sin in God’s sight. Beholding the effect, let us hate the cause.
IV. Aaron furnishes AN EXAMPLE OF FITTING BEHAVIOUR UNDER TRIAL. He could not rejoice to see the withering of his cherished hopes; God expects no such unnatural triumphing over the instincts of affection. But he refrained from murmuring, he “held his peace.” “I was dumb, I opened not my mouth, because thou didst it.” Open the quivering lips, and the pent-up agony of the spirit may find vent in the utterance of expostulations and reproaches unworthy of a child of God. Job’s wife tempted him to “curse God and die,” but he “sinned not with his lips.” He was, indeed, able to say, “Shall we receive good at the hands of God, and shall we not receive evil?” “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the Name of the Lord.” It was after this that he “uttered that he understood not.”
V. TO REPRESS REPINING IS ACCEPTED AS TACIT ACQUIESCENCE IN THE EQUITY OF DIVINE JUDGMENTS. His ways are often mysterious, but his wisdom cannot err nor his love prove unkind. The greatest degree of affection for our fellow-creatures must never be allowed to lessen our supreme regard for the glory of the Creator. “It is the Lord: let him do what seemeth him good.” Listen to the voice from under the trees of the Garden of Gethsemane: “Father, not my will, but thine be done.” Fond parents have sacrificed their children for the good of the commonwealth, how much more shall they be content to leave them in the hands of God, to be dealt with according to his infinite justice and mercy! It was the glory of the Father that necessitated the surrender of his beloved Son to death for the redemption of the world.S.R.A.
Lev 10:6, Lev 10:7
Restrictions and infirmities of religious service.
That honour involves responsibility is implied in many of these ordinances, and is recognized in the judgment passed on the conduct of men occupying conspicuous positions in society and in the Church. To be dedicated to God’s service was an inestimable privilege conferred on Aaron and his family, Their time and labour were bestowed upon high and holy employments, The seal of God was stamped upon their brow, the people regarded them with respect and provided for their maintenance. Compare the honourable position of ministers, missionaries, yea, all the followers of Christ now, and note that there arc special restrictions consequent upon their consecration, and common infirmities to which they are subject equally with others.
I. THE RESTRICTIONS.
1. Forbidden to mingle with the world in its engagements. “Not go out of the sanctuary,” at least for a season, they are deprived of the liberty others enjoy, Pursuits which may be harmlessly indulged in by others are unbecoming to them.
2. Prohibited from contact with all that is defiling. They must not touch the dead bodies of their relations; the cousins of Aaron shall perform the last offices for their brethren. What concord hath the Spirit of life with death? To profane the holy unction is to incur the Divine displeasure. “Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient.” “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.”
3. Free manifestation of grief at God’s visitations not permitted. The usual relief found in expression is excluded; there must be no signs of mourning upon the priests. Let it suffice for the nation to “bewail the burning.” How shall the oil of gladness consort with mourning? The people of God are not to be demonstrative in their sorrow at his chastisements, lest it be misconstrued, and others, taking occasion from their example, go further and even denounce the ways of God, and so “wrath come upon” them. We must remember the wisdom of the Almighty and the glory due unto his Name. Will not the world entertain hard thoughts concerning him if we his servants are over-loud in lamentation?
II. THE INFIRMITIES which are not prevented.
1. They are subject to the common losses and bereavements. There is no special providence in this respect. Even Aaron and his sons have to bow before afflicting dispensations. If it were otherwise great part of the discipline of life would be omitted from the training of God’s chiefest scholars.
2. They also feel the natural pangs of sorrow. It is evidently so in the present case, or the command to refrain from the usual manifestations of grief would not have been issued. God’s ministers are not expected to become hard-hearted and callous, but they are not to give way to outbursts of anguish.
3. They are liable to commit acts displeasing to God. Nadab and Abihu are a solemn warning of the possibility of transgression. Even Christians of repute fall into grievous sin. They get hurried away by worldly passion, and offer unacceptable worship.
CONCLUSION. Observe the influence of our behaviour upon
(1) the honour of God, and
(2) the welfare of our fellows.
He who expects great things of us wilt also, if we ask him, accord us the necessary strength to enable us to comply with his demands. Whilst conscious of the importance attaching to all our actions, we need not be depressed with a load of anxiety. We may “rejoice in the Lord alway.”S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Lev 10:1-7
Nadab and Abihu,
When the fire of God came upon the sacrifices, “the people shouted, and fell on their faces.” While thus in an attitude of prayer, Nadab and Abihu snatched their censers, put fire into them, and put incense upon the fire, as though to send up the prayers of the people to God. In this they sinned, and in consequence paid a fearful penalty. Let us consider
I. THE NATURE OF THEIR SIN. We are told:
1. That they offered strange fire to God.
(1) The censers were right. They were doubtless those made under the direction of Bezaleel and Aholiab according to patterns shown in the mount (Exo 25:40).
(2) The composition of the incense also was right; we have no intimation to the contrary. Under proper conditions, therefore, the incense might appropriately ascend with the “prayers of the saints” (see Luk 1:9, Luk 1:10; Rev 8:3, Rev 8:4).
(3) But the fire was wrong. It was a fire of their own kindling: not that which came forth from the Lord. It therefore represented their own spirit rather than the Spirit of God. No prayer can be acceptable that is not divinely inspired (see Isa 1:10, Isa 1:11; Rom 8:26, Rom 8:27; Jas 4:3). It matters not how correct the form of words: the censer is nothing; or how orthodox the sentiment: the composition of the incense is nothing, without the sacred fire (1Co 13:1, 1Co 13:2).
2. That they acted without direction.
(1) This is the force of the words, “which he commanded them not.” Their crime was not in doing what was forbidden, but in doing what was not enjoined. Will-worship is offensive to God. No body of uninspired men has any business to “decree rites and ceremonies.” We should study the written Word to “prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (see Deu 4:2; Pro 30:6; Rom 12:2; Rev 22:18, Rev 22:19).
(2) These transgressors were moved by a criminal pride. What had been done hitherto was done by Aaron, his sons only helping him; and done under the direction of Moses. They set divinely constituted authority at naught, which amounted to the despising of the authority of God. It was the very sin of Korah and his company (see Num 16:1-50).
(3) They introduced confusion. One priest at a time should offer incense in order to foreshadow that One true Priest whose merits, as incense, invests with acceptable fragrance and gives direction to the prayers of the saints. Here two at once rush in. These foreshadow the confusion of that antichrist which would make “priests” and “saints” and “angels” rivals of the one only Mediator (1Ti 2:5, 1Ti 2:6).
II. THE LESSONS OF THE PUNISHMENT.
1. God is not to be trifled with.
(1) He “will be sanctified in them that come nigh” to him (see Exo 19:22; Deu 32:48-51; Isa 5:16; Eze 20:41).
(2) He is “a consuming fire.” He will consume our sins in the sacrifice of Christ in his mercy, or he will make us a sacrifice and consume us in his anger. “He that believeth not shall be damned.”
2. His vengeance is often retributive.
(1) They sinned by fire; they suffered by fire (see Pro 1:31; Isa 3:10, Isa 3:11; Hos 8:11).
(2) They preferred a fire of their own kindling to the fire of God; God’s fire put their censers out, together with the light of their life. Twice we are reminded that they had no children, viz. Num 3:4; 1Ch 24:2. So completely was their light extinguished! “Quench not the Spirit.”
3. His retributions are sometimes summary.
(1) Their presumption was hasty and their destruction was swift (see 2Pe 2:1).
(2) They found “no space for repentance.” They “died before the Lord,” in presence of the mercy-seat, but finding no mercy. No wrath is more terrible than “the wrath of the Lamb.”
(3) As their sin foreshadowed that of the Babylonish antichrist, so did their punishment betoken his (see 2Th 2:3-8; Rev 18:8). That judgment will be “before all the people.” In it God will be signally “glorified.”
4. Mourning for the dead has its laws and limitations.
(1) It must not interrupt the service of God (1Ch 24:6, 1Ch 24:7; see Neh 6:3; Mat 8:21, Mat 8:22; Mat 12:47-49).
(2) “Aaron held his peace.” Did not murmur against God. Moses soothed him by showing that it was a necessary act of justice. Wherein God is glorified we should be content.
(3) It must not have expression in the holy place, which is a type of heaven. There the wisdom and justice of the judgments of God will be so manifest that the punishment of the wicked cannot be mourned.
(4) But mourning is proper in the camp (1Ch 24:4-6). The funeral procession through the camp of those corpses, wrapped in the very vestments in which the deceased too vainly gloried, would be an affecting sight. Nadab and Abihu, who had been in the mount, beholding the glory of the Lord (Exo 24:1), are now by wrath issuing from that same glory brought very low. When a king falls he often finds a scaffold at the foot of his throne. “Be not high-minded, but fear.”J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Lev 10:1-3
Sin and penalty in sacred things.
The story of the guilt and doom of the sons of Aaron constitutes a sad episode in the recital of the sacred precepts of the Law. We look at
1. THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSGRESSION. It appears (from Lev 10:16, compared with Le Lev 9:15) that this forbidden act was done very soon indeed after the solemnities described in the preceding chapter (9). Otherwise we should have inferred that it was familiarity with sacred rites which had bred irreverent unconcern, and issued in disobedience. We seem shut up to the conclusion that these young men, even when the solemn inaugural scenes were fresh in their memories, and. the commandments of the Lord clearly before their minds, deliberately and wantonly took fire from another source than the heaven-kindled flame on the brazen altar (Lev 9:24). Their action was, therefore, not only a defiant violation of the Law they had received from Moses, the servant of Jehovah, but it was a perverse disregard of the manifest will of God, made known in special supernatural disclosure.
II. THE EXPLANATION OF THE PUNISHMENT. (Lev 10:2.) This may seem severe, has seemed so to some. Why not exclusion from office or excommunication from the congregation of the Lord? Why the extreme penalty for one act of error in worship? The answer is manifold.
1. Their deed was (as has been said) an act of willful and wanton disobedience.
2. It was committed by those who were in high position.
3. It was a sin on the part of men in the enjoyment of high privilege, and in the exercise of no slight influence.
4. It was an evil thing done in the holy place and before the very face of God; it was disobedience in connection with the public worship of Jehovahthe supreme sphere of activity, in regard to which it was of vital consequence to the nation that everything should be done aright.
5. One signal mark of high displeasure might be mercy as well as justiceinspiring holy awe and saving many others from similar transgressions.
III. THE LESSONS WHICH THE SIN AND THE PENALTY LEAVE BEHIND THEM. We learn from this solemn and painful scene:
1. That God’s will must be sedulously regarded in our approaches to himself: “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me” (Lev 10:3).
2. That God will vindicate his Law in unmistakable ways: “before all the people I will be glorified” (Lev 10:3).
3. That there is no exemption from exposure to temptation: not
(1) sonship of the holy;
(2) being in a holy place;
(3) engagement in holy things;
(4) recency of special privilege.
4. That the heinousness of sin depends on many things beside the nature of the overt act.
5. That between sin and suffering there will be found a striking correspondence. With fire they sinned, and by fire they were consumed. God makes meet penalty to overtake transgression: whatsoever a man sows, that he reaps (Gal 6:7). Sins against the soul lead to spiritual injury; against the body, to weakness, disease, and death; against society, to social dishonour and shame, etc.C.
Lev 10:1, Lev 10:3
Strange fire.
“I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me.” Great and small things in the worship of God. Doubtless it seemed to Nadab and Abihu a matter of no consequence at all that they should take fire from one altar rather than from another. To us it may seem a comparatively small thing, when viewed in connection with the terrible doom that immediately ensued. Obviously, however, it was a great thing in the sight of God. The act of punishment by which he showed his high displeasure, and the words of the text, sufficiently prove this. The seriousness of this particular transgression on the part of the sons of Aaron arose from several attendant considerations (see Homily on “Sin and penalty,” etc.): its seriousness to us, in the fact that we may be disregarding as small and insignificant that which, in God’s sight, is great and even vital; that we may be approaching him with what we think acceptable service, when he is prepared to reject it as “strange fire,” and condemn us severely for our disregard of his revealed will. In connection with the worship of God, there is
I. THE APPARENTLY AND INTRINSICALLY SMALL. So far as the things themselves are concerned, it is of no consequence to that most High God “who dwelleth not in temples made with hands,” what is
(1) the style of architecture of our sanctuaries,
(2) the character of their furniture,
(3) the order of the services,
(4) the number of ministrants who serve at pulpit or desk,
(5) the particular text chosen for the day, etc.
The judgment of good and faithful men may differ on these things, and their differences may be of no moment in the sight of God; in no way invalidating the service rendered, or lessening or lowering the blessing gained. But oven in connection with the smaller matters, as also apart from that connection, there is
II. THE ACTUALLY AND INTRINSICALLY GREAT. It is of the most serious importance that:
1. In all things, weightier and lighter, we should study to follow the will of Christ. His will is revealed in his own words, and in the acts and words of his apostles. Thence we must studiously deduce his desire concerning us.
2. We should make all things conduce to a reverential spirit. “God will be sanctified,” etc. The service which does not tend to impress the worshipper with the greatness, majesty, holiness, wisdom, faithfulness of God, is fatally defective, is essentially faulty.
3. We should exalt Jesus Christ as a Saviour from sin. The prominence and priority given to the sin offering in this book point clearly to the truth that “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” should have the principal place in Christian worship. He, the Divine Son, is also to be “sanctified in them that come nigh.”
4. We should present the entire truth of revelation; not that part which we prefer, which falls in with our tastes or acquirements, but the “whole counsel of God.” Guiltily disregarding these imperative matters, we
(1) not only do not offer acceptable sacrifice, but
(2) render ourselves obnoxious to our Master’s Divine dissatisfaction, to his displacement of us from his service, to his severe rebukes (Rev 2:1-29, Rev 3:1-22). The slightest deviation from the will of Christ, if caused by faulty negligence, and still more if due to willful disobedience, is a serious transgression; on the other hand, faithfulness in small things, rendered cheerfully and in a loving spirit, is certain of Divine acceptance and approval.C.
Lev 10:3-7
Self-restraint and utterance.
“And Aaron held his peace,” etc. The sequel to the sad story of the sin and death of Nadab and Abihu carries with it three lessons we shall do well to learn.
I. THAT A MAN IS LESS HONOURED BY EXALTED OFFICE THAN BY LOFTY ACTION. We pay a certain respect to Aaron as the first high priest of the ancient Law, type of the “High Priest of our profession.” But we pay a higher honor to him and feel a deeper regard for him, as one who acted nobly at a most trying time. Such a scene might well have unmanned him. We could not have blamed him had he given way to violent agitation, even in the house of the Lord. There is, in sorrow, a descending scale, and his was at the very bottom of its dark depths. Bereavement, the saddest of all losses; the death of a child, the saddest of all bereavements; the death of two sons in their manhood, the saddest form which the loss of children can assume; its startling, awful suddenness; its occurrence under the aggravating conditions of guilt and dishonour;such was the staggering blow that fell on Aaron then! There is a nobleness of self-restraint which is truly touching, which excites our hearty admiration, in the fact that “Aaron held his peace.” He did not give way to tempestuous emotion or to querulous complaint; he acted as became him: standing where he stood in the near presence of God, he bore the blow in sacred silence, he opened not his mouth, he was dumb, because he felt the Lord had done it (Psa 39:9). There is nothing manlier, nobler, more admirable than calmness in the overwhelming hour. it is born of
(1) devoutness, a profound sense of the presence and sovereignty of God; and of
(2) self-culture, the training of our own spirit, the “keeping of our heart” (Pro 4:23).
II. THAT THE DEVOUT HEART WILL RECOGNIZE THE RIGHTNESS OF SUBORDINATING PERSONAL SENTIMENT TO THE SERVICE OF GOD. (Lev 10:6.) This melancholy occurrence had taken place in vindication of the honour of God (Lev 10:3). The one feeling which was to fill the hearts of those who stood before God was an unquestioning acceptance of the severe and. afflictive decree of the Holy One. To show the ordinary signs of sorrow might be open to misconstruction; might appear as a protest against the death-penalty. In the cause of righteousness the natural feeling of father and sons must be energetically suppressed. And it was done. There come times in our history when, in the highest interests of all, in the service of God and of our kind, we are called upon to make parental, conjugal, fraternal, friendly emotions give place to calmness of spirit. When that hour comes, we, if we have Aaron’s spirit, shall obey as he obeyed.
III. THAT GOD DESIRES US TO GIVE PLAY TO HUMAN FEELING WHEN HIS LAW IS NOT BROKEN OR, HIS SERVICE HINDERED THEREBY.
1. The relatives of the dead were to carry their bodies decently and reverently “from before the sanctuary” (Lev 10:4).
2. The whole house of Israel were to “bewail the burning which the Lord had kindled” (Lev 10:6). Where the lamentation was natural, and where there was no peril of its being misinterpreted, it was not only allowed but encouraged of God. Stoicism is no part of Christianity. We are to be natural and sympathetic. Jesus “rejoiced in spirit” and” wept” himself. He intimated his wish that we should act naturally, in accordance with our surrounding circumstances and inward spirit (Mat 9:15-17; Joh 16:20-22; Jas 5:13). Sympathetic as well as natural: “rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep,” etc. (Rom 12:15).C.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Lev 10:1-7
Strange fire; and Jehovah’s judgment upon it.
Lev 10:3, “Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace?
I. A GREAT OFFENSE against the holiness of God.
1. Defilement of his worship. Violation of his written Word. Introduction of self-will and mere human device. Abuse of the joyful spirit of praise to insolent self-assertion and disregard of decencies and reverence.
2. Special profanation of the sanctuary by disobedience of priests. Holy offices dishonoured is a fearful evil.
3. Hiding of God’s glory with false glory. Ritualism. Mere show of human talent. Abuse of music. Forgetfulness of God in his service. Temptation to vain-glory.
II. A SOLEMN VINDICATION of the sanctity of God’s house and Law, Strange fire offended, true fire punished.
1. Profitableness of the study of providence, especially ecclesiastical history, as revealing the “consuming fire” of righteousness in the Church.
2. Representative character of all God’s people, and especially those in prominent position. God glorified in us, whether by life or by death,
3. Double aspect of all Divine visitations of judgment, as confirming at once the strength of the Law and the faithfulness of the covenant, therefore both warning and encouragement. “Aaron held his peace,” for he could only acknowledge the righteousness of God. Grace is above nature, and controls and exalts it,
III. A GREAT LESSON on the infirmity of man and the necessity of redemption. Immediately that the temple service was inaugurated, man spoiled it, as it were, by his sin. Compare the inauguration of earthly life spoiled by the sin of Adam and Eve; the new world after the Flood by Noah’s sin (Gen 9:1-29); defection in the new land of Canaan (Jdg 2:13); Solomon (1Ki 11:1-43); the corruption of the early Church (Act 20:29, etc.); the final apostasy (Rev 20:7-10). On what can we depend but the preserving mercy, the rescuing grace of him who has redeemed us? The “strange fire” was thus solemnly condemned only for the sake of calling out faith and attaching the people of God the more firmly to that fire of his love which, while it consumed the Sacrifice on the cross, did also prepare the way for all into the holiest, that all might be kings and priests unto God through Christ.R.
Lev 10:8-20
EXPOSITION
THE COMMAND TO ABSTAIN FROM WINE (Lev 10:8-11). The law given to Aaron (some manuscripts read Moses) against the use of wine by the priests during their ministrations, by its juxtaposition with what has gone before, has led to the probable supposition that Nadab and Abihu had acted under the excitement of intoxicating drink. It is possible that the sacrificial meals on the peace offerings had begun, and that at the same time that the congregation was feasting, the two priests had refreshed themselves with wine after their long service. The special ceremonial meal of the priests had not yet been eaten.
Lev 10:10
Wine and other intoxicating liquors (, whence the Greek word , Luk 1:13, was made from dates, or barley, or honey) are forbidden to the priests during their ministrations, that they may pat a difference between holy and unholy; that is, that their minds may not be confused, but be capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, what ought and what ought not to be done. Nadab and Abihu, on the contrary, had not distinguished between the sacred and profane fire, or between God’s commands and their own unregulated impulses. If they had partaken too freely of the wine provided for the drink offerings, their sin would be similar to that of the Corinthians in their abuse of the Lord’s Supper. As to the use of wine by the minister of God under the New Testament, see 1Ti 3:2, 1Ti 3:8; 1Ti 5:23. The spiritual emotion, which, in the service of God, shows itself in pouring out the feelings in “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” is contrasted, in Eph 5:18, Eph 5:19, with the physical excitement caused by wine, the former being commended and the latter forbidden.
Lev 10:11
That ye may teach the children of Israel. This shows that one part of the priest’s office was teaching the Law (cf. Deu 24:8; Mal 2:7).
Lev 10:12-20
Moses takes care that the remaining part of the ritual of the day shall be carried out in spite of the terrible interruption that has occurred. Under his instructions, Aaron and Eleazar and Ithamar eat the remainder of the meat offering (Lev 9:17), in the court of the tabernacle, and reserve the wave breast and heave shoulder to eat in a clean place, that is, not necessarily within the court; but he finds that the sin offerings (Lev 9:15), which ought to be eaten by the priests, had been burnt. The rule was that, when the blood was presented in the tabernacle, the flesh was burned; when it was not, the flesh was eaten by the priests. In the present case, the blood had not been brought within the holy place, and yet the flesh had been burned instead of being eaten. Moses was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, and demanded an explanation. Aaron’s plea of defense was twofold.
1. His sons had fulfilled aright the ritual of their own sin offering and burnt offering, that is, the offerings made for the priests, and it had been rather his duty than theirs to see that the ritual of the sin offering of the congregation had been properly carried out.
2. The state of distress in which he was, and the near escape that he had had from ceremonial defilement, and the sense of sin brought home to him by his children’s death, had made him unfit and unable to eat the sin offering of the people, as he should have done under other circumstances. With this plea Moses was content. It was true that the letter of the Law had been broken, but there was a sufficient cause for it (see Hos 6:6; Mat 12:7). It appears from hence that the expiation wrought by the sin offering was not complete until the whole ceremony was accomplished, the last act of which was the eating of the flesh by the priests in one class of sin offering, and the burning the flesh outside the camp in the other. It has been questioned, what is the full meaning of the expression, God hath given it youthe flesh of the sin offeringto bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord. Archdeacon Freeman expresses the view of A Lapide, Keil, and many others when he says that, by eating the flesh of the offering, the priests “in a deep mystery neutralized, through the holiness vested in them by their consecration, the sin which the offerer had laid upon the victim and upon them” (‘Principles of Divine Service,’ part 2). Oehler, on the other hand (Herzog’s ‘Cyclop.,’ 10), maintains that the priests did no more by this act than declare the removal of the sin already taken away; with which accords Philo’s explanation (‘De Vict.,’ 13, quoted by Edersheim, ‘Temple Service,’ Lev 6:1-30.) that the object of the sacrificial meal was to carry assurance of acceptance to the offerer, “since God would never have allowed his servants to partake of it had there not been a complete removal and forgetting of the sin atoned for.” Neither of these explanations seems to be altogether satisfactory. The former attributes more meaning to the expression bear the iniquity than it appears to have elsewhere; e.g. Exo 28:38 and Num 18:1, where Aaron is said to bear the iniquity of the holy things and of the sanctuary; and Eze 4:4-6, where the prophet is said to bear the iniquity of Israel and Judah. The latter interpretation appears too much to evacuate the meaning of the words. It is quite certain that the part of the ceremony by which the atonement was wrought (if it was wrought by any one part) was the offering of the blood for the covering of the offerer’s sins, but yet this action of the priests in eating the flesh of the victim was in some way also connected with the atonement, not only with the assurance of its having been wrought; but in what way this was effected we are not told, and cannot pronounce. The words bear the iniquity are equivalent to making atonement for by taking the sin in some sense upon themselves (cf. Isa 53:11, “He shall bear their iniquities,” and Joh 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away [or beareth] the sin of the world’). Accordingly, Bishop Patrick comments: “The very eating of the people’s sin offering argued the sins of the people were, in some sort, laid upon the priests, to be taken away by them. From whence the sacrifice of Christ may be explained, who is said to bear our iniquity (as the priest is here said to do), all our sins being laid on him, who took upon him to make an expiation for them by the sacrifice of himself. For the priest, hereby eating of the sin offering, receiving the guilt upon himself, may well be thought to prefigure One who should be both Priest and Sacrifice for sin; which was accomplished in Christ” (on Le Eze 10:17).
HOMILETICS
Lev 10:1, Lev 10:2
The sinfulness of man mars the full effect of the good purposes of God
on the very day of the consecration of the priests.
I. THE SIN OF NADAB AND ABIHU. Presumption. They chose their own method of returning thanks and giving praise to God, a method unsanctioned by God’s command, unauthorized by their official superiors.
II. THEIR PUNISHMENT. Death. We might have thought that a lesser penalty would have sufficed for such a sin, if we had not had their example before us.
III. ITS LESSONS.
1. The necessity of obedience to positive precepts as well as moral commands. Moral commands, which rest for their basis on some reason which we can apprehend, being in their nature of far greater importance than positive precepts, which are binding simply because they have been ordered, we are tempted to undervalue the latter. We say, “I know God’s purpose, and will carry it out; it is slavish to be bound by the letter. He will prefer the course which has now become the best to that which he commanded under perhaps altered circumstances.” This arises from pride. We make ourselves judges of God’s purposes, in respect to which we are in truth ignorant or can at best guess blindly. There may be a thousand other objects of the Divine counsels beside that which we think that we see, which we regard as the only one. The questions which alone we must ask are, “Does this injunction come from God? and does it affect me?” If so, we must obey it without respect to consequences, and we may not substitute for it a course of action which appears to ourselves better adapted to effect the end which we suppose to be in view.
2. The special necessity of this obedience in Divine warship. God knows how he wills to be worshipped, and why he should be so worshipped. Man does not. Under the old dispensation, the forms of worship appointed by him were typical. What they were typical of’ he knew, but man did not; therefore man could not judge of their propriety. Under the new dispensation, he has by positive injunction appointed two ritesthe sacrament of Baptism and the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. To dispense with either of them would be an act of the highest presumption. He appointed certain forms by which they were to be administered. Human authority may not in baptism change water for any other element, or substitute other words than those appointed, nor may it alter the form of the consecration in the administration of the Holy Communion; nor when Christ has said, “Drink ye all of this,” may it, without sin, enjoin, “Ye shall not all drink of it.”
3. Human authority to be obeyed where God has not spoken. There must be regulations of some kind for Divine worship, and these it is the office of the Church to supply, ordaining, abolishing, and changing, as it seems good from time to time. “Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain ceremonies or rites of the Church;” and also “to change and abolish” them when “ordained by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying” (Art. 34). When once ordained, they have a binding force over the conscience until abolished by the same authority. “Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the tradition and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, as he that offendeth against the common order of the Chinch, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren” (Ibid.). Although the intention be good, though the purpose be to improve the worship of God, and, as in the case of Nadab and Abihu, to light up in the sanctuary the golden altar of incense and prayer, yet, if a man act without the authority of his Church, he is guilty of presumption, and will have to bear his iniquity,
Lev 10:2
Fire
was the instrument of the destruction of Nadab and Ahihu, whilst just before it had been the means of consuming the sacrifice, and in passing to the altar it had probably bathed Moses and Aaron in its harmless flames as they stood at the door of the tabernacle. Thus it is that the same thing serves as a means of glorification or of destruction, according to the qualities of that with which it comes in contact. The discipline of daily life makes one a saint, another a more determined sinner. The discipline of suffering softens one heart, hardens another. The difficulties of religious belief make one the more submissive, another an unbeliever. God is the joy of the believer and the misery of the infidel. And so we may suppose that it will be hereafter. The presence of God will be the exceeding great reward of those who have sought him, and that same presence would be the torture of those who have not submitted their wills to his. It may be that this in itself will be sufficient to constitute the punishment of the unrighteous in the world to come.
Lev 10:3
Increase of privilege involves increase of danger.
The nearer men are brought to God, the more liable they are to chastening at his hands. This is more particularly the case with those who are made his ministers. What might pass unpunished in others will be punished in them. What would be allowed in others will not be allowed in them (Lev 10:6). Had Nadab and Abihu not been called to be priests, they would not have met their untimely fate; and had Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar been laymen, they would have been permitted to make use of the ordinary signs of mourning for their dead. But God’s work must come before any other duty, and if it be not done as God has willed it to be done, a sorer punishment will fall upon those who have specially devoted themselves to the immediate service of God than on others. This is a solemn thought for those who are ordained to be the ministers of God.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Lev 10:1-11
Counterfeit fire.
cf. Act 5:1-42. We have considered the consecration both of the high priest and of the minor priests, and how, entering upon their office in expectation of a sign, they got it in the outflash of the “consuming fire.” But sad to say, two of the minor priests so provoke the Lord by their presumption that they are instantly consumed. Having already contrasted the high priest’s consecration with Christ’s baptism, and the descent of the fire with the effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost, we cannot resist the parallel presented by the case of Ananias and Sapphira to this case of Nadab and Abihu. If believers are rightly regarded as “priests unto God,” then the case of Ananias and Sapphira is one of presumption in an assumed priesthood. The parallel will help us to definite ideas about the sin.
I. HONOUR IS OFTENTIMES TOO MUCH FOR SOME MINDS. And it is generally a minor class of mind that gets intoxicated with position and success. Nadab and Abihu, elevated to the priesthood, are so elated as to suppose that everything becomes them. Moreover, allied with this mental intoxication and excitement there often is physical intoxication. Indulgence is thought a proper thing for the upstart, and so he leads his presumption by excess. The probabilities are in favour of supposing that Nadab and Abihu had indulged in wine or strong drink immediately on their elevation to the priesthood (cf. Act 5:9, Act 5:10), and, in consequence, were incapacitated for distinguishing between the holy fire and its unholy counterfeit. It is not every one who can stand a “full cup,” or walk with it steadily. If with honour there comes not a quiet spirit, it becomes a curse rather than a blessing.
II. SELF–CONFIDENCE IS THE NATURAL RESULT OF THE INTOXICATION OF SUCCESS. Nadab and Abihu, in their folly, think that they can guide themselves in priestly duty. Their venerable uncle, Moses, is not to be consulted by such dignitaries as they are. They can approach the Divine presence in a perfectly new and original way. The fire which came originally from heaven, and which has been most carefully preserved as a sacred deposit, is not, they believe, a bit better than fire they themselves can kindle. They will not depend upon it, but furnish a good fire themselves. Their spirit is sell-confidence all through. The license of innovation was most uncalled for at such a time, seeing that the ritual was only in process of reception from heaven. There was no excuse for their course at all.
III. GOD NEVER GRANTS A MANIFESTATION, BUT SATAN GETS UP THROUGH SELF–CONFIDENT MEN A COUNTERFEIT. Nadab and Abihu believed they could produce as good a fire as God. Ananias and Sapphire believed that hypocrisy could conduct itself as creditably as Pentecostal devotion. To every suggestion of a “year of grace,” there comes the counter-suggestion of a “year of delusion.” All fire is equally common, or, for that matter, equally sacred, to the self-confident mind. Special inspirations are incredible. Censers can be filled on the most rational principles, and God does not refuse any man’s person.
Paul, in 1Co 13:1-13, conveys the idea of counterfeit eloquence, a loveless exhibition of oratory that casual observers might pronounce angelic; of counterfeit enthusiasm, and even faith, so that neither mysteries nor mountains can retard the loveless spirit’s prayers; of counterfeit martyrdoms, giving up the body to be burned after giving up fortune to the poor; and yet, because love is wanting in such cases, they constitute an unacceptable and profitless service.
IV. THOSE WHO PRESUME WITH THEIR COUNTERFEITS MUST ACCEPT OF THE JUDGMENT THEY DESERVE. Nadab and Abihu, despising the Divine fire, and coming into competition with their own, are consumed by it. In a moment they experience how God is a “consuming fire’ to all presumption. Ananias and Sapphira feel the same. They fall before the deserved vengeance of the Most High. God offers us the great alternativeeither sanctification through the fire of the Holy Ghost, or destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power. God will be sanctified in some way: if the wrath of man does not turn to praise, it will glorify God in being restrained (Psa 76:10).
V. IT IS CLEAR THAT GOD ONLY ACCEPTS WHAT HE HIMSELF INSPIRES. This is the lesson of this sad providence. We must bring back to God what he has given. Independent offerings are not acceptable. To come to him in a way of our own devising, instead of by Jesus Christ; to come to him in a self-confident spirit, instead of in the humility inspired by the Holy Ghost; to come to him with proud, cold hearts, instead of with warm and ardent ones, is to be sent empty away. He refuses all such counterfeit offerings; he must have Divine fire or none.R.M.E.
Lev 10:3-7; 12-20
Submission in bereavement.
cf. 2Sa 12:15-23; Job 1:18-21; Joh 11:1-57; 1Th 4:13-18. The conduct of Aaron under the bereavement is most instructive. He holds his peace and is prepared to do whatever Muses commands. And here we have to notice
I. GOD‘S SERVICE AND GLORY MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE OF EVERY OTHER CONSIDERATION. The surviving priests were to leave the mourning and the funeral arrangements to their brethren. The bereavement is not to interfere with their priestly service and consecration. God asserts his claims as paramount. “He that loveth father or mother more than me,” said God incarnate, “is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Mat 10:37). It is ideally possible, therefore, to be so filled with a sense of consecration to God that every other consideration is made to dwindle into insignificance. Is not this what we shall realize in heaven?
II. SUBMISSION TO GOD‘S CLEARLY EXPRESSED WILL IS A RELIEF TO THE SOUL WHICH HAS BEEN UNCERTAIN BEFORE IT. The thought that God willed the death of those dear to us, has a wonderfully calming influence upon us. We may see no reason for the stroke, and God may not for a long season show us his reason, but we can believe he has one and a good one, and. that “he doeth all things well.” The death of Nadab and Abihu was as clearly a token from God as the previous manifestation. Job, again, shows the same submissive spirit under a still greater bereavement (Job 1:18-21). So did David on the death of his child (2Sa 12:15-23). So did Mary and Martha on the death of Lazarus (Joh 11:1-57.). All these worthies rested, as we all may rest, and there is no other rest but in the will of an all-wise God. Uncertainty is trying, but even the certainty of bereavement and of sorrow has an element of rest in it.
III. AARON IS CAUTIONED AGAINST ANY USE OF WINE OR STRONG DRINK WHEN ENGAGED IN PRIESTLY SERVICE. Doubtless the primary significance of this injunction was, as already noticed, that Nadab and Abihu had erred therein. But it seems to carry also a beneficial caution. For at no time are people more tempted to resort to wine and strong drink than when in bereavement. A little stimulus, they fancy, will sustain them. So they take to “the bottle” to replenish their courage. The result is that they fall into deeper troubles than ever. Aaron is the better of this injunction to abstain at this time when his sorrow is so keen.
IV. SORROW NECESSITATED FASTING INSTEAD OF FEASTING. After the terrible trial, Aaron and his surviving sons had no appetite for the feasting to which they were entitled; and so they seem to have burned the sin offering in its entirety instead of eating of it. Moses, in directing the sorrowing priests to proceed to the feast of fellowship, made no due allowance for their condition. Aaron instinctively saw the incongruity of feasting when his heart was so sore, and therefore he acted in the spirit of the Law, which disposed of what could not be used in the fire of the altar.
And might not those who turn a house of mourning into a house of feasting learn a lesson of propriety here? Eating and drinking in connection with wakes and funerals have been carried oftentimes to most unseemly excess. The whole spirit of sorrow evaporates before the copious offerings to the “belly-god,” and instead of spiritual profit there is spiritual deterioration.
Fasting is an effort of nature to say a word for the spirit within. Sorrow takes the edge off appetite, and rebukes feasting that the soul may have a season of repair. If the sad heart gets fair play, it will emerge from its sorrows purified and elevated.
V. THE SPIRIT MAY SOMETIMES MOST PROPERLY SUPERSEDE THE LETTER. We have seen how fatal was the innovation of the presumptuous priests. But in this same chapter we come across an innovation on the part of Aaron, at which Moses and God were content. There is all the difference between rigidity which must not be broken, and a law whose spirit can move freely amid its forms. It was the latter which God gave. There are necessities which arise from time to time and are themselves laws to the spiritual mind. We should be jealous of ourselves in the exercise of our liberty, but, at the same time, we ought to realize our freedom as God gives it to us in his Law.R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Lev 10:1, Lev 10:2
Disobedience swiftly punished.
What a contrast between the two scenes! Aaron and Moses entering the tabernacle and returning to bless the people and to participate in the rejoicing caused by the appearance of God’s glory, and Nadab and Abihu approaching the same sacred place only to be consumed by the fire of judgment, their offerings rejected, themselves destroyed! The judgments of God are not pleasing to contemplate, but they are necessary to completeness of view, and to the begetting in us of due caution when we venture into his presence, lest our holy boldness degenerate into a presumptuous disregard of his regulations.
I. THE ACT OF RASH DISOBEDIENCE.
1. We see two brothers sinning against God. Brothers may be mutually helpful or injurious. To witness the union of members of a family in pious zeal is delightful, but too often relationship is provocative of harm rather than of blessing. Elder brothers, beware of leading your younger relations into sin!
2. Two that were intimately related to holy men were not thereby shielded from thoughtless action and severe judgment. Alas! that the children of godly parents should ever belie their ancestry. Here the sons of Aaron and nephews of Moses dishonoured their relationship.
3. Two young men brought destruction upon themselves and grief upon their friends. They died childless, and, if more than youths, could yet hardly have attained to any great age. Eleazar, the next brother, was perhaps not twenty at this time, for he was not included in the list of the men forbidden to see or enter the land of promise. We are apt to censure the evil deeds of young men too gently, and to look upon youth as more of an excuse than God seems here to regard it. Experience proves that if youth naturally inclines to sin, so also is it, equally with age, visited with righteous retribution.
4. Two that had been openly dedicated to the service of God were unmindful of his precepts. They had just been consecrated as priests. This did not prevent them from violating the Law, nor protect them from the consequences of their behaviour. There is danger as well as honour involved in waiting upon God. If Peter had not been called to the lofty position of discipleship, he had not denied his Master. By smiting these two priests, sons of the high priest, Jehovah taught the people that sin could be committed by, and would not be pardoned in, the most exalted of the nation. It was a conspicuous, forcible demonstration of the majesty and holiness of God.
5. Two that had recently beheld the glory of the Lord forgot the obedience their position demanded. Perhaps it was the very excitement consequent on such s scene that unduly elevated them, so that, becoming giddy, they reeled into the abyss of impetuous self-will and awful penalty. We must guard against imprudent familiar handling of Divine things after the grace of God has visited us with wondrous revelations of his mercy and favour. It is evident that even if displays of supernatural power were frequent, they would not prove a security against transgression. Some have turned the grace of God manifested in full and free salvation through Christ into a covering for licentiousness and irreverence.
II. THE GLOOMY CHANGE EFFECTED BY SIN.
1. A day of hallowed joy becomes a day of mourning. This is the bitter chequered experience of life. The sunny skies soon grow dark with clouds, the quiet waters are lashed into tempestuous fury. Men are almost afraid of seasons of ecstatic rejoicing, as if a reaction must quickly ensue; the gladness seems itself a presentiment of coming trouble. Sorrow treads close upon the heels of mirth. Sin may well excite in us sentiments of aversion when we see how it has disfigured the fair features of creation’s landscape, changing songs into sighs and smiles into tears. Many a day that began with singing and prayer has ended with wailing and remorse.
2. The fire of Divine approval is changed in, to the fire of Divine wrath. The men became a sacrifice to God’s glory indeed, but were not an offering voluntarily laid upon his altar. It seemed fitting that the punishment should bear an analogy to the sin. Strange fire was punished with hallowed fire. The conception of a mild Deity unmoved to indignation at acts unaccordant with his will is not justified by Scripture, nor is it in harmony with the utterances of conscience or the testimony borne by the existent laws of his moral government of the world.
3. Not even the profession of desire to honour God excuses the willful neglect of his injunctions. To substitute human inventions for scriptural institutions is a dangerous practice. Reason may discern little difference of moment, but it is not safe to argue that therefore the particular observance is immaterial, and rests on no rational ground of distinction. The loyalty that will presume to alter the king’s ordinances is of doubtful character and certain of rejection.S.R.A.
Lev 10:3
A bereaved parent.
Who can stand in the presence of death unmoved? A gulf separates us from the departed friend; the past is like a dream. The partnership between soul and body has been dissolved, and already the clay tabernacle, deprived of its tenant, shows signs of crumbling into decay. The form is the same, but the animating principle has fled. The casket has been rifled of its jewel; we survey the husk, but the kernel has vanished.
I. HERE WAS AN INSTANCE OF SUDDEN DEATH. This is the more startling. The festival is changed into a funeral. The active frame is motionless, the busy brain that teemed with thought is still; we call aloud, but there is no reply; we bend down to touch the lips, but we receive no responsive kiss. How weak is man, when a stroke deprives him of all his faculties, removes him from earthly ken, and his place knows him no more!
II. IT IS SAD WHEN CHILDREN DIE BEFORE THEIR PARENTS. Then the cup of bereavement contains an added element of bitterness. The natural order is inverted. Pathetic was the expression of Burke’s grief at the loss of his only son. “I am stripped of all my honours; I am torn up by the roots, and lie prostrate on the earth. I have none to meet my enemies in the gate. They who ought to have succeeded me have gone before me. They who should have been to me a posterity are in the place of ancestors.” To see the budding rose suddenly blighted, all the promise of life unrealized, is enough to rend a parent’s heart with disappointment.
III. IT IS SADDER STILL WHEN DEATH IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF THOUGHTLESS, SINFUL CONDUCT. Then no gleam of light tempers the darkness. If the flower be transplanted to adorn the heavenly garden, there will be joy at the thought to alleviate the sorrow. But when the removal appears like that of tares to be burned, who shall assuage the pangs of bereavement? Children! strive so to live that if Providence call you away in early life, the memory left behind may be sweet and fragrant, pleasant and reassuring. Let us not too hastily assume the death of the youthful to be a judgment. We may have no Moses at our side, as here, to interpret the harrowing scene. We would not rush instantly to adverse conclusions, nor misconceive the dispensation. Even in the case before us we are not warranted in deciding upon the ultimate fate of Nadab and Abihu. Death is truly in every case a particular instance of a general law. “This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified,” etc. It ever reminds us of its connection with sin, and every time we are called to stand by the grave we should be impressed with a deeper sense of the enormity and awfulness of sin in God’s sight. Beholding the effect, let us hate the cause.
IV. Aaron furnishes AN EXAMPLE OF FITTING BEHAVIOUR UNDER TRIAL. He could not rejoice to see the withering of his cherished hopes; God expects no such unnatural triumphing over the instincts of affection. But he refrained from murmuring, he “held his peace.” “I was dumb, I opened not my mouth, because thou didst it.” Open the quivering lips, and the pent-up agony of the spirit may find vent in the utterance of expostulations and reproaches unworthy of a child of God. Job’s wife tempted him to “curse God and die,” but he “sinned not with his lips.” He was, indeed, able to say, “Shall we receive good at the hands of God, and shall we not receive evil?” “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the Name of the Lord.” It was after this that he “uttered that he understood not.”
V. TO REPRESS REPINING IS ACCEPTED AS TACIT ACQUIESCENCE IN THE EQUITY OF DIVINE JUDGMENTS. His ways are often mysterious, but his wisdom cannot err nor his love prove unkind. The greatest degree of affection for our fellow-creatures must never be allowed to lessen our supreme regard for the glory of the Creator. “It is the Lord: let him do what seemeth him good.” Listen to the voice from under the trees of the Garden of Gethsemane: “Father, not my will, but thine be done.” Fond parents have sacrificed their children for the good of the commonwealth, how much more shall they be content to leave them in the hands of God, to be dealt with according to his infinite justice and mercy! It was the glory of the Father that necessitated the surrender of his beloved Son to death for the redemption of the world.S.R.A.
Lev 10:6, Lev 10:7
Restrictions and infirmities of religious service.
That honour involves responsibility is implied in many of these ordinances, and is recognized in the judgment passed on the conduct of men occupying conspicuous positions in society and in the Church. To be dedicated to God’s service was an inestimable privilege conferred on Aaron and his family, Their time and labour were bestowed upon high and holy employments, The seal of God was stamped upon their brow, the people regarded them with respect and provided for their maintenance. Compare the honourable position of ministers, missionaries, yea, all the followers of Christ now, and note that there arc special restrictions consequent upon their consecration, and common infirmities to which they are subject equally with others.
I. THE RESTRICTIONS.
1. Forbidden to mingle with the world in its engagements. “Not go out of the sanctuary,” at least for a season, they are deprived of the liberty others enjoy, Pursuits which may be harmlessly indulged in by others are unbecoming to them.
2. Prohibited from contact with all that is defiling. They must not touch the dead bodies of their relations; the cousins of Aaron shall perform the last offices for their brethren. What concord hath the Spirit of life with death? To profane the holy unction is to incur the Divine displeasure. “Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient.” “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.”
3. Free manifestation of grief at God’s visitations not permitted. The usual relief found in expression is excluded; there must be no signs of mourning upon the priests. Let it suffice for the nation to “bewail the burning.” How shall the oil of gladness consort with mourning? The people of God are not to be demonstrative in their sorrow at his chastisements, lest it be misconstrued, and others, taking occasion from their example, go further and even denounce the ways of God, and so “wrath come upon” them. We must remember the wisdom of the Almighty and the glory due unto his Name. Will not the world entertain hard thoughts concerning him if we his servants are over-loud in lamentation?
II. THE INFIRMITIES which are not prevented.
1. They are subject to the common losses and bereavements. There is no special providence in this respect. Even Aaron and his sons have to bow before afflicting dispensations. If it were otherwise great part of the discipline of life would be omitted from the training of God’s chiefest scholars.
2. They also feel the natural pangs of sorrow. It is evidently so in the present case, or the command to refrain from the usual manifestations of grief would not have been issued. God’s ministers are not expected to become hard-hearted and callous, but they are not to give way to outbursts of anguish.
3. They are liable to commit acts displeasing to God. Nadab and Abihu are a solemn warning of the possibility of transgression. Even Christians of repute fall into grievous sin. They get hurried away by worldly passion, and offer unacceptable worship.
CONCLUSION. Observe the influence of our behaviour upon
(1) the honour of God, and
(2) the welfare of our fellows.
He who expects great things of us wilt also, if we ask him, accord us the necessary strength to enable us to comply with his demands. Whilst conscious of the importance attaching to all our actions, we need not be depressed with a load of anxiety. We may “rejoice in the Lord alway.”S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
Lev 10:1-7
Nadab and Abihu,
When the fire of God came upon the sacrifices, “the people shouted, and fell on their faces.” While thus in an attitude of prayer, Nadab and Abihu snatched their censers, put fire into them, and put incense upon the fire, as though to send up the prayers of the people to God. In this they sinned, and in consequence paid a fearful penalty. Let us consider
I. THE NATURE OF THEIR SIN. We are told:
1. That they offered strange fire to God.
(1) The censers were right. They were doubtless those made under the direction of Bezaleel and Aholiab according to patterns shown in the mount (Exo 25:40).
(2) The composition of the incense also was right; we have no intimation to the contrary. Under proper conditions, therefore, the incense might appropriately ascend with the “prayers of the saints” (see Luk 1:9, Luk 1:10; Rev 8:3, Rev 8:4).
(3) But the fire was wrong. It was a fire of their own kindling: not that which came forth from the Lord. It therefore represented their own spirit rather than the Spirit of God. No prayer can be acceptable that is not divinely inspired (see Isa 1:10, Isa 1:11; Rom 8:26, Rom 8:27; Jas 4:3). It matters not how correct the form of words: the censer is nothing; or how orthodox the sentiment: the composition of the incense is nothing, without the sacred fire (1Co 13:1, 1Co 13:2).
2. That they acted without direction.
(1) This is the force of the words, “which he commanded them not.” Their crime was not in doing what was forbidden, but in doing what was not enjoined. Will-worship is offensive to God. No body of uninspired men has any business to “decree rites and ceremonies.” We should study the written Word to “prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (see Deu 4:2; Pro 30:6; Rom 12:2; Rev 22:18, Rev 22:19).
(2) These transgressors were moved by a criminal pride. What had been done hitherto was done by Aaron, his sons only helping him; and done under the direction of Moses. They set divinely constituted authority at naught, which amounted to the despising of the authority of God. It was the very sin of Korah and his company (see Num 16:1-50).
(3) They introduced confusion. One priest at a time should offer incense in order to foreshadow that One true Priest whose merits, as incense, invests with acceptable fragrance and gives direction to the prayers of the saints. Here two at once rush in. These foreshadow the confusion of that antichrist which would make “priests” and “saints” and “angels” rivals of the one only Mediator (1Ti 2:5, 1Ti 2:6).
II. THE LESSONS OF THE PUNISHMENT.
1. God is not to be trifled with.
(1) He “will be sanctified in them that come nigh” to him (see Exo 19:22; Deu 32:48-51; Isa 5:16; Eze 20:41).
(2) He is “a consuming fire.” He will consume our sins in the sacrifice of Christ in his mercy, or he will make us a sacrifice and consume us in his anger. “He that believeth not shall be damned.”
2. His vengeance is often retributive.
(1) They sinned by fire; they suffered by fire (see Pro 1:31; Isa 3:10, Isa 3:11; Hos 8:11).
(2) They preferred a fire of their own kindling to the fire of God; God’s fire put their censers out, together with the light of their life. Twice we are reminded that they had no children, viz. Num 3:4; 1Ch 24:2. So completely was their light extinguished! “Quench not the Spirit.”
3. His retributions are sometimes summary.
(1) Their presumption was hasty and their destruction was swift (see 2Pe 2:1).
(2) They found “no space for repentance.” They “died before the Lord,” in presence of the mercy-seat, but finding no mercy. No wrath is more terrible than “the wrath of the Lamb.”
(3) As their sin foreshadowed that of the Babylonish antichrist, so did their punishment betoken his (see 2Th 2:3-8; Rev 18:8). That judgment will be “before all the people.” In it God will be signally “glorified.”
4. Mourning for the dead has its laws and limitations.
(1) It must not interrupt the service of God (1Ch 24:6, 1Ch 24:7; see Neh 6:3; Mat 8:21, Mat 8:22; Mat 12:47-49).
(2) “Aaron held his peace.” Did not murmur against God. Moses soothed him by showing that it was a necessary act of justice. Wherein God is glorified we should be content.
(3) It must not have expression in the holy place, which is a type of heaven. There the wisdom and justice of the judgments of God will be so manifest that the punishment of the wicked cannot be mourned.
(4) But mourning is proper in the camp (1Ch 24:4-6). The funeral procession through the camp of those corpses, wrapped in the very vestments in which the deceased too vainly gloried, would be an affecting sight. Nadab and Abihu, who had been in the mount, beholding the glory of the Lord (Exo 24:1), are now by wrath issuing from that same glory brought very low. When a king falls he often finds a scaffold at the foot of his throne. “Be not high-minded, but fear.”J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Lev 10:1-3
Sin and penalty in sacred things.
The story of the guilt and doom of the sons of Aaron constitutes a sad episode in the recital of the sacred precepts of the Law. We look at
1. THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSGRESSION. It appears (from Lev 10:16, compared with Le Lev 9:15) that this forbidden act was done very soon indeed after the solemnities described in the preceding chapter (9). Otherwise we should have inferred that it was familiarity with sacred rites which had bred irreverent unconcern, and issued in disobedience. We seem shut up to the conclusion that these young men, even when the solemn inaugural scenes were fresh in their memories, and. the commandments of the Lord clearly before their minds, deliberately and wantonly took fire from another source than the heaven-kindled flame on the brazen altar (Lev 9:24). Their action was, therefore, not only a defiant violation of the Law they had received from Moses, the servant of Jehovah, but it was a perverse disregard of the manifest will of God, made known in special supernatural disclosure.
II. THE EXPLANATION OF THE PUNISHMENT. (Lev 10:2.) This may seem severe, has seemed so to some. Why not exclusion from office or excommunication from the congregation of the Lord? Why the extreme penalty for one act of error in worship? The answer is manifold.
1. Their deed was (as has been said) an act of willful and wanton disobedience.
2. It was committed by those who were in high position.
3. It was a sin on the part of men in the enjoyment of high privilege, and in the exercise of no slight influence.
4. It was an evil thing done in the holy place and before the very face of God; it was disobedience in connection with the public worship of Jehovahthe supreme sphere of activity, in regard to which it was of vital consequence to the nation that everything should be done aright.
5. One signal mark of high displeasure might be mercy as well as justiceinspiring holy awe and saving many others from similar transgressions.
III. THE LESSONS WHICH THE SIN AND THE PENALTY LEAVE BEHIND THEM. We learn from this solemn and painful scene:
1. That God’s will must be sedulously regarded in our approaches to himself: “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me” (Lev 10:3).
2. That God will vindicate his Law in unmistakable ways: “before all the people I will be glorified” (Lev 10:3).
3. That there is no exemption from exposure to temptation: not
(1) sonship of the holy;
(2) being in a holy place;
(3) engagement in holy things;
(4) recency of special privilege.
4. That the heinousness of sin depends on many things beside the nature of the overt act.
5. That between sin and suffering there will be found a striking correspondence. With fire they sinned, and by fire they were consumed. God makes meet penalty to overtake transgression: whatsoever a man sows, that he reaps (Gal 6:7). Sins against the soul lead to spiritual injury; against the body, to weakness, disease, and death; against society, to social dishonour and shame, etc.C.
Lev 10:1, Lev 10:3
Strange fire.
“I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me.” Great and small things in the worship of God. Doubtless it seemed to Nadab and Abihu a matter of no consequence at all that they should take fire from one altar rather than from another. To us it may seem a comparatively small thing, when viewed in connection with the terrible doom that immediately ensued. Obviously, however, it was a great thing in the sight of God. The act of punishment by which he showed his high displeasure, and the words of the text, sufficiently prove this. The seriousness of this particular transgression on the part of the sons of Aaron arose from several attendant considerations (see Homily on “Sin and penalty,” etc.): its seriousness to us, in the fact that we may be disregarding as small and insignificant that which, in God’s sight, is great and even vital; that we may be approaching him with what we think acceptable service, when he is prepared to reject it as “strange fire,” and condemn us severely for our disregard of his revealed will. In connection with the worship of God, there is
I. THE APPARENTLY AND INTRINSICALLY SMALL. So far as the things themselves are concerned, it is of no consequence to that most High God “who dwelleth not in temples made with hands,” what is
(1) the style of architecture of our sanctuaries,
(2) the character of their furniture,
(3) the order of the services,
(4) the number of ministrants who serve at pulpit or desk,
(5) the particular text chosen for the day, etc.
The judgment of good and faithful men may differ on these things, and their differences may be of no moment in the sight of God; in no way invalidating the service rendered, or lessening or lowering the blessing gained. But oven in connection with the smaller matters, as also apart from that connection, there is
II. THE ACTUALLY AND INTRINSICALLY GREAT. It is of the most serious importance that:
1. In all things, weightier and lighter, we should study to follow the will of Christ. His will is revealed in his own words, and in the acts and words of his apostles. Thence we must studiously deduce his desire concerning us.
2. We should make all things conduce to a reverential spirit. “God will be sanctified,” etc. The service which does not tend to impress the worshipper with the greatness, majesty, holiness, wisdom, faithfulness of God, is fatally defective, is essentially faulty.
3. We should exalt Jesus Christ as a Saviour from sin. The prominence and priority given to the sin offering in this book point clearly to the truth that “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” should have the principal place in Christian worship. He, the Divine Son, is also to be “sanctified in them that come nigh.”
4. We should present the entire truth of revelation; not that part which we prefer, which falls in with our tastes or acquirements, but the “whole counsel of God.” Guiltily disregarding these imperative matters, we
(1) not only do not offer acceptable sacrifice, but
(2) render ourselves obnoxious to our Master’s Divine dissatisfaction, to his displacement of us from his service, to his severe rebukes (Rev 2:1-29, Rev 3:1-22). The slightest deviation from the will of Christ, if caused by faulty negligence, and still more if due to willful disobedience, is a serious transgression; on the other hand, faithfulness in small things, rendered cheerfully and in a loving spirit, is certain of Divine acceptance and approval.C.
Lev 10:3-7
Self-restraint and utterance.
“And Aaron held his peace,” etc. The sequel to the sad story of the sin and death of Nadab and Abihu carries with it three lessons we shall do well to learn.
I. THAT A MAN IS LESS HONOURED BY EXALTED OFFICE THAN BY LOFTY ACTION. We pay a certain respect to Aaron as the first high priest of the ancient Law, type of the “High Priest of our profession.” But we pay a higher honor to him and feel a deeper regard for him, as one who acted nobly at a most trying time. Such a scene might well have unmanned him. We could not have blamed him had he given way to violent agitation, even in the house of the Lord. There is, in sorrow, a descending scale, and his was at the very bottom of its dark depths. Bereavement, the saddest of all losses; the death of a child, the saddest of all bereavements; the death of two sons in their manhood, the saddest form which the loss of children can assume; its startling, awful suddenness; its occurrence under the aggravating conditions of guilt and dishonour;such was the staggering blow that fell on Aaron then! There is a nobleness of self-restraint which is truly touching, which excites our hearty admiration, in the fact that “Aaron held his peace.” He did not give way to tempestuous emotion or to querulous complaint; he acted as became him: standing where he stood in the near presence of God, he bore the blow in sacred silence, he opened not his mouth, he was dumb, because he felt the Lord had done it (Psa 39:9). There is nothing manlier, nobler, more admirable than calmness in the overwhelming hour. it is born of
(1) devoutness, a profound sense of the presence and sovereignty of God; and of
(2) self-culture, the training of our own spirit, the “keeping of our heart” (Pro 4:23).
II. THAT THE DEVOUT HEART WILL RECOGNIZE THE RIGHTNESS OF SUBORDINATING PERSONAL SENTIMENT TO THE SERVICE OF GOD. (Lev 10:6.) This melancholy occurrence had taken place in vindication of the honour of God (Lev 10:3). The one feeling which was to fill the hearts of those who stood before God was an unquestioning acceptance of the severe and. afflictive decree of the Holy One. To show the ordinary signs of sorrow might be open to misconstruction; might appear as a protest against the death-penalty. In the cause of righteousness the natural feeling of father and sons must be energetically suppressed. And it was done. There come times in our history when, in the highest interests of all, in the service of God and of our kind, we are called upon to make parental, conjugal, fraternal, friendly emotions give place to calmness of spirit. When that hour comes, we, if we have Aaron’s spirit, shall obey as he obeyed.
III. THAT GOD DESIRES US TO GIVE PLAY TO HUMAN FEELING WHEN HIS LAW IS NOT BROKEN OR, HIS SERVICE HINDERED THEREBY.
1. The relatives of the dead were to carry their bodies decently and reverently “from before the sanctuary” (Lev 10:4).
2. The whole house of Israel were to “bewail the burning which the Lord had kindled” (Lev 10:6). Where the lamentation was natural, and where there was no peril of its being misinterpreted, it was not only allowed but encouraged of God. Stoicism is no part of Christianity. We are to be natural and sympathetic. Jesus “rejoiced in spirit” and” wept” himself. He intimated his wish that we should act naturally, in accordance with our surrounding circumstances and inward spirit (Mat 9:15-17; Joh 16:20-22; Jas 5:13). Sympathetic as well as natural: “rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep,” etc. (Rom 12:15).C.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Lev 10:1-7
Strange fire; and Jehovah’s judgment upon it.
Lev 10:3, “Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace?
I. A GREAT OFFENSE against the holiness of God.
1. Defilement of his worship. Violation of his written Word. Introduction of self-will and mere human device. Abuse of the joyful spirit of praise to insolent self-assertion and disregard of decencies and reverence.
2. Special profanation of the sanctuary by disobedience of priests. Holy offices dishonoured is a fearful evil.
3. Hiding of God’s glory with false glory. Ritualism. Mere show of human talent. Abuse of music. Forgetfulness of God in his service. Temptation to vain-glory.
II. A SOLEMN VINDICATION of the sanctity of God’s house and Law, Strange fire offended, true fire punished.
1. Profitableness of the study of providence, especially ecclesiastical history, as revealing the “consuming fire” of righteousness in the Church.
2. Representative character of all God’s people, and especially those in prominent position. God glorified in us, whether by life or by death,
3. Double aspect of all Divine visitations of judgment, as confirming at once the strength of the Law and the faithfulness of the covenant, therefore both warning and encouragement. “Aaron held his peace,” for he could only acknowledge the righteousness of God. Grace is above nature, and controls and exalts it,
III. A GREAT LESSON on the infirmity of man and the necessity of redemption. Immediately that the temple service was inaugurated, man spoiled it, as it were, by his sin. Compare the inauguration of earthly life spoiled by the sin of Adam and Eve; the new world after the Flood by Noah’s sin (Gen 9:1-29); defection in the new land of Canaan (Jdg 2:13); Solomon (1Ki 11:1-43); the corruption of the early Church (Act 20:29, etc.); the final apostasy (Rev 20:7-10). On what can we depend but the preserving mercy, the rescuing grace of him who has redeemed us? The “strange fire” was thus solemnly condemned only for the sake of calling out faith and attaching the people of God the more firmly to that fire of his love which, while it consumed the Sacrifice on the cross, did also prepare the way for all into the holiest, that all might be kings and priests unto God through Christ.R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Lev 10:1. And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron The offence of Nadab and Abihu, according to almost all the commentators, was their kindling their censers from strange or common fire; not from the fire which burned always upon the altar of the Lord: (see ch. Lev 16:12.) One may conceive, from the prohibition of wine to the priests immediately following this catastrophe, Lev 10:9 that the too free use of wine had occasioned them to act thus, contrary to what God had commanded; for though there is no law extant prohibiting the offering of common fire, yet it is not to be supposed that they would have been condemned to death had they not done something which God had expressly forbidden, or omitted what he had expressly commanded. Hence the words, which he commanded them not, are thought to imply an express prohibition; as if it had been said, which he had forbidden. See Jer 32:35. As strange incense, i.e. other incense than God had appointed, is forbidden, Exo 30:9 so strange fire is implicitly forbidden, ch. Lev 6:12 as afterwards God sheweth, ch. Lev 16:2. We refer to the reflections at the end of the chapter for a further account of this extraordinary event; which, however, a learned writer, in a distinct treatise on the subject, explains in a very different manner: he makes two objections against the common interpretation, remarking, 1st, That Moses gives to the fire, of which the two sons of Aaron made use, the direct name of fire without any qualification; not calling it strange fire till after he had said that they put incense thereon: so that, considering the mode of expression he uses, it seems as if the fire which Nadab and Abihu employed was not in itself a strange fire, and only became such when they had cast the incense upon it. 2nd, He insists, that the last verse of the foregoing chapter destroys the common interpretation; where it is said, that there came a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt-offering and the sat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces: to which Moses immediately adds, And Nadab and Abihu, the sons, &c. It seems, therefore, that, as soon as the sacred fire had descended upon the burnt-offering and the fat, in the presence of all the people and in view of Aaron and his sons, then, precisely then, these took each of them his censer, and put fire therein. Now, how does it appear that they could have taken of any other fire upon the spot than that which they attended, and which, it is most probable, God had before expressly commanded them to make use of?
But why, then, should Moses call the fire with which Nadab and Abihu furnished themselves strange? To this the learned divine answers, because they put the incense upon this fire in another manner than that which God had ordained. According to him, the passage should be thus rendered, Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put [sacred] fire therein, and put incense thereon: thus they offered strange fire before the Lord, which had been forbidden them. There are three considerations, which are advanced to confirm this conjecture: 1st, It is certain that the priests were to kindle incense in the holy place upon the golden altar: Maimonides and several rabbies are express on this head. 2nd, It is evident, from the words of the sacred historian, that Nadab and Abihu put the incense upon the fire of their censers previous to their coming before the Lord: this we are led to conclude from the connexion and construction of the passage. Lastly, it is clear, that the Scripture often gives the epithet strange to that which is improperly joined, or mixed with other things. Thus a false worship offered to the true God is called a strange worship, as a prostitute is denominated a strange woman; (Pro 7:5.) and the incense, compounded in another manner than God had appointed, whether as to the quantity or quality of the drugs, is called strange incense: (Exo 9:34-35.) Here, therefore, it is urged in like manner, the strange fire was sacred fire, rendered strange, or impure, by the association of incense put to it, contrary to the rules, and in contempt of the orders which God had given, though Moses does not mention them. See Theodor. Scheltinga, de fato Nadabi & Abihu; and Chais on the passage.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
THIRD SECTION
The Sin and the Punishment of Nadab and Abihu, with Instructions founded upon that Event
Lev 10:1-20
1And Nadab and Abihu, the1 sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein,2 and put incense thereon,2 and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. 2And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. 3Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace. 4And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp. 5So they went near, and carried3 them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said.
6And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazer and unto Ithamar, his4 sons, Uncover5not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled. 7And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.
8And the Lord spake unto Aaron,6 saying, 9Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, 10lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: and7 that ye may put difference between holy and unholy [common8], and between unclean and clean: 11and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.
12And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering [oblation9] that remaineth of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy: 13and ye shall eat it in the [a] holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons due, of the sacrifices of the Lord made by fire: for so I am commanded. 14And the wave breast and heave shoulder [leg10] shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they be thy due, and thy sons due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel. 15The heave shoulder [leg10] and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the Lord; and it shall be thine, and thy sons11 with thee, by a statute for ever; as the Lord hath commanded.
16And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, which wereleft alive, saying, 17Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given12 it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them13 before the Lord? 18Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should-indeed have eaten it in the 19[a14] holy place, as I15 commanded. And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord? 20And when Moses heard that, he was content.16
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Lev 10:1. Three MSS., followed by the Vat. LXX., read the two sons.
Lev 10:1. In the Heb. the first pronoun, , is plural, while the, second, , is singular. 16 MSS., the Sam. LXX. and Syr. have the latter in the plural.
Lev 10:5. . The fuller form is given in the Sam.
Lev 10:6. One MS., followed by the LXX. and Syr. specifies his remaining sons.
Lev 10:6. . The A. V, ye shall not uncover is quite correct, and is the sense given in most of the ancient versions; but the Targ. of Onkelos, followed by several Jewish and other commentators, gives the very different sense ye shall not let your hair grow, derived from the use of Num 6:5=hair.
Lev 10:8. Eight MSS. substitute the name of Moses for that of Aaron. The variation is unimportant; for, as Boothroyd suggests, the communication to Aaron may have been made through Moses.
Lev 10:10. The and at the beginning of Lev 10:10 is omitted in the Sam. and all other ancient versions except the Vulgate.
Lev 10:10. is in contrast to and means simply that which is not especially consecrated. The word common conveys the sense better than unholy.
Lev 10:12. Oblation. See Textual Note2 on Lev 2:1.
Lev 10:14-15. Leg. See Text. Note30 on Lev 7:32.
Lev 10:15. The Sam. and LXX. add and thy daughters, as in Lev 10:14.
Lev 10:17. The Syr. reads in the 1st person, I have given.
Lev 10:17. Thirteen MSS. read for you in the 2d person.
Lev 10:18. The Masoretic punctuation of here indicates the article; it would seem proper, however, to omit it according to invariable usage. All the versions make a distinction between the sanctuary, into which the blood had not been carried, and the court where the flesh should have been eaten. We can only express this by a change of the article.
Lev 10:18. Most of the versions have the passive, as I was commanded, and the LXX, .
Lev 10:20. Rosenmller notes that scribitur hic pro .
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
We should expect here immediately the description of a great thank offering feast of the people. But instead of this we are told of a great misfortune which closes a sacrificial feast disturbed in the very beginning. The story is not of the thank offering feast of the people, the festal meal of the installation of the priests. The joy of the people was very soon destroyed by anxiety and fear; for the inadequacy of the typical sacrifice has soon come to light. Lange.
The events of this chapter occurred on the same day as those of the preceding (see Lev 10:19), that is on the day after their consecration when Aaron and his sons first entered upon the discharge of their priestly functions. Moses therefore still appears here, as in Leviticus 9, in a peculiar relation as introducing the new-made priests to their duties, taking care that all things should be rightly done, and communicating to them further instructions (Lev 10:3; Lev 10:5; Lev 10:12; Lev 10:16).
Lev 10:1-5. The sin, death and burial of Nadab and Abihu.
Lev 10:1. Nadab and Abihu, being mentioned first in the genealogies (Exo 6:23; Num 26:60), are supposed to have been Aarons eldest sons. They had been selected to accompany Moses and Aaron and the seventy elders in the beatific vision of Exo 24:1; Exo 24:9. Wordsworth suggests that perhaps they were exalted above measure through the abundance of their revelations (2Co 12:7), and were tempted to imagine that they were not bound by ordinary rules in the discharge of the duties of the priests office.
His censer.. This is the first time the word is translated censer in the A. V., because it has occurred before only in connection with the golden candlestick (Exo 25:38; Exo 37:23), or as a pan for receiving the ashes from the brazen altar (Exo 27:3; Exo 38:3). There can be no doubt, however, that it is rightly translated here in a sense in which it frequently occurs afterwards; but the fact that there is no previous mention of censers adds to the probability of some unrecorded command having already been given in regard to the offering of incense. The word for censer is much later, occurring only 2Ch 26:19; Eze 8:11.
Put incense thereon.Incense was to be burned upon the golden altar twice daily; in the morning, when the lamps of the golden candlestick were trimmed, and in the evening when they were lighted (Exo 30:7-8). It does not certainly appear from the narrative at what time the act of Nadab and Abihu occurred; but from the abundance of events that had already occurred on this day, it is not unlikely that the latter time was at hand. The unseasonableness of the time assigned by many commentators (Keil and others) as a part of their sin cannot therefore be maintained.And offered strange fire.The sin of Nadab and Abihu is always described in the same terms (Num 3:4; Num 26:61); but in precisely what it consisted has been the occasion of much difference of opinion. By many (Kurtz and others) it is supposed to have consisted in the offering of incense not prepared according to the directions given in Exo 30:34; but this would rather have been called strange incense as in Exo 30:9, and it does not seem likely that the new priests, who had now been eight days in the court of the tabernacle, would have had ready access to any other incense, whereas other fire than that of the altar must have been in the court for cooking the flesh of the sacrifices. By others (as Keil) the sin is supposed to have been in offering the incense at a time not appointed; but it does not appear why such a fault should have been described as strange fire, and moreover, as shown above, it seems not unlikely that it was actually the proper time for the burning of the evening incense. Knobel thinks that Nadab and Abihu proposed, of their own motion, to prepare an incense offering to accompany the shouts of the multitude as they saw the Divine fire fall upon the sacrificewhich may or may not have been the fact, as there is no evidence upon the point. Another supposition of Knobel must be absolutely rejected as at variance with the tenor of the narrative: or, frightened by the consuming fire, Lev 9:24, they considered an appeasing of God necessary. It is better to follow the general opinion, and take the expression just as it, is given, making their sin to have consisted in offering strange fire, that is fire other than that commanded. The chief thing is that the strange or common fire forms a contrast to the fire of the Sanctuary. Lange. So Rosenmller, Outram (l. xvi. 13), and others. In Lev 6:12 it is required that the fire should be always burning upon the altar, and as this fire was for the consumption of the sacrifices, it would naturally be understood for the burning of the incense; in Lev 16:12 it is expressly prescribed for the incense on the great day of atonement, and it became a part of the symbolism of the sanctuary service (Rev 8:5). The fact that no command on this point of detail is anywhere recorded does not preclude the supposition that such a command had been given. At all events, the general principle of exact conformity to the Divine commands should have prevented Nadab and Abihu from offering strange or uncommanded fire before the Lord.
As to the causes which led them to commit this sin, the narrative is equally silent; but the connection of the precept in Lev 10:9 with this event seems to imply that there had been some violation of it. (See Targ. Hieros., Nic. de Lyra, Patrick, etc.) This might have concurred with already existing spiritual pride and self-will, or have temporarily produced them. From Lev 10:8-9, it is likely that they had lost their soberness in the feast which had begun. Lange. But however this may have been, Von Gerlachs remark is in place: By this connection is taught, that as no external event was to depress with grief the priest, so ought he to apply no artificial means to his senses to produce exhilaration: his whole thoughts and attention are to be directed to the sacred offices which are commanded him. We are reminded of the antithesis, Eph 5:18. In the expression which he commanded them not, Rosenmller notes a of frequent occurrence, meaning which He forbade.
Lev 10:2. Fire from the LORD.Plainly a miraculous fire as that which consumed the sacrifice (Lev 9:24). It did not consume their bodies, or even their clothes (Lev 10:5), and it must have been by an inadvertence that Lange says: If they came thus strongly excited with their glowing fire into the half darkness of the sanctuary, they may have set themselves a-fire, by which they were destroyed.
The severity of this judgment may be compared with that upon Uzza (2Sa 6:7; 1Ch 13:10), upon the Sabbath-breaker (Num 15:32-36), or in the New Testament with that upon Ananias and Sapphira. In all these cases the punishment was not determined so much by the aggravation of the offence itself as by the necessity of vindicating Gods majesty and by a signal judgment on the first occasion, preventing a repetition of the offence. In such cases it is very necessary to separate the temporal from the thought of eternal punishment. Philo (as quoted by Calmet) undoubtedly pushes this too far when he says: The priests Nadab and Abihu died that they might live, receiving an incorruptible for their mortal life, and passing from creatures to their Creator; but yet we may not argue from temporal punishment to eternal doom, and the recollection of this may often serve to remove much of the inscrutableness of the Divine judgments.
Lev 10:3. This it is that the LORD spakenot in precisely these words, but again and again in their substance. See Exo 29:44; Exo 19:22; Lev 8:33. Yet the very words may have been spoken, although not recorded, as in Exo 33:12. Priests are continually designated as those that come nigh to God (e.g.Eze 42:13).I will be sanctified.Comp. Exo 19:4-5. The law of the sanctuary is proclaimed to mean: that all approach to Jehovah of those who draw near to Him, of the priests in the holy acts of sacrifice, has the purpose of showing forth Jehovah in His holiness, i.e. in His pure and strict and all-folly-abhorring personality; and this hallowing of His name in highest solitude should have the result of revealing Him before all the people in His majesty, in the glory of His manifestation. The pure and brilliant exterior of the Cultus depends in its purity and chasteness upon the most perfect interior purity and truth. But when Moses applies this law to the present mishap, it expresses the truth that it is fulfilled not only in the pure service of God of good priests, but also in the unclean service of evil priests. Should these, for example, bring before the Lord, in passion or excitement, strange fire, fire of the intoxication of extravagance, fire of fanaticism, they should be seized and consumed by that fire changed, as it were, into the fire of the judgment of Jehovah; and also by such judgments on such priests Jehovah should be glorified before all His peopleas it has always clearly been, especially to-day. How many a Protestant zealot has screamed himself dead in the sanctuary! But the medival priests began to burn themselves when they kindled the flames of the pyres. Lange.
Aaron held his peace means not only that he abstained from the customary wails and cries of the mourner; but that he uttered no murmur against the judgment of God, or remonstrance against the law as set forth by Moses. This may perhaps have been made easier to him by the stunning effect of so great and sudden a bereavement.
Lev 10:4. The sons of Uzziel.From Exo 6:18 it would appear that Uzziel was the youngest of Aarons three uncles. Brethren is used, as so frequently in Scripture, in the sense of kinsmen. Elzaphan was the chief of his fathers house, Num 3:30.From before the sanctuary.Notwithstanding the Jewish tradition that they perished within the sanctuary, it appears from this expression that the Divine judgment fell upon them while they were still in the court. They buried the dead in their linen coats: these priestly garments had been defiled with the dead bodies, and were buried with them. There is nothing else degrading in the form of burial. The burial without the camp was common for all corpses. The buriers were also reminded that the dead were their brethren. Lange. This was now the eighth day of the month; the Passover lamb was to be slain on the 14th. Mishael and Elzaphan were therefore unable to keep the Passover on account of their defilement by a dead body, for this lasted seven days (Num 19:11-13). In view of these facts Blunt suggests (Undesigned Coincidences, I. 14) that it was the case of these Levites which was considered and provided for by the law of the Passover of the second mouth, Num 9:6-12.
Lev 10:6-7. All signs of mourning are forbidden to the priests. By a subsequent enactment these were in all cases perpetually forbidden to the high-priest (Lev 21:10-12), but in moderation allowed to the ordinary priests for those nearest of kin (ib. 16). Here, however, they are absolutely forbidden to both, doubtless because any manifestation of grief on account of the death that had occurred would have indicated dissatisfaction with the judgment of God (Keil); because, from their office, they were especially concerned as consecrated priests in outwardly maintaining the honor of Jehovah.. The people, on the other hand, as not formally standing so near to Jehovah, were permitted to bewail the burning which the Lord had kindled (Cook).
Uncover not your heads.This is the sense of the LXX. and Vulg., and means that they were not to remove their priestly turbans, as they were still to go directly on with their priestly functions. The word means literally to set free, and it may therefore have here the added sense, do not go about with your hair dishevelled, or flowing free and in disorder (Lev 13:45). Keil. Both this and the rending of the clothes were among the most common signs of mourning among the Jews.
Lest wrath come upon all the people.They were to observe this precept not only for their own sakelest ye diebut also for the peoples. It has already been shown (Lev 4:3) that the sin of the high-priest, as their theocratic head, brought guilt upon the people, and involved them in the consequent punishment; in this case emphatically it must do so, because Aaron and his remaining sons were now the sole appointed mediators with God, and any mark of dissatisfaction with His judgments would have placed them in an attitude of opposition to God.
Though the priests might not turn aside from their sacred functions, yet Nadab and Abihu were not to go unmourned. The whole house of Israel were to bewail the burningnot indeed as murmuring against the Divine judgment, but yet as recognizing that a sad calamity had befallen them.
Lev 10:7. Ye shall not go outviz: for the purpose of accompanying the remains of the slain priests to their grave, and in any way ceasing from their sacred functions on their account. A like command is made of perpetual obligation upon the high-priest in Lev 21:12. The reason is givenfor the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you; consecrated wholly to His service, they might not turn aside from it for any purpose. Comp. Mat 8:22.
Lev 10:8. Spake unto Aaron.Either through Moses (see Textual note 6); or else Aaron, being now fully constituted high-priest, and having shown his submission in what had just occurred, was made directly the recipient of a Divine communication concerning the duties of the priests.
Lev 10:9-11. Strong drink.Heb. used apparently in Num 28:7 as a synonym for wine, but generally taken for an intoxicating drink prepared from grain or honey, or especially from palms. The prohibition of wine and strong drink to the priests is only in connection with their service in the tabernacle. For the present this must have amounted to an almost absolute prohibition, as the service of Aaron and his two sons could have been little less than continuous; but as the priesthood multiplied, of course the time of service for each of them was reduced. The connection of this precept with what goes before and what follows seems almost necessarily to imply that it was called forth by some violation of it on the part of Nadab and Abihu. This supposition, Lange says, is made probable by the otherwise unexplained command here given, and thus indeed the outward strange fire was only the symbol of the inner strange fire of wine-produced enthusiasm, which so often can mingle itself in pious and animated speeches and poems, by which indeed holy and unholy things are confused. The object of the command is expressed in Lev 10:10-11 : that the mind of the priests might be clear in the exercise of their own duties, and in the instruction of the people in regard to theirs.
Lev 10:12-15. The oblation that remaineth from the sacrifices of the day mentioned in Lev 9:17. Eat it in a holy placeas has been so often before commanded in regard to those things which might be eaten only by the priestsnot in the sanctuary, but in a place provided for the purpose in the courtLXX.: . After this followed the holy meal upon the priests portion of the peace offerings (Lev 10:14-15), eaten with their families without the court, in any clean place.
Lev 10:16-18. The goat of the sin offering had indeed been offered for the whole congregation (Lev 9:3), but its blood had not been brought within the sanctuary. Under these circumstances Moses emphatically declares, and Aaron tacitly acknowledges, that its flesh should, under ordinary circumstances, have been eaten by the priests, instead of being burned. Origen characterizes it as being in consequence an imperfect sacrifice. This shows distinctly that the law for the burning of the sin offering for the whole congregation (Lev 4:19; Lev 4:12) turned upon the treatment of the blood, as Moses shows in Lev 10:18, and not upon the fact that it was offered for all the people. It is said that Moses was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, while Aaron is not mentioned; doubtless because the fault was with them as the ordinary priests, to whom this duty belonged, and not to the high-priest. Lange: Eleazar and Ithamar also, the two remaining sons of Aaron, have apparently made an error in form; that is, they ought to have eaten this flesh of the goat of the sin offering (not their own, but that of the people) in a holy place as being a most holy thing. This they had neglected; still more, they had burnt the goat. But if they would thus treat the sin goat of the people, as if the ritual for the sin offering of bullocks was to be applied, they ought also to have brought its blood into the sanctuary; but they had not done this, and thus had violated the ritual in two ways [i.e., in one or other of the two ways; but as they had treated the blood exactly as they were commanded, their fault consisted only in the wrong treatment of the flesh]. In other words: since the blood had been poured out at the altar in the court, they must also in consequence eat the flesh of the sin offering, since it was given them as a right from Jehovah, as a recompense because they had as priests to bear the misdeeds of the congregation, and to make atonement before Jehovah. But at this reproach of Moses, Aaron knew how to excuse himself and his sons. In the first place, his sons had done their duty in regard to their own sin and burnt offering. In the second place, this fearful accident had happened to him and them, and made them incapable of eating. He appeals to feeling: would it please Jehovah if he should eat in such a frame of mind? This time Aaron has conquered Moses. The first violation of the law proceeded from gross disrespect of the law in carnal conduct; this second violation proceeded from a righteous spiritual elevation above the letter which even Moses must allow.
Lev 10:17. To bear the iniquity of the congregation.This expression, however difficult it may be to define the exact limits of its meaning, certainly makes two points clear: first, that the eating of the flesh of the ordinary sin offering by the priests was an essential part of its ritual; and second, that the priests, in receiving the sacrifice and undertaking to make expiation for sins, did act in a mediatorial capacity. The very eating of the peoples sin offering argued the sins of the people were in some sort laid upon the priests, to be taken away by them. Patrick. This eating, however, does not constitute with the sprinkling of the blood a double atonemenent, to which Lange rightly objects; but is simply a lesser part of the one atonement of which the blood was the more essential portion. The office of the priests, receiving the victim at the peoples hands, was with it to make an atonement or covering for the peoples sins. Having undertaken this, the responsibility for those sins in a certain sense rested upon them; they must bear the iniquity of the congregation.This was only possible to do by a strict observance of the Divine appointment, since the sacrifice could have no inherent efficacy. They must both sprinkle the blood and eat the flesh. Without the latter, the sacrifice was imperfect and the sin remained. Origen.
Lev 10:19. In Aarons excuse that spiritual elevation above the letter which Lange has noted becomes very plain. It is striking to find this not only in the law, but in regard to the very centre of the law, the sin sacrifice, and that, too, in the very first moment of its institution. On Aarons unfitness now to eat this offering comp. Hos 9:4.
Lev 10:20. He was content.Moses admitted Aarons plea, but it is not stated whether he was conscious that he had himself spoken hastily and now conceded the point at issue (as we find him doing on another occasion in reference to the settlement of the two tribes and a half, Num 32:6), allowing that the priests had done what was in itself right, as S. Augustin, the later Targums, Kurtz, and others, interpret the passage; or whether he yielded out of sympathy with Aarons natural feelings. The latter alternative is perhaps the more probable one. Clark. But neither alternative is necessary. Both here and in the case cited from Numbers (parallel to which also is Jos 22:10-31) Moses remonstrated against an apparent disregard of the command of God; he was appeased when assured that no disregard was intended, and that in this case the act was exceptional under entirely exceptional circumstances.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
I. Self-chosen service (, Col 2:23) is displeasing to God, as a substitution of what He has not commanded for what He has commanded. It is of the nature of rebellion and is so regarded by Him. The symbolical meaning of this history is very deep and comprehensive. Every gift to God, every sacrifice for Him, every act of zeal in His service, however it might otherwise outwardly be right, is displeasing to the Lord so soon as the fire of self-denial ceases to originate from the Holy Spirit, 1Co 13:3. O. von Gerlach.
II. Nadab and Abihu were honored with being brought near to God, and were the appointed persons to burn incense in the proper way. They perverted their office and abused their privilege, and they perished. So generally Gods gifts perverted work harm to him who perverts them, and this harm is intensified in proportion to the greatness of the gift, 2Co 2:16.
III. Hence comes the general principle that religious responsibility is proportioned to religious privilege (Lev 10:3)a principle often insisted upon in our Lords teaching.
IV. Under the old covenant, death, as the fruit of sin, brought defilement by its touch. Even father and brothers might not touch the dead bodies of the fallen, lest they should be defiled. Under the new covenant, sin has been conquered by Him who knew no sin, and death by Him who rose from the grave. No longer, therefore, under the Gospel, is death an unclean thing. Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord, Rev 14:13. The Levitical law, by its treatment of death and burial, shows us our condition by nature in contrast with the blessings given by Him who is the Resurrection and the Life. Wordsworth.
V. It was required of the Levitical priests that in their service in the sanctuary they should drink neither wine nor strong drink. Similarly St. Paul provides (1Ti 3:2; 1Ti 3:8) that the Christian ministry must be not given to wine, and when requiring it for his infirmities, should use it moderately (ib. v. 23). Theodoret. The service of God must be a reasonable service, with faculties unimpaired, and not disturbed by artificial stimulants.
VI. When the priests are said (Lev 10:17) to bear the iniquity of the congregation, the temporary and typical character of the Levitical system is at once manifest. It was plainly impossible for men, who yet had to offer sacrifices for their own sins, to bear the sins of others, and so present them as holy before God, except as they represented something else, viz.: the great High Priest who should atone for the sin of the world.
VII. The burning, instead of eating, the flesh of the sin offering, finally acquiesced in by Moses, is instructive doctrinally as showing even in the most rigid part of the Levitical law, a certain freedom in the arrangement of the minor details, while the substance of the rules is kept inviolate. It is one of the examples we occasionally meet of a distinction being judiciously and honestly made between the letter and the spirit of a law. Murphy. Under the Old Testament as under the New, God desires mercy and not sacrifice (Hos 6:6; Mat 9:13; Mat 12:7).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
In this chapter, instead of the expected festivities consequent upon the inauguration of the new priesthood, we find a fearful judgment; so the sin of man ever comes in to mar the good work of God and turn to wormwood His cup of blessing. By this fearful example all will-worship is shown to be displeasingall attempt to serve God in opposition to the ways of His appointment. They also offer a strange fire, who offer any thing of their own to God without truly and humbly acknowledging that they have received all from God. Estius. When we bring zeal without knowledge, misconceits of faith, carnal affections, the devices of our will-worship, superstitious devotions into Gods service, we bring common fire to His altar. These flames were never of His kindling; He hates both altar, fire, priest, and sacrifice. Bp. Hall.
The greatness of the punishment was in proportion to the appointed nearness to God of those who had offended. Privilege always brings responsibility. The judgment on Chorazin and Bethsaida must be heavier than upon Sodom and Gomorrha. Compare Heb 2:3; Heb 12:25.
God may use the same means for showing His love and His anger. He consumed the sacrifice by fire; He slew Nadab and Abihu by fire. The result to us of His action depends on our attitude towards Him. The same Gospel is a savor of life unto life and of death unto death. Again: He often uses for mans punishment the very instrument of mans sin; these men sinned by fire and perished by fire; so also the companions of Korah, Num 16:35. So under the laws of His Providence are mens passions made the means of punishing them, and often the objects of unlawful ambition or desire, when attained, become the very scourges of those who sought them.
Aaron held his peace, as the righteous must needs do before the judgments of God, however distressing. See Job 1:22; Psa 39:9. There can be no hope and no comfort in the world if we may rightfully murmur at the doings of the Judge of all the earth.
The touch of the dead communicated defilement, but the touch of the Giver of life caused him who was borne out upon the bier to arise (Luk 7:14), and the damsel who slept in death to arise and walk (Mar 5:42). Wordsworth. Thus does the Antitype excel the type.
Aaron and his surviving sons might not leave the sanctuary to mourn those who had fallen, but all Israel might bewail them; so is the immediate service of God more pressing than all else; what may be right at another time, or to other persons, must be foregone by those who have a duty to God with which it interferes. His service is the prime object to which all other things must conform themselves.
The priests fervor is not to come of wine or strong drink. In the service of God they who draw near to Him have need of all the calmness and clearness of their minds, lest they do Him dishonor while they profess to serve Him. The excitement of worship, which comes of the abuse of His gifts, though showing itself in eloquence or in more than natural zeal, is not pleasing to Him.
From the fault of the priests in not eating the flesh of the sin offering, Theodoret thus reasons of the duty of the Christian minister: Hence we learn that we who eat of those things which are offered by the people, and do not live according to the law, nor diligently pray to God for them, will bring down punishment from God; and Origen says that it behooves the priest first to make himself acceptable to God before he presumes to seek from Him acceptance for the people.
Footnotes:
[1]Lev 10:1. Three MSS., followed by the Vat. LXX., read the two sons.
[2]Lev 10:1. In the Heb. the first pronoun, , is plural, while the, second, , is singular. 16 MSS., the Sam. LXX. and Syr. have the latter in the plural.
[3]Lev 10:5. . The fuller form is given in the Sam.
[4]Lev 10:6. One MS., followed by the LXX. and Syr. specifies his remaining sons.
[5]Lev 10:6. . The A. V, ye shall not uncover is quite correct, and is the sense given in most of the ancient versions; but the Targ. of Onkelos, followed by several Jewish and other commentators, gives the very different sense ye shall not let your hair grow, derived from the use of Num 6:5=hair.
[6]Lev 10:8. Eight MSS. substitute the name of Moses for that of Aaron. The variation is unimportant; for, as Boothroyd suggests, the communication to Aaron may have been made through Moses.
[7]Lev 10:10. The and at the beginning of Lev 10:10 is omitted in the Sam. and all other ancient versions except the Vulgate.
[8]Lev 10:10. is in contrast to and means simply that which is not especially consecrated. The word common conveys the sense better than unholy.
[9]Lev 10:12. Oblation. See Textual Note2 on Lev 2:1.
[10]Lev 10:14-15. Leg. See Text. Note30 on Lev 7:32.
[11]Lev 10:15. The Sam. and LXX. add and thy daughters, as in Lev 10:14.
[12]Lev 10:17. The Syr. reads in the 1st person, I have given.
[13]Lev 10:17. Thirteen MSS. read for you in the 2d person.
[14]Lev 10:18. The Masoretic punctuation of here indicates the article; it would seem proper, however, to omit it according to invariable usage. All the versions make a distinction between the sanctuary, into which the blood had not been carried, and the court where the flesh should have been eaten. We can only express this by a change of the article.
[15]Lev 10:18. Most of the versions have the passive, as I was commanded, and the LXX, .
[16]Lev 10:20. Rosenmller notes that scribitur hic pro .
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
DISCOURSE: 128
DEATH OF NADAB AND ABIHU
Lev 10:1-3. And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them; and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.
IN all that we behold around us there is a great degree of obscurity, so that we can judge but very imperfectly either of the actions of men, or of the dispensations of God. For want of an insight into the motives of mens conduct, we cannot form a correct estimate of their character; nor can we, without a revelation from heaven, distinguish those events which come directly from God, and those which, though ultimately referable to him, proceed rather from secondary causes. But in the Bible we find certainty. We learn the principles by which men are actuated; and see the hand of God accomplishing his own unerring purpose. We behold sin in all its diversified forms; virtue in all its various degree; mercies in all their rich extent; and judgments in all their tremendous consequences. Had the event, of which we read in our text, happened in our day, we should probably have admired the zeal of Nadab and Abihu, and have represented their death as a translation from the service of God in an earthly tabernacle to the enjoyment of him in the tabernacle above. It is possible too that we might have ascribed the silence of Aaron to a want of parental affection. But, through the light which the Scripture casts upon these things, we behold in the death of the former, a judgment inflicted; and, in the silence of the latter, a virtue exercised.Under these two heads we shall consider the history before us.
I.
The judgment inflicted
Nadab and Abihu were the two eldest sons of Aaron. They had been just consecrated, together with their father, to the priestly office: but,
They committed a grievous sin
[It should seem that they were elated with the distinction conferred upon them, and impatient to display the high privileges they enjoyed. Hence, without waiting for the proper season of burning incense, or considering in what manner God had commanded it to be done, they both together took their censers (though only one was ever so to officiate at a time) and put common fire upon them, and went in to burn incense before the Lord.
Now this was a great and heinous sin: for God had just before sent fire from heaven, which he commanded to be kept always burning on the altar for the express purpose of being exclusively used in the service of the tabernacle. Their conduct therefore shewed, that they had made no just improvement of all the wonders they had seen; and that they were unconscious of the obligations which their newly-acquired honours entailed upon them. It even argued u most criminal contempt of the Divine Majesty, in opposition to whose express commands they now acted.]
For this, they were visited with a most awful judgment
[God, jealous of his own honour, punished their transgression, and marked their sin in their punishment. They had slighted the fire which God had given them from heaven; and he sent fresh fire to avenge his quarrel. They neglected to honour God; and He got himself honour in their destruction. They, by their example, encouraged the people to disregard the laws that had been promulged; and He, by executing judgment on the offenders, shewed the whole nation, yea and the whole world also, that he will by no means clear the guilty. Thus did God maintain the honour of his law, as he afterwards did the authority of his Gospel [Note: Act 5:1-11.].]
Whilst in them we behold with grief the enormity and desert of sin, in their afflicted father we are constrained to admire,
II.
The submission exercised
Doubtless the affliction of Aaron was exceeding great
[These were his own sons, just consecrated to the high office they sustained. In them he had promised himself much comfort; and had hoped, that the whole nation would receive permanent advantage from their ministrations. But in a moment he beholds all his hopes and expectations blasted. He sees his sons struck dead by the immediate hand of God, and that too in the very act of sin, as a warning to all future generations. It they had died in any other way, his grief must have been pungent beyond expression: but to see them cut off in this way, and with all their guilt upon their heads, must have been a trial almost too great for human nature to sustain.]
But he submitted to it without a murmuring word or thought
[The consideration suggested to him by Moses, composed his troubled breast. God had given repeated warning that he would punish with awful severity any wilful deviations from his law [Note: Exo 19:22; Lev 8:35; Lev 22:9.]. Now, as a Sovereign, he had a right to enact what laws he pleased: and they, as his creatures, were bound to obey them. It became him to enforce the observance of his laws, and to vindicate the honour of his insulted majesty, if any should presume to violate them. What would have been the effect if such a flagrant violation of them, in those who were to be examples to the whole nation, were overlooked? Would not a general contempt of the divine ordinances be likely to ensue? For prevention then as well as punishment, this judgment was necessary. And the consequence of it would be, that God would henceforth be honoured as a great and terrible God, and that the whole assembly of the people would learn to tremble at his word, and to obey it without reserve. Thus, however painful the stroke was to him, he submitted humbly to it, because it was necessary for the public good, and conducive to the honour of his offended God.
It is not improbable too that he would recollect the forbearance exercised towards him in the matter of the golden calf; and that, while he deplored the fate of his children, he magnified the mercy that had spared him.]
From this subject we may learn,
1.
To reverence Gods ordinances
[Well may all, both ministers and people, learn to tremble when they approach God in the institutions of his worship. Were this example of divine vengeance duly considered, surely ministers would never dare to seek their own glory when they stand up to address their audience in the name of God. They would look well to their ministrations, and be sure that they presented before God no other fire than what they had previously taken from his own altar The people too would never venture to come to the house of God in a thoughtless or irreverent manner, but would reflect on the holiness and majesty of the Supreme Being, and endeavour to approve themselves to him in all the services they offered [Note: Psa 89:7.] Beloved Brethren, it is no legal argument which we offer, when we remind you that God is jealous of his own honour, and exhort you from that consideration to take heed to yourselves whensoever you approach his house, his altar, or his throne of grace: it is the very argument urged by an inspired Apostle, and that too in reference to the history before us; Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear; for our God is a consuming fire. [Note: Heb 12:28-29.] ]
2.
To submit to his dispensations
[It pleases God sometimes to try in a peculiar manner his most favoured saints. But from whatever quarter our trials come, we should view the hand of God in them, and say, It is the Lord, let him do what seemeth him good [Note: 1Sa 3:18. See also Psa 38:13 and Job 1:21.]. It becomes not us to reply against God; or the clay to strive with the potter. As a Sovereign, he has a right to do with us as he will: and, if only he be glorified, we should be content, whatever we may suffer for the attainment of that end. The recollection of our own deserts should always stop our mouths, or rather prevent even the rising disposition to murmur against him. He never did, nor can in this world, punish us more than our iniquities deserve: and therefore a living man can never have occasion to complain [Note: Lam 3:39.]. Let us then, whatever our afflictions be, submit with meekness to his chastising hand: let us be still, and know that he is God: yea, let us be thankful that he is magnified in our body, whether it be by life or by death [Note: Php 1:20.].]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
CONTENTS
A sad breach is made in the family of Aaron, in the death of Nadab and Abihu, his two eldest sons, who both are struck dead by fire from the LORD, for offering strange fire before the LORD. This chapter relates the awful event, as also the composure of Aaron’s mind under this painful providence: the relation of the funeral: orders issued for the regulation of the priests’ conduct in future: the law concerning the eating of holy things is also added, and the excuse of Aaron in the transgression of it.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
What this strange fire was, which the sons of Aaron offered, is not said. But as it was so great a sin, as to produce instant death, we may humbly inquire, while we pray for grace to stand in awe and sin not. Is it not probable, that the sin of those young men was breaking in upon the province of Aaron, who, as the type of JESUS, was the only minister in the service of sacrifices? Lev_9:8; Lev_9:15; Lev_9:24 . If this be a right conjecture, what is it to offer strange fire before the LORD, but to offer anything of our own, and not with an eye to JESUS, when we come before the LORD? In Exo 30:9 , mention is made of the prohibition of strange incense being offered before the LORD. And as incense is generally understood to have reference to the merits of CHRIST, why may not the sacred fire be supposed to have reference also to the person or oblation of the LORD JESUS? I Reader! let both the sin and punishment of those young men have this effect upon our minds, and may the perusal of it be sanctified to our souls, that death is our due also by reason of sin, void of an interest in JESUS. Who can stand, except in his righteousness, before that GOD who is a consuming fire? Heb 12:29 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Holy and Common
Lev 10:10
Rehearse the circumstances: They had confused ‘holy’ and ‘common’.
I. This distinction was the leading idea of religion for many years. It was not based upon any intrinsic difference, moral or physical. Nor was it confined to Judaism.
II. Now, something has changed our way of thinking. Priesthood cannot be regarded apart from the personal quality of the man. The punishment of sacrilege, as such, has been everywhere abolished.
III. Is this because our time is less religious? No, but because it is more so. The change has been effected by Christ. He has subordinated every other distinction to the fundamental one of intrinsic goodness or badness.
IV. But the distinction of ‘holy’ and ‘common’ is a constant one also. The governing principle seems to be that goodness is of transcendent value; and lifts into value everything connected with itself.
S. D. McConnell, Sermon Stuff, p. 101.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Blessing and Judgment
Lev 9:22
A most happy change! We feel as if we could join the thankful and rapturous host of Israel. There has not been much blessing up to this period in our studies. We have come face to face with law, rule, exaction, discipline, and all the apparatus of profound and life-long education. A tender tone would have helped us now and again. We have not been without such tone. When we have heard it, we have made the most of it; we have magnified the tenderness into a great heaven-filling benediction. We took it as preliminary; we interpreted it typically; we hailed it as an earnest; we said, “The cloud at present is only about the size of a man’s hand, but quickly the sky will be charged with rain, and upon the earth it will plash in gracious benediction.” This is the right way to read gentle providences all light helps by the way; regard them as earnests, pledges, hints, and promises in substance. A great human passage is before us. Up to this time we have been dealing with priests, and ceremonies, and mechanisms; we have been conscious of the want of what may be represented as the universal; on every hand we have been bounded, shut up in stern iron, with a look upward, but no horizon. Now Aaron stretches forth his hands and blesses the people: stern Moses joins him: they enter the tent of meeting and return, and they both bless the people. The ministry is widening; there is a streak of light on the faraway horizon; the two greatest men have at present seen the possibility of millenniums of light and rest and comfort; a new tone is in their voices; feeling begins to enter into the ministry of law. The people may behave better after this. Who can rebel immediately after a benediction? Does not a blessing block us on our rebellious way and make us think a little whether we may not have been wrong, and whether it is not better to turn round and go the other the upward road? What has been wanting in our education, personally, domestically, socially, may be this element of feeling, sympathy, benediction, this utterance of infinite hope, this covering up of wounds and blemishes and shortcomings and life-wanderings by a great and divine benediction. We seem to have sudden summer coming upon us in the winter-time of this law and mechanism.
Blessings of this kind do not come alone; other comforts attend and consummate them. We read in the twenty-fourth verse of the ninth chapter:
“And there came a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.” ( Lev 9:24 )
It was a rare time in Israel a time of rapture, of melting tenderness, of that sacred emotion which lifts up the level of the whole life by enlarging and ennobling all the best sentiments of the heart. This is what is now granted to men. All true service is glorified by a consciousness of the Divine presence. Again and again we say, “Did not our heart burn within us?” We knew hardly why; we had seen a Stranger: he had conversed with our inmost spirit: he had delivered messages straight to the hearing ear of the soul, every tone of which was heard, every tone of which was new; and the fire began to burn, and the heart became a new heart soft, tender, filled with a sense of mystery: love rose above the region of words and shaped itself before the inner vision in apocalypses of symbol and type and wizardry such as might have been inspired by the Holy Spirit: and the air danced with new images, and the sun burned with new light, and all time seemed too short for the expression of the rapture which thrilled the spirit. Then we were charged with fanaticism; some did not hesitate to say: “These men are drunken; they have had new wine, and they are under the influence of intoxicants,” not knowing that we were not drunken with wine wherein is excess, but were filled with the Spirit of God; and the only word in all the daily language of mortals which touched our experience at all, and gave it articulation, was the word fire, because it seems to hold all other words that mean earnestness, purity, elevation, beauty, suggestiveness. The fire in the humblest grate outshines the king’s diamonds. The fire, read by open and discerning eyes, is a continual history, battle, unfoldment, revelation.
There have been grand days in the Church days when the mechanical priest has shaken off his mechanism and blessed the people; days when great legislators have dropped the baton of statesmanship, and with free hands stretched out over a wondering people have blessed the common human heart. One may come in the ages who will sit down upon a mountain, and when he opens his mouth he will say, “Blessed, blessed, blessed!” he will begin his sermon by putting the crown upon all the best history of the heart; he will begin, where other men close, with congratulation and beatitude.
The history pauses a moment. It ought here to be punctuated by a whole century. Some time should elapse before the next sentence is read. Yet we had better not lengthen the pause, or we may sacrifice reality for poetical completeness. Our own life to-day is just as hurried, rugged, and contradictory as is this piece of ancient story. So we may come into the next chapter with an awful familiarity. Men can go from the altar to forbidden places; men can unclasp their hands from God’s grip and put those hands into other keeping. Poetical justice might have closed the book of Leviticus with the ninth chapter. 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. The tenth chapter opens with a sketch of character which appears from day to day:
“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not.” ( Lev 10:1 )
What a set-back in the grand advance! How often have we been within one step of heaven, and have turned suddenly round and fallen right back to the earth that has every reason to be ashamed of us! They were priests too; they were the sons of the pontiff. The evil began in the upper places. The scepticism is in the Church to-day. It pleases us to organise missions to those who are supposed to be unbelievers; but the unbelief of the day is in the Church. There is (as we have said again and again) no possible un belief outside the Church. There may be ignorance, only partial knowledge, prejudice, perverted judgment; but, as we have again and again averred and growing time becomes growing conviction, the enemies of the Church are not outside the Church. The pulpit may be leprous; the ministry may be filled with scepticism. They were in the sacerdotal line, who blasphemously took their own censers, a thing forbidden in the law. 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. This is how we stand to-day: every man bringing his censer his own censer, which means the prostitution of personality, the loss of the commonwealth-spirit and of the recognition of the unity and completeness of the Church. There are men who spend their time in amending Providence: Nadab and Abihu represent two such men to-day. There are men who are always trying to naturalise the supernatural: this is what Nadab and Abihu did. They said in effect, “This evil fire will do quite as well; build your life on reason; order all the ministry of your life by coherent and cumulative argument; drop the ancient words, and choose and set new words of your own; there is no supernatural: let us banish superstition and inaugurate the reign of reason.” Nadab and Abihu had a kind of church, but a church without the true God, an uninhabited shell, a mockery, a base irony the baser because it was in a sense religious. There are men who substitute invention for commandment. This is what Nadab and Abihu did: they invented a new use of the common censer; they brought into new service common fire; they ventured to put incense thereon when only the pontiff of Israel was allowed to use such incense; they invented new bibles, new laws, new churches, new methods; they were cursed with the spirit of extra independence and individuality, with the audacity of self-trust not with its religious worship and adoration. This all occurs every day, and it occurs quite as rudely and violently in the current and flow of our own history. All this invention and all this deposition of God and of law comes just as swiftly after our conscious realisations of the divine presence as this instance came swiftly upon the conscious benediction of God. “There is but a step between me and death.” It would seem as if a universe might intervene between true prayer and the spirit of distrust and cursing yet not a hair’s-breadth intervenes. A man on his knees is next to the worst self, namely, a man with clenched fists defying the heavens. It is possible to lay down the Bible and take up the unholy book and read the corruptest pages with conscious interest if not positive sympathy. Thin is the veil which keeps the right action from the wrong deed. The place of devils is next door to the sanctuary always. For some men it is never so easy to rebel as after a great Amen spoken in the ear of Heaven.
Another action of fire is found in this incident:
“And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord” ( Lev 10:2 ).
The same fire! Is it not said that the Gospel is a savour of life unto life, or of death unto death? 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! It is an awful flame! “Our God is a consuming fire.” Priests, officers, leaders, men of position, men of wealth, play not your little fantastic tricks on God’s altar! Your vanity and pomp and fashion and base wealth will be no protection against the anger and righteous judgment of God. The pulpit must obey; the foremost men must obey as the hindmost. The law must have obedience simple, complete, honest, unquestioning obedience; ours not to ask the reason, or make objection, or start new difficulty, or invent new methods; but to be found in loving and holy obedience evermore.
This is what has always happened in the history of such men as Nadab and Abihu. History is full of the white ashes of burned heretics. Leave the Lord to handle the infidel whether he be priest or outside sceptic. The Lord has never been negligent of his own altar. Men have arisen from century to century proposing the use of new censers, granting to every man the use of his own censer and thus paying a subtle tribute to the vanity of the human heart; in many ages men have arisen to write down the Bible, to tear down the altar, to supersede the sanctuary. For a time they succeeded; but because there was “no deepness of earth” they soon withered away that is to say, they were not rooted in the Heart of the Universe, which is a living Heart, an eternal Heart; they were planted on the surface of things, and were in very deed quite green and gave promise of blossom and of fruit; but we looked for them; and, lo, they were not; yea, we sought them, but they could not be found. The Lord will burn every Nadab and Abihu, and burn them the more quickly that they were priests. If they had been sound heretics really out-and-out enemies and assailants he might have conferred with Moses and Aaron about them as he conferred with an elder man about Sodom and Gomorrah; but he has no parleying when priests do wrong, for the evil is at the altar: there is nothing between the deed and the judgment. It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for preachers, teachers, professors, who have played the fool, and have substituted the traditions of elders for the commandments of God. It is a sad time in the Church when the altar is forgotten. The Lord said “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified…. And Moses called” two of the family” and said… Carry out these men and bury them outside the camp”; and Moses would have no mourning by Aaron or Eleazar and Ithamar:
“Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled” ( Lev 10:6 ).
“Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar, and unto Ithamar… Ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation” (the tent of meeting), “lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you”; if you go out you will reflect upon God’s ministry in the world. Aaron must not mourn along the track of the divine judgment; he must remain at the altar; what may occur in his own heart none can tell, for God will not be hard upon him; but he must not be found going after burned men as one might go after those who had died complacently with Heaven and in the discharge of duty.
The reason is given in the words “For the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you.” That oil must separate between you and the appearance of unbelief; that oil is a restraint as well as an inspiration. Is it not so now, varying the terms and the relations of things? If we could enter into the spirit of that restriction, what different men we should be! The name of your country is upon you: dishonour it not. A venerable name, never associated with meanness, cowardice, corruption, or fear of man. Rise to the dignity of the signature which is upon you. When you flee, the enemy will say your country has fled; when you play the coward, the enemy will say the throne has tottered and the sovereign has succumbed. The holy vow is upon you. You said you would be better and do better. You punctuated the vow with hot tears; your emphasis was quite an unfamiliar tone, so much so that we wondered at the poignancy of your utterance, and felt in very deed that you were speaking the heart’s truth. Remember that vow. The vow of the Lord is upon you. If you stoop, it will not be condescension, it will be base prostration; if you palter with the reality of language, it will not be ability in the use of words, it will be the profanation of the medium which God has established for the conveyance and the interchange of truth. The exalted position is yours. You are the head of a family: if you go wrong, the whole family will suffer to the second and third and fourth generations. You are known and trusted in business: if you be found mean, untrustworthy, faithless, deceitful, the whole city will feel the anguish of a pang, for you were regarded as a trustee of its honour and its reputation. The anointing oil is upon you in some form or in some way. The name of Christ is upon us all. We cannot get rid of it. In this way or in that we have all to do with Christ, with his name, his honour, his cross, his crown. Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon, lest the daughters of Philistia rejoice. Who can tell what savage joy there is when Lucifer, son of the morning, trembles in his orbit staggers falls? The anointing oil of the Lord is upon you, and when the Christian professor speaks the base word, does the base deed, bends at the forbidden altar, withholds the sacrifice, forbears to speak the word of faithful testimony and allegiance, the enemy laughs, and hell says: “Art thou also become as one of us?”
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
IV
CONSECRATION OF AARON AND HIS SONS
Leviticus 8-10
The present chapter is on Leviticus 8-10 of the book of Leviticus. You will remember that in the latter part of the book of Exodus we have an account of the setting up of the tabernacle, its altar and much of its furniture, as the place where the sinner was to meet God. In the preceding chapters of Leviticus, that is, 1-7 inclusive, we have considered with what the sinner appears before God, that is, the offerings of the various kinds, the sacrifices. Now in Leviticus 8-9 of Leviticus we have the intermediaries, or those through whom the sinner appears before God, Aaron and his sons as priests, and these two chapters tell us about the consecration of Aaron and his two sons to this important office and all the ritual in connection with the ceremonies of the day, and Lev 10 , which is the last of the lesson, tells us about the violation of the law by two of Aaron’s sons and their consequent death by the hand of God, and thence follows a law, very important, relating to wine in connection with the priesthood. Now, I wish to call your attention to some preliminary observations.
Neither Aaron nor his sons in the priesthood, nor Moses in the leadership, nor Joshua in the captainship, nor any one of them took the honor of the position upon himself, but God appointed these men to this particular service, and they all apply to the New Testament as well as to the Old Testament. A man cannot decide for himself alone that he is to be a minister of Jesus Christ. He has to be, first, spiritually impressed that he is called to preach, but there is a judge that must pass upon that call and ordain men. Some of the saddest things in the history of religion have been the mistakes on the part of a particular people about taking the honor of the office of Christ’s ministry unto themselves. They have said, “I have been called to preach. If I preach I will baptize people,” and they go out as free lances and they bring great confusion in the camps of God.
I know one noted case where a man decided he had all the right to decide these things for himself and ignored all church authority in the matter. He is now the worst “played out” man I ever saw. Just three years ago I received an exceedingly sad letter from an old man, sixty-seven years old. He said, “In my early days I felt called of God to preach. I didn’t believe that churches or anybody else had any ‘say-so’ about it. I went out and preached and they heard me, but after awhile they became tired of me and dropped me. I am too old now to preach, but I need to be taken care of.” I wrote back to him that the plea had come too late; that we were not justified in taking care of a man now that had never before called upon the church or God’s people to help him. There was no remedy for his condition.
My next general observation is that the method of this service was also appointed of God. In chapter 10 we are to consider the awful tragedy that came upon Aaron’s two sons because they disregarded God’s law relating to the way of coming before him for the people. The next thing to determine is, what was the place of the consecration of Aaron and his sons? It was at the door of the tent of meeting. It was a very solemn occasion and a matter that did not concern Aaron and his sons alone, because they were in their offices to act as representatives, and so the entire congregation of Israel was brought together not only to witness but to participate in the setting apart of these men for their office. That was the place and the method.
Now, what was brought to be used in this consecration? There were brought the offerings, or sacrifices, that were to be employed in the consecration service, and all the holy vestments that these men were to wear as representing God.
The next question is, What were the steps or preparation in the consecration of Aaron and his sons? First, they were bathed; second, they were arrayed in the vestments which symbolized the spiritual nature of the service. They were clothed in the uniform peculiar to their work. The next step in the consecration was the anointing. I request every reader to get a copy of the first volume of my published sermons and read my sermon on “The Anointed One,” and that sermon will tell you about the anointing oil and how prepared. It was a particular recipe and there is none like it in the world, and it was a capital offense to use that holy anointing oil for anything except what God had prescribed, or to even compound it, and the purposes for which that holy anointing oil was to be used were as follows: The tabernacle itself, the altar and all its furniture were to be anointed; then the high priest was to be anointed with it; the prophet was to be anointed with it; the sacrifice and the king were to be anointed with it.
So when Jesus came to be a prophet, high priest, king, and sacrifice, he received his anointing, not in the symbolical oil but in what the symbolical oil represented, to wit, the Holy Spirit. When he was baptized, he prayed that God would qualify him for the great work into which he was about to step, and in answer to that prayer the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove, and the gospel tells us that he was anointed in the Holy Spirit. John said: “I knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending,” etc., “he baptizeth in the “Holy Spirit.” Then he says, “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” And in Luk 4 we have an account in our Lord’s own words where he says that he was anointed to preach the gospel to the poor and to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. Now, what were the steps? Bathed, clothed, anointed. These were the preliminaries.
Now, what follows? The sacrifices appointed for the occasion. These, a bullock as a sin offering, for Aaron’s sins must be atoned for before he can exercise his functions in the kingdom of God; and second, the ram for the burnt offering, that is, the offering to God, if God accepts it by sending down fire to burn it up; and third, another ram as a consecration offering. If Aaron says, “I want to be consecrated to the divine service,” and the Lord accepts it, then fire comes down and burns up the offering. He accepts it. Then comes the consecration offering, and the second ram. The important thing here to notice is the distinction in making these three offerings. A sin offering is to be burned outside the camp. Jesus, as the sin offering, was taken without the camp and nailed to the cross.
An offering to God, that is, the burnt offering, was placed on the brazen altar of sacrifice and the fire of God came down and burnt it up to show that God accepted it. Now, the other offering of consecration went up as a sweet savour unto God, that is, God seeing Aaron and his sons duly bathed, clothed and anointed, duly clad in the vestments of holiness, accepted by the first ram the burnt offering; now the sweet smelling savour goes up to God to indicate that the ceremony was finished, that is, the consecration part of it, the second ram. It is very important that you notice what is done with the blood of that ram. Moses took the blood of the consecration offering, put it upon the tip of Aaron’s right ear, upon the thumb of his right hand and upon the great toe of his right foot, and he did that for the sons of Aaron. Now, what does this symbolism teach? That if I do consecrate my life to the service of God, my ear must hear for him, my hand must work for him, my foot must walk for him in his appointed way. I think you can very easily see the full force of that.
What next follows this? Aaron and his sons, having been consecrated, must pass a week in isolation. When that week is done and the eighth day comes, a formal, representative service is held, the first in the tabernacle. Now, what have you here? A place to meet God, then offerings with which to approach God and mediators through whom one may approach God. All this complete, now the services of the sanctuary are ready to be opened. So let there be a representative service held, everything being now ready. As this ninth chapter tells about the services held in that tabernacle, everything being ready for that service, I shall not go into the details.
They are easy to understand as you read them, but there is one feature of it that I want to call your attention to, viz.: When Aaron and his sons thus instructed, thus qualified, had completed the service, all the people participated in it, then Aaron came out of the tabernacle and lifted up his hands and blessed the people, pronounced the benediction. You know “benediction” means “speaking well for you.” Now, what was that benediction? You find it in the sixth chapter of the next book. (You can use that form if you want to. I have known a great many preachers who used it.) Num 6:24-27 : “Jehovah bless thee, and keep thee; Jehovah make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; Jehovah lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.” Now, when we come to dismiss the congregation, we want to put God’s name on the congregation and we sometimes use the doxology in this form: “In the name of the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” That puts the name of God on the people. “The blessings of the Father, the blessings of the Son, and the blessings of the Holy Spirit be upon you.” What is the basis of the benediction? What does it root in? Aaron could not say, “The Lord bless thee, and the Lord keep thee, and be gracious unto thee and give thee peace,” if something hadn’t preceded. What was it? The atonement that bad been made for the sins of the people. The benediction is based upon atonement, not a mere flutter of hands and “the Lord be with you, the Lord keep you, the Lord bless you, and be gracious unto you.” Remember that we can’t invoke the blessings of the Lord upon the people except in the name of Jesus Christ, who died for all men.
Lev 9 , gives an account of how God’s answer came. It came visibly; it came in a startling manner that impressed the people. God ratified the service in two particulars. The Lord had said to Moses, “If you will establish my worship just as I have prescribed, the people shall see the glory of the Lord.” So at the end of that public service they saw the visible representation of God. The cloud of fire came down and rested upon the tabernacle and all the people knew that God was approving everything that had been done, and in the second place, fire came down and burnt the offering that had been put upon the altar in the sight of the people. The sacrifice that was left upon that fire was consumed to ashes and the people felt that it was God. This house was now dedicated to God for worship. So it is when we say to the Lord, “The money which thou didst give to us we used to build this house, and we wish this building to be set apart for thy glory,” and thus invoke divine blessings upon its service.
I have only two other things to discuss in this chapter. First, Nadab and Abihu were sons of Aaron. God had called them to this office; they had been consecrated to this office and now they presumed on it. God says, “When you go to kindle incense which represents the prayers of the people, don’t kindle it with common fire. Take a live coal from the brazen pan that holds the fire that never goes out, the altar-fire, and you kindle the incense with that.” The thought is this, that you can’t pray if the prayer is based upon a selfish motive. The prayer amounts to nothing. “If you ask anything in my name and not disregarding my plan then I will hear you.”
Now, Nadab and Abihu thought it not at all necessary to obey God’s plan; without any regard to the pattern which is shown in the Old Testament these two men presumed, when they were appointed, to wave the incense kindled with the common fire which they picked up from the camp, and as soon as they waved it before God they were struck dead as by lightning and the fire burned them to ashes in the flames. It was an awful lesson, that we cannot change what God prescribes. We have no right to deviate to the left hand or to the right hand. But the man in the Arctic regions will say, “It is cold here; we will sprinkle a little water; we hope this baby is going to be a Christian, so we will baptize it,” utterly disregarding the Saviour of men. That lesson of Nadab and Abihu should lay upon your hearts very solemnly.
Now we come to the last thought, and this is quite important. It is the law about the officers approaching God. The law is this: “Thou shalt not take wine nor any strong drink as thou goest up to the service before God and the people.” How often a preacher is tempted; his work has been hard and his nerves are all unstrung; he wants to preach a good sermon and feels that if he had a stimulant of some kind he could preach a good sermon. He asks, “Why not take a goblet of wine or a toddy?” Woe to the preacher that ever does it I It is literally a slap in the face of God.
I never felt such horror as when I was visiting in a certain city and the pastor asked me to preach for him, and when he went to introduce me to the audience, his breath nearly knocked me down. People tell me that he never preached except he keyed up that way, and I know an evangelist who did the same thing. He, just before preaching, because of a physical breakdown, got in the habit of stimulating with opiates, and before I was a preacher there was a man in Texas, said to be the most eloquent preacher in those days of Texas, who could sway men at his will. He also got to doing that very thing.
Now I will tell you a scene as witnessed by Dr. Burleson, the man who told it to me. He says he received a message to visit a great revivalist. (Shall I call his name? Let it rest in peace.) When he got into the house, he found him a physical and mental wreck. He looked like one who had delirium tremens. He was calling out, “Lost, lost, lost!” and kicking the footboard clear off the bed, he said, “Dr. Burleson, I have ruined my life by stimulating myself just before I went to preach, and now I am a drunkard covered with shame and I loathe myself and am tempted every hour of my life to commit suicide.”
When you get further on in this law, you will find that the law says that the king and the judges shall take no strong drink lest their minds be swayed and they pervert judgment. Now, you young preachers, just remember never to commence taking stimulants, no matter how tired and “frazzled out” you are. If you have to have medicine, let the doctor prescribe for you and be treated as a sick man, but do not “be drunken with wine wherein is riot, but be intoxicated with the Holy Spirit.” There is the stimulant for you, the Spirit of God.
Now, the next chapter is on a matter of such delicacy that I shall have to trust to your reading more than to my discussion. This chapter embraces Section 4 of the outline (see Lev 18:1-30 ) and includes Leviticus 11-15, on the various clean and unclean animals. Part of it can easily be discussed, and part of it your own delicacy will tell you how to study. The unclean are the lepers and the unclean animals. Certain are clean and certain are unclean. There are unclean birds, beasts and fishes, and some creeping things which are clean. Things which may be eaten; as, certain offerings. Now, very carefully study Lev 16 . It is the heart of everything in the book, both Old Testament and New Testament. The subject is “The Day of Atonement.”
QUESTIONS
1. Of what do the first seven chapters of Leviticus treat?
2. Of what do Leviticus 8-9 treat?
3. Of what does Lev 10 treat?
4. What three general observations relative to Aaron and his sons and their office?
5. What New Testament parallels to these observations?
6. What was the place of the consecration of Aaron and his sons?
7. What was the method of this consecration?
8. What was brought to be used in this consecration service?
9. What were the preliminary steps in the consecration?
10. What were the vestments of the priests? Of the high priests?
11. Discuss fully the anointing oil and its antitype.
12. What were the sacrifices appointed for the occasion?
13. What was the signification of each?
14. What distinction in making these three offerings?
15. What was done with the blood of the ram of consecration?
16. What of the signification of this?
17. What next follows this?
18. What was then done on the eighth day?
19. Where do we find a description of it? Give it.
20. What was the closing part of this service?
21. What does the word “benediction” mean etymologically?
22. What was the form of this benediction and where do you find it?
23. What is the basis of a benediction and the New Testament application?
24. How did God’s answer come?
25. In what two ways did God ratify what was done?
26. What awful tragedy in this connection?
27. What had they done?
28. What does this incense symbolize and what is the lesson to us?
29. What law is given in this connection? Give examples.
30. What should be the preacher’s stimulant? Give Scripture.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
Ver. 1. And Nadab and Abihu. ] These jolly young priests, overjoyed haply of their new employment and overwarmed with wine, as some gather out of Lev 10:9 , over did themselves the very day of their service, Lev 10:19 and are suddenly surprised by a doleful death. So was that inconsiderate priest of Naples, Anno Dom. 1457, of whom Wolphius a reports, that when the hill Vesuvius had sent huge flames, and done great spoil, he, to make proof of his piety, read a mass, and would needs go up the hill to find out the cause of such a calamity. But for a reward of his foolhardiness, he perished in the flames, and was never heard of any more.
a Wolph., Memorab. Lect., cent. 15.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Leviticus Chapter 10
CHAPTER 9.
THE PRIESTHOOD FAILING AND JUDGED.
Lev 10:1-3 .
Here we have a signal crisis in Israel, the utter ruin of the priesthood before God, however much and long He might bear with them in His long-suffering; as in Exo 32 is seen the ruin of the people with even Aaron at their head.
It is alas! the humbling tale of man failing everywhere and from the first. So it was with Adam and Eve in the paradise of Eden when all around was good, and they themselves innocent. But the serpent tempted through the weaker vessel, and both fell through unbelief of God and His word. So, though in another way of shame, broke down Noah, after the mercy shown to him and his in the deluge. The governor in the earth renewed under sacrifice failed to govern himself, object of pitiful shame to some, but of scorn to others – his own near kin shameless and dastardly. Need one point out the blots on the fathers, or the sons of Israel? Cannot all see in the light of scripture the mournful dereliction of the kings, not only from the first but also of the most honoured, David and Solomon? Then if divine patience forbore till “there was no remedy,” and if world-power, on their ceasing for the time to be God’s people, was given to the Gentiles, what became of the golden head, of the silver breast, of the brazen middle, and of the iron legs with the feet of iron and clay? Were they not all morally viewed as “four great beasts”? as empires lacking intelligence of God, and dependence on Him?
The Second man is the blessed contrast of them all and in every respect. He Who is both Son of man and Ancient of days, as Rev 1 proves, will surely have dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages shall serve Him as no world-ruler ever made his own, and this an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away. Him too will .Jehovah set as His king on His holy hill of Zion, great David’s greater Son Who played Jehovah false in nought small or great, and will judge uprightly but cut off all the horns of the wicked when the horns of the righteous are lifted up. He also shall build the temple of Jehovah, and be a priest upon His throne, with counsel of peace between Them both. The government shall be upon His shoulder Who had done no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth. For indeed unlike Adam that sinned, He had proved Himself altogether victor over the Serpent in the wilderness when without food for forty days. Thence He began His public service, and closed it holy, guileless, undefiled, not swerving however He might suffer (as He did to the uttermost) under God’s judgment of our sins on the cross unto God’s glory, the perfect manifestation and deepest issue of divine love to us, lost as we were heretofore.
Let us turn from the adorable Lord to the priests just consecrated.
” 1 And the sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, took each of them his censer, and put fire in it, and put incense on it, and presented strange fire before Jehovah, which he had not commanded them. 2 And there went out fire from before Jehovah, and devoured them, and they died before Jehovah. 3 And Moses said to Aaron, This [is] what Jehovah spoke, saying, I will be hallowed in those that come near me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron was silent” (vers. 1-3).
Grace had wrought wondrously through righteousness just before. No token could match what was given in Jehovah’s acceptance of the sacrifice. It was not only that the glory of Jehovah appeared to all the people. There came forth fire from before Jehovah, and consumed upon the altar the Burnt-offering and the fat; and when all saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces. Who should have appreciated this so signal mark of Jehovah’s grace? The priests above all. They were the very men who even at such a time betrayed the unbelief and ingratitude of their hearts. The elder sons of Aaron took each of them his censer, and put fire therein and laid incense thereon, “which He had not commanded.” Oh, what contempt of fire from Himself! It was insulting to the divinely given supply and to the sacrifice it consumed. Strange fire, the ordinary fire of nature, was good enough for the incense in the sanctuary! It was headless profanity, and heartless indifference to Jehovah’s favour and glory.
Cain was the leader in that evil “way” against which Jude warns solemnly, as a woe that concerns Christendom. But he was in nature. The priests were not so much here in law as in grace, for such was sacrifice at least typically; and the circumstances were beyond measure awe-inspiring. But Nadab and Abihu turned their back on the Burnt-offering which the fire from Jehovah was consuming, and presumed to burn incense separated from the provision Jehovah had just given, from the sacrifice which gives man his only acceptance atoningly. If the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, how much more should he draw near with reverence and fear! Was this the beginning and bearing of the priests toward Jehovah? But Israel’s God, and our God, is a consuming fire. “There went out fire from before Jehovah, and devoured them, and they died before Jehovah.” Their judgment was immediate and final; all the more awful, because it was in presence of His grace reigning through righteousness in the sign before all the people.
Grace was never meant to dispense with holiness, but to produce and nourish it. So we read in Tit 2:11 , Tit 2:12 ; and again our very chastening under His fatherly hands is declared in Heb 12:10 to be for profit, in order to the partaking of His holiness. Without faith in Christ and His suffering work for our sins, all is vain; but with it we are exhorted to pursue peace with all, and holiness, without which no one shall see the Lord. It could not, ought not, to be otherwise.
“And Moses said to Aaron, This is what Jehovah spoke, saying, I will be hallowed in those that come near me, and before all the people I will be glorified.” If it be in His saving grace instructing and forming us in practical righteousness, it must be in judgment; and judgment will not be less terrible, because it may be hidden for the present. “Of some men the sins are manifest beforehand, going before to judgment; and some also they follow after.” In Israel, as an earthly people under Jehovah’s public government, it was consistent to impress priests and people alike with a sense of Him with Whom they each had to do. God in no case can be a consenting party to His own dishonour. So we see at the beginning of the church’s history in Act 5 . Was it not divine wisdom, as well as mercy, in thus dealing with man, at the very beginning of God’s ways, first with the priests in Israel, afterward with those just favoured with the presence of the Holy Spirit? It was God no doubt vindicating in both cases holy but despised majesty. It was man judged in this world, because of the sin in deed and in word, which unbelief laid them exposed to, and all the more because they failed to bear in mind the nearness into which His favour had brought them.
Here in Israel “Aaron was silent.” So, we may perhaps say, was the Advocate with the Father, when Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit, and the indignant apostle was led of Him to pronounce sentence of death on the spot. Nor was it otherwise, though not so conspicuously at Corinth when many among the saints were weak and infirm, and not a few falling asleep. For there is sin unto death; and we too in this case are not to pray for life. We need spiritual discernment for such a thing.
CHAPTER 10.
THE PRIEST ABOVE GRIEF.
Lev 10:4-7 .
Our relationships whether with God or with man determine our duties. The more intimate they be, the call is proportionate. Jehovah had chosen Aaron and his sons to draw nigh to Him, as none could even of the tribe which had charge of the sanctuary. Therefore would He be sanctified in the persons so privileged, who must walk consistently with holy nearness. If they became through any cause insensible to His majesty, He would not fail to make them feel that they had to do with One Who never slumbers or sleeps, dwelling among the sons of Israel, after having brought them forth out of the land of Egypt to walk among them as Jehovah their God. If the priest forgot what is due to Him, what could be expected of the people? There must be on the one hand no respect of persons: God cannot abdicate; on the other the priest typically stood for Christ Who acted for man with God in His grace. And what can be more heinous then to despise grace? In the most solemn way the elder sons of the high priest had profaned the name of Jehovah. Now “if one man sin against another, God will judge him; but if a man sin against Jehovah, who shall intreat for him?” Even Aaron held his peace.
” 4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, sons of Uzziel uncle of Aaron, and said to them, Draw near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp. 5 And they drew near, and carried them in their vests out of the camp, as Moses had said. 6 And Moses said to Aaron, and to Eleazar and to Ithamar his sons, Uncover not your heads nor rend your clothes, lest ye die, and lest wrath come on all the assembly; but your brethren, the whole house of Israel, shall bewail the burning which Jehovah hath kindled. 7 And ye shall not go out from the door of the tent of meeting, lest ye die; for the anointing oil of Jehovah [is] upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses” (vers. 4-7).
Even in circumstances so unexpected and appalling, all things must be done decently and in order. The guilty priests forthwith perished for their profanity before the sanctuary; and the Levites, their near of kin, must carry them forth out of the camp. And so they did in their vests. It was all the more an affecting and impressive sight. We do not hear the like in any other instance; but this was only right in presence of a sin so unexampled and heinous.
Nor was this all. Moses proceeds to lay an injunction on the priestly family, which was followed up afterwards in detail (Lev 21 ), and worthy of all heed. The priests of Jehovah were liable to the ordinary sorrows of humanity; yea their office, as we have seen, laid them open to peculiar dangers from which others were exempt. But their position of nearness to Jehovah precluded them from the usual manifestation of grief. The occasion was a crucial one, and the word plain and imperative. Natural feeling might plead loudly; but what had nature to do with nearness to Jehovah in the sanctuary? It was He Who deigned to bring them nigh to Himself. Only grace conferred such a title. They were in themselves sinful men, and deserved to be far from His presence like others. What possible claim of his own had any sinner to draw near Him?
It is true that the sanctuary as a whole and in all its parts was significant of what God is in Christ. In the holiest the ark and its covering mercy-seat, with the veil; in the holy place the golden table with its twelve loaves, the golden stand with its seven lamps, the golden sitar of incense, and the screen of the door as well as the hangings, and the very sockets, boards, bars and pillars, to say nothing of the anointing oil, or the cloud that covered the tent of meeting and the glory that filled the tabernacle. But what did any then know of their meaning? Even now that the true light already shines, how few saints read all or any of these things aright?
But this they all had heard and sung, from the passage of the Red Sea, “Who is like thee, Jehovah, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” If they understood not that the sanctuary and its vessels and appurtenances spoke only of what God is to His own in Christ, and what He is for them to God, they could not be ignorant from Sinai, that fear was owed by all, and that holiness especially befits the priests that draw near to Jehovah (Exo 19:11-25 ). “Thy testimonies are very sure: holiness becometh thy house, O Jehovah, for evermore” (Psa 93:5 ).
The Hebrew in the charge to Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar is open to the question, whether it means letting the hair loose, or uncovering their heads; for both were-signs of mourning. The A.V. prefers the latter, the R.V. the former. Certain it is that the command forbids any such token of grief in those who drew nigh to Jehovah He claims and must have on their part what is due to His presence. If the death of Christ was the basis of all blessing there, the death of the first man can have no place before Him. The sorrows and horrors of sin are supplanted by the witness, as yet unbelieved by man, of grace reigning through righteousness unto life eternal by Jesus Christ our Lord; believers should enjoy it. Divine righteousness shines in the sanctuary.
Yet, far from suppressing grief in others, the whole house of Israel was encouraged and expected to bewail the solemn fact before all, the burning which Jehovah had kindled. Nature is there allowed to vent its feelings.
Again, the priests were forbidden to go out from the door of the tent of meeting on pain of death; for the anointing of Jehovah was on them. They were not their own but His; and they had that unction which pointed to the gift of the Spirit, and is absorbed in God’s will and glory.
1Jn 2:20 sets out clearly and beyond controversy that even the babes () of God’s family are thus characterised by the last inspired apostle, writing expressly to warn the saints against the seductions of the last time. How striking that he should comfort, not the or entire family, but the least mature part of that family, with the assurance of possessing the great distinctive privilege Christ went on high to send down to be in and with them, as they wait for His coming, with all the power of the world and the wiles of Satan arrayed against them. If the babes have, as he declares, an unction from the Holy One, and in virtue of His indwelling energy can be said to know all things, how much less can it be denied to the young men and the fathers in the household of faith?
The Gospel of John (in Joh 14 to 16) affords direct proof, that it is not merely an immense power and privilege, “an unction from the Holy One,” but the Holy Spirit personally given and sent. How momentous for faith is this fact! The Lord Himself has made it clear and certain. For He calls Him “another Advocate” (Joh 14:16 ) given that He may abide with them for ever; and He says that the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, should teach them all things, and bring to their remembrance all that He had told them. It is therefore, not merely a gift, but a Giver, a Divine Agent personally present and active (ver. 26). In Joh 15:26 , Joh 15:27 , this is made still more emphatically evident: “But when the Advocate shall have come, whom I will send to you from my Father, the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, He shall bear witness concerning me; and ye too bear witness because ye are with me from the beginning.” More explicit if possible is Joh 16:7 , Joh 16:8 : “For if I go not away, the Advocate will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And having come, he will convince” (or, afford proof), etc. Again (in vers. 13, 14), “But when he shall have come, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak from himself, but whatsoever things he shall hear, he will speak; and he will announce to you the things to come. He will glorify me, because he will receive of mine, and will announce [it] to you.” The proof of personal presence and action is abundant and conclusive. What can be more precious or comforting?
CHAPTER 11.
THE PRIEST TO BE ABOVE EXCITEMENT.
Lev 10:8-11 .
We have seen how the priest is called to respect the presence of God supremely, even if death touch ever so closely: Jehovah will be hallowed in those that come near Him. None can enjoy this privilege without the obligation it involves. Not only is sense of bereavement allowed, but bewailing is enjoined on all others even where it was the evident stroke of God. For He abides in His own majesty above sin and its effects; and those chosen to minister in the sanctuary must yield witness to that nearness by their bearing according to His will.
They were no less warned against all natural excitement in the performance of their proper functions. Permissible at other times, it is strictly precluded from the sanctuary. The injunction is remarkable as the first to Aaron after his consecration.
” 8 And Jehovah spoke to Aaron, saying, 9 Thou shalt not drink wine nor strong drink, thou nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, lest ye die: an everlasting statute throughout your generations, 10 and that ye may put difference between the holy and the unholy, and between the unclean and the clean, 11 and that ye may teach the sons of Israel all the statutes which Jehovah hath spoken to them by the hand of Moses” (vers. 8-11).
Literal as the prohibition was to Aaron and his house, it has of course a large and momentous meaning figuratively to the Christian. “Wine and strong drink” cover the wide circle of all incentives to fleshly exhilaration. The most refined are as much proscribed as the gross, and manifold are its kinds which lie between. The first man, in his evil or its consequences, its sorrows or its joys, has no right to intrude into the sanctuary.
There is One, and but One, Who suits God’s presence; but He is the Second man. Only the offering of Himself for us truly fits us for it. His sacrifice is our sole, our sufficient, and our perfect title to draw near; and this is most pleasing to the God Who gave and sent Him expressly for this end, though for others worthy of both. Therefore God would have us filled with His praise when we thus approach. Have we not boldness to enter into the holies in virtue of the blood of Jesus, a new and living way which He dedicated for us through the veil, that is to say, His flesh? Nor this only; for we have Himself there, a Great Priest over the house of God. We have thus the same object of delight as our God and Father. What communion! The Holy Spirit too, Who beareth witness with our spirit that we are His children, is our power of worship; as it is written, we worship by God’s Spirit, and boast in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in flesh (Phi 3:3 ). Does He not abide in and with us for ever for this as for all else? It is heavenly joy.
But for this very reason fleshly pleasure, human gratification, earthly satisfaction, natural joy, all that answers spiritually to the effect of wine or strong drink on those who thus indulge, is abhorrent to God’s presence. There is, there ought to be, joy in the Holy Spirit. And so the Ephesian saints were exhorted to be filled with the Spirit, speaking to themselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with their heart to the Lord, giving thanks at all times for all things to the God and Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. God cannot but be jealous that the Holy Spirit be honoured here as Christ is on high; and the Spirit is here to glorify Christ. Yet praise should be holy.
But it is easy to be excited by a multitude keeping holiday, by a grand building with religious associations, by music pathetic or overpowering, to say nothing of the display of wealth, rank, or fame. Even if one begin in the Spirit, how readily one may slight the divine thanksgiving and praise by admiration of the singing or even the music! Fine appeals may be a feast to the taste, and eloquence may fire the spirit; but these excitements, what are they but veritable draughts of wine and strong drink? They are alien to the sanctuary and forbidden.
Nor is this only aimed at, but its consequence. The priests were charged to “put difference between the holy and the unholy, and between the unclean and the clean.” No doubt here was a question of meats and drinks, of ordinances of flesh, as Heb 9:10 calls them in accordance with Israel’s standing as an outwardly holy people. Equally sure is it that we as Christians are sanctified by the Spirit to obedience and sprinkling of Christ’s blood, which imports a far deeper and higher holiness typified thereby. Excitement would unfit for spiritual discrimination. Practical life would thus be ruined as well as worship. It was not so that the apostle sought the Corinthians, as he tells us in 1Co 2 . Nor did he gratify Athenian vanity by his appeal in Act 17 but spoke to conscience.
So here we see the type pursued in this abstinence, “that ye may teach the sons of Israel all the statutes which Jehovah hath spoken to them by the hand of Moses.” Still more is spiritual abstraction needed for the vast and profound range of Christian truth.
CHAPTER 12.
THE PRIESTS DUE.
Lev 10:12-15 .
The next direction is positive rather than negative; it expresses, first, the communion of the priests, of the high priest and his sons, as far as this could be with the offerings to Jehovah; then of their families. Eating is the well-known sign of fellowship, as none can deny.
” 12 And Moses spoke to Aaron, and to Eleazar and Ithamar his sons that were left, Take the meal-offering that is left of Jehovah’s fire-offerings, and eat it with unleavened bread beside the altar; for it [is] most holy. 13 And ye shall eat it in a holy place, because it [is] thy due and thy sons’ due, of Jehovah’s fire-offerings; for so I am commanded. 14 And the breast of the wave-offering and the shoulder of the heave-offering ye shall eat in a clean place, thou and thy sons and thy daughters with thee; for thy due and thy sons’ due [are they] given of the sacrifices of peace-offerings of the children of Israel. 15 The shoulder of the heave offering and the breast of the wave-offering shall they bring with the fire-offerings of the pieces of fat to wave as a wave-offering before Jehovah; and they shall be thine and thy sons’ with thee for an everlasting statute, as Jehovah commanded” (vers. 12-15).
As the priests were those chosen for the services of the sanctuary, their failures and their dangers were measured by that standard in a way peculiar to themselves. Again also they had privileges, or dues, in which others could not share, suitable to such as drew near into the divine presence. The measure for an Israelite was what Jehovah claimed from man; for the priest there must be fitness Godward. Certainly no less than this is the holiness of the Christian; for he is a priest more really and fully than Aaron himself, for whom the office was but shadowy and ceremonial. Christ is the truth; and as in all other respects, so evidently and expressly in priesthood for the heavens now, as by-and-by for the earth also when He sits on Zion’s throne. He therefore makes priesthood as real for the Christian as sonship is, though unbelief in Christendom makes the priestly place a vague name for all but the clergy.
Thus is confounded priesthood with ministry, which is in its worst form to repeat the gainsaying of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Of this imposture the Epistle of Jude declares the woe and end. But unbelief cannot alter or efface the truth; and Christians are shown in the N.T. to be the only persons on earth who now exercise priestly functions. They, having the only Great Priest over the house of God, are exhorted to approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, “sprinkled as to our hearts from a wicked conscience, and washed as to our body with pure water” (Heb 10:21 , Heb 10:22 ). Who but they have the entrance with boldness into the holies in the power of the blood of Jesus? For any minister to claim this as the title, and the exclusive title, of his class, is to convict himself of presumptuous ignorance and profanity. It is meddling with Christ’s rights, and with His grace to His own.
Christ as the Burnt-offering rose up wholly consumed to Jehovah. Man was in no way to partake: “It shall be accepted to make atonement for him” (Lev 1:4 ). “The priest shall burn all on the altar” (9). With Christ as the Meal-offering or Oblation, it was different; for here it is He, as alive in flesh and obedient in holy love, yet offered up to Jehovah. Of the fine flour with the oil, but all the frankincense put on it, the priest took his handful, and burnt it on the altar to Jehovah. The remainder was for Aaron and his sons, who were the priestly company and symbolise `’ all the saints” here below. “Most holy” as it is, and thus rebuking every thought that tends to lower the Word become flesh, it was priestly food. Jehovah has the memorial thereof, a Fire-offering no less than the Burnt-offering; but the priest partook of the rest. If Jehovah had His delight in that blessed life of absolute devotedness to His will, have not we who believe and know ourselves brought to God (purged from every sin) the privilege of enjoying that oblation in peace and thanksgiving?
But it was to be eaten “in a holy place,” as only the priests partook of it, not even their families. It is only in God’s presence that we can enjoy in communion what Christ was each day on earth and all through to God: elsewhere we reason or imagine, and in either way must sully what is “most holy.” It is the power of the Spirit that enables the believer to appropriate Christ thus, without mingling his own thoughts. For none rightly knows the Son but the Father; and before Him we presume not, but receive what He gives in unfeigned faith and worship. All the frankincense was for Jehovah.
On the other hand, while ver. 13 restricts the remainder of the Meal-offering to the eating of the priests “in a holy place,” ver. 14 opens participation in the due portion of Peace-offerings for their sons and daughters to eat freely, but “in a clean place.” For this they had the wave-breast and the heave-shoulder. They were all entitled to share the joy of counting on the affections and the power of Christ as their portion.
In Lev 7 we see liberty to enjoy a more widely extended fellowship; for the offerer and his guests had the remainder as a feast. Thus Jehovah, the offering priest, the priestly house as a whole, and the offerer with his company, had each the appropriate part, in a communion large and varied, yet nicely ordered of God. Christ in His fulness answers to its every part: a striking contrast with the first and sinful man in his narrow selfishness or vain lavishness. Only “cleanness” was indispensable. “As he who called you is holy, be ye also holy in-all conduct, because it is written, Be holy, because I am holy.” The simplest believer, however unintelligent of his high and holy privileges, is responsible to cleanse himself from every pollution of flesh and spirit, in order to enjoy it. Grace when believed produces vigilance in our new responsibilities as God’s children; but the forgetfulness or abuse of it admits of licence and leads to lawlessness.
It is of much interest to notice these varied ordinances introduced at this time. Jehovah intended the sin and the judgment of the elder priests with which the chapter opens to be deeply felt, and thus work for God like all else. Therefore also He would sanction no feeling of distrust in Himself, nor consequently of dependency on themselves. On the contrary, by guarding against excitement in His presence, He forearms them of a snare dishonouring to Him and perilous to them. And He follows up that holy caution with reminding them of the privilege peculiar to those who draw near Him in the sanctuary, that it is theirs to eat the remainder of the Meal-offering without leaven beside the altar; for it is most holy. It is Christ as God saw Him incarnate here below in the beauty of holiness; and He thus gave them to have communion with Him in His own delight in the Son. Christ’s manhood, a continual savour of rest to Him, was all the more acceptable; indeed it explains, if it does not wholly account for, God’s complacency in men, rather than angels, as a multitude of the heavenly host unjealously expressed it in praising God.
Not less admirable in its place is the festive and more unrestricted privilege of the other “due,” for their sons and their daughters to join their priestly sires in partaking of the wave-breast and the heave-shoulder, when the children of Israel offered Peace-offerings to Jehovah; but this necessarily was not in the holy place, but “in a clean place.” Grace maintains purity, but considers those who enter not into the fuller privileges it confers. They may and should enjoy all that God gives them.
CHAPTER 13.
NOT EATING THE SIN OFFERING.
Lev 10:16-20 .
In the opening of the chapter we have seen God’s great dishonour by man’s great transgression, in presence of signal grace and not merely of creature responsibility. To this the priests were exposed, and therein the elder sons of Aaron fell. It was despising the Burnt-offering, and God’s fire in its acceptance. Then came instruction to guard them against the expression of grief or the allowance of excitement. In these others might indulge, but not those who had the privilege of drawing near to His sanctuary. Their communion too with the holy oblation to Jehovah, and with the more freely enjoyed sacrifices of Peace offerings, was duly explained. There remained the solemn injunction that the priests should eat the Sin-offering. Their failure in this respect closes the chapter, deeply appealing to us who, though of a heavenly calling, are no less apt to forget what it speaks to our souls and means before God.
” 16 And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin-offering, and, behold, it was burnt) up; then he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons [that were] left, saying, 17 Why have ye not eaten the sin-offering in the place of the sanctuary? For it [is] most holy; and he hath given it to you, that ye might bear the iniquity of the assembly, to make atonement for them before Jehovah. 18 Behold, its blood was not brought in within the sanctuary: ye should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded. 19 And Aaron said to Moses, Behold, today have they presented their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before Jehovah; and such things as these have befallen me! And had I today eaten the sin-offering, would it have been good in the sight of Jehovah? 20 And Moses heard, and it was good in his sight” (vers. 16-20).
Thus the rest of the priestly house, though not guilty of the error fatal to Nadab and Abihu, broke down in a weighty part of their obligations; and all this was, sad to say, at the very start. So humiliating is God’s history of man everywhere and at all times, as we may trace from the first Adam to the Second man Who never failed. How blessed for God is His coming and work, and for us who so deeply need it!
Perhaps it would not be possible to find a more wholesome warning for our souls in relation to our brethren, alike set free by the work of Christ to draw near to God, and exhorted as having boldness to enter through the rent veil into the holies by virtue of His blood. It is no presumption, but the “boast of hope” which we are called to hold firm unto the end, that we are in very deed His house, as truly as, and far more blessedly than, the priests were Aaron’s. It is a real and rich part of the harvest of blessing we reap through redemption; for the Aaronic house was comparatively imperfect.
But if we are entitled even now to far greater boldness and access in confidence through the faith of Him, we are bound to identify ourselves in grace with the failures of our brethren, as they with ours. None but the Saviour could atone for us. His sufferings on the cross could alone avail to bring us to God. Whatever we had been, He now did reconcile us in the body of His flesh through death; and in Christ Jesus those who were far off are become nigh by His blood, Who is our peace and made the most opposed one, having broken down the middle wall of partition and annulled the enmity in His flesh, that He might form the two in Himself into one new man. Thus it is through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Yet as a fact we all and often offend; and we are exhorted to confess our sins or offences ta one another. Is this all? Far from it, we have to fulfil the type before us, to eat the Sin-offering in the sanctuary, to make the offence of a saint our own seriously in grace before God.
This goes far beyond the kindest feeling. It is so both in the deep sense of what is due to God, and as if we ourselves had offended. This is to bear the iniquity of the assembly, savouring the things that are Christ’s, not those of men who would palliate and excuse. Hence it was to be eaten, not in a clean place only like the Peace-offering, but in the holy place. Propitiation had its unique moment; but priestly grace has also its due place and season in nearness to God.
It is equally plain as in the call for the priests to eat the residue of the Meal-offering, that eating the Sin-offering was only for them, not for their sons and their daughters. How many real believers who have now the title of priests (for it is certainly what the atoning work of the Lord Jesus gives to all that are His) fail to make it good as a matter of communion and practice! For this reason they can not appropriate the spirit of these commandments of Jehovah for the priests. They are thankful for the mercy of God in Christ’s death, though even there it is rather as the offering for sin and trespass of which they feel the necessity, than as the Burnt-offering in its acceptance. Hence they fail through their weakness of faith, to know what answers in their case to eating, either of the Meal-offering on the one hand, or of the Sin-offering on the other. Both can be eaten in the holy place only; and the entry there they have not learnt and made their own as a present reality. They are therefore in this respect more like the sons and the daughters of the Aaronic line-than the priests themselves. But even so they partake (if feebly enough) of the witness of Christ’s love and power, and this in the communion of saints as the Peace-offering means. But blessed are they who know what it is to approach God through Christ, and can identify themselves with Him on behalf of one overtaken in some fault (Gal 6:1 ).
So the Lord, when indicating by His symbolical action in Joh 13 the gracious but indispensable work He, on departing to the Father, was about to carry on for saints, lets them know that they too were to wash one another’s feet. In this it is communion practically with Himself. But here we are as apt to fail through ignorance or carelessness, as Peter did doubly on that occasion.
The apostle Paul too at a later day, who could not but censure the insensibility of the Corinthian saints in 1Co 5 , had the joy of learning that they were made sorry according to God, as he expresses it in 2Co 7:9 . “What earnest care it wrought in you, yea what clearing of yourselves, yea what indignation, yea what fear, yea what longing, yea what zeal, yea what avenging. In everything ye approved yourselves to be pure in the matter.” Again, to the Galatian saints he writes, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ,” instead of meddling with the law of Moses to the hurt of themselves and of each other. Individual responsibility remains true: each shall bear his own burden; but grace would bear one another’s burdens.
Intercession with our God and Father is a precious privilege which it is our shame to neglect. It keeps God’s rights undiminished, and exercises the heart in saintly love. Let us never forget that grace condemns evil far more profoundly than law did or could; but it holds fast Christ in life and death and thereby the erring believer’s title, as it is in unison here below with what He is doing on high as Advocate with the Father. It delivers from a hard spirit on the one hand, and from a merely human leniency on the other; neither of which is compatible with Christ. His alone it was to atone; but He also felt and confessed the evil, and herein as priests we are called in the presence of God to bear the burden on our souls and to mourn for a brother’s sin as our own.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Leviticus
STRANGE FIRE
Lev 10:1 – Lev 10:11
This solemn story of sin and punishment is connected with the preceding chapter by a simple ‘and.’ Probably, therefore, Nadab and Abihu ‘offered strange fire,’ immediately after the fire from Jehovah had consumed the appointed sacrifice. Their sin was aggravated by the time of its being committed. But a week had passed since the consecration of their father and themselves as priests. The first sacrifices had just been offered, and here, in the very blossoming time, came a vile canker. If such licence in setting aside the prescriptions of the newly established sacrificial order asserted itself then, to what lengths might it not run when the first impression of sanctity and of God’s commandment had been worn by time and custom? The sin was further aggravated by the sinners being priests, who were doubly obliged to punctilious adherence to the instituted ritual. If they set the example of contempt, would not the people better or, rather, worsen their instruction?
Unquestionably, their punishment was awfully severe. But we shall entirely misconceive their sin if we judge it by our standards. We are not dependent on forms as Israel was, but the spiritual religion of Christianity was only made possible by the externalism of the older system. The sweet kernel would not have softened and become juicy without the shelter of the hard shell. Scaffolding is needed to erect a building; and he is not a wise man who either despises or would keep permanently standing the scaffold poles.
We draw a broad distinction between positive commandments and moral or religious obligations. But in the Mosaic legislation that distinction does not exist. There, all precepts are God’s uttered will, and all disobedience is rebellion against Him. Nor could it be otherwise at the stage of development which Israel had reached.
What, then, was the crime of these two rash sons of Aaron? That involves two questions: What did they do? and What was the sin of doing it? The former question may be answered in various ways. Certainly the designation of ‘strange fire’ seems best explained by the usual supposition that it means fire not taken from the altar. The other explanations, which make the sin to have been offering at an unauthorised time, or offering incense not compounded according to the prescription, give an unnatural meaning to the phrase. It was the ‘fire’ which was wrong,-that is, it was ‘fire which they had kindled,’ caught up from some common culinary hearth, or created by themselves in some way.
What was their sin in thus offering it? Plainly, the narrative points to the essence of the crime in calling it ‘fire which He had not commanded.’ So this was their crime, that they were tampering with the appointed order which but a week before they had been consecrated to conserve and administer; that they were thus thrusting in self-will and personal caprice, as of equal authority with the divine commandment; that they were arrogating the right to cut and carve God’s appointments, as the whim or excitement of the moment dictated; and that they were doing their best to obliterate the distinction on the preservation of which religion, morality, and the national existence depended; namely, the distinction between holy and common, clean and unclean. To plough that distinction deep into the national consciousness was no small part of the purpose of the law; and here were two of its appointed witnesses disregarding it, and flying in its face. The flash of holy fire consuming the sacrifices had scarcely faded off their eyeballs when they thus sinned.
They have had many successors, not only in Israel, while a ritual demanding punctilious conformity lasted, but in Christendom since. Alas! our censers are often flaming with ‘strange fire.’ How much so-called Christian worship glows with self-will or with partisan zeal! When we seek to worship God for what we can get, when we rush into His presence with hot, eager desires which we have not subordinated to His will, we are burning ‘strange fire which He has not commanded.’ The only fire which should kindle the incense in our censers, and send it up to heaven in fragrant wreaths, is fire caught from the altar of sacrifice. God must kindle the flame in our hearts if we are to render these else cold hearts to Him.
‘The prayers I bring will then be sweet indeed
If Thou the Spirit give, by which I pray.’
There is a very striking parallel between Lev 10:2 and the last verse of the preceding chapter. In both the same expression is used, ‘There came forth fire from before the Lord, and consumed’ the word rendered devoured in Lev 10:2 is the same in Hebrew as consumed . So, then, the same divine fire, which had graciously signified God’s acceptance of the appointed sacrifice, now flashed out with lightning-like power of destruction, and killed the two rebel priests. There is dormant potency of destruction in the God who reveals Himself as gracious. The ‘wrath of the Lamb’ is as real as His gentleness. The Gospel is ‘the savour of life unto life’ and ‘of death unto death.’
Moses’ word to the stunned father is of a piece with the severity of the whole incident. No voice of condolence or sympathy comes from him. The brother is swallowed up in the lawgiver. He puts into words the meaning of the terrible stroke, and expects Aaron to acquiesce, though his heart bleeds. What was his interpretation? He saw in it God’s purpose to be ‘sanctified in them that come nigh Him.’ The priests were these. Nadab and Abihu had been consecrated for the purpose of enforcing the truth of God’s holiness. They had done the very opposite, by breaking down the distinction between sacred and common.
But their nearness to God brought with it not only corresponding obligations, but corresponding criminality and penalty, if these obligations were not discharged. If God is not ‘sanctified’ by His servants, He will sanctify Himself on them. If His people do not set forth His infinite separation from all evil and elevation above all creatures, He will proclaim these truths in lightning that kills and thunder that roars. It is a universal law which Moses sternly spoke to Aaron instead of comfort, bidding him recognise the necessity of the fearful blow to his paternal heart. ‘You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.’
The prohibition to Aaron and his sons to show signs of mourning is as stern as the rest of the story, and serves to insist upon the true point of view from which to regard it. For the official representatives of the divine order of worship to mourn the deaths of its assailants would have seemed to indicate their murmuring at God’s judgments, and might have led them to participate in the sin while they lamented its punishment. It is hard to mourn and not to repine. Affection blinds to the ill-desert of its objects. Nadab’s and Abihu’s stark corpses lying in the forecourt of the sanctuary, and Aaron’s dry eyes and undisturbed attire, proclaim the same truths,-the gravity of the dead men’s sin, and the righteous judgment of God. But the people might sorrow, for their mourning would help to imprint on them more deeply the lessons of the dread event.
While the victims’ cousins carried their bodies to their graves in the sand, their father and brothers had to remain in the Tabernacle, because ‘the anointing oil of Jehovah is upon you.’ That oil, as the symbol of the Spirit, separates those on whom it is poured from all contact with death, from participation in sin, from the weight of sorrow. What have immortality, righteousness, joy in the Holy Ghost, to do with these dark shadows? Those whom God has called to His immediate service must hold themselves apart from earthly passions, and must control natural affection, if indulging it imperils their clear witness to God’s righteous will.
The prohibition Lev 10:8 of wine and strong drink during the discharge of the priestly functions seems to suggest that Nadab and Abihu had committed their sin while in some degree intoxicated. Be that as it may, the prohibition is rested upon the necessity of preserving, in all its depth and breadth, the distinction between common and holy which Nadab and Abihu had broken down. That distinction was to be very present to the priest in his work, and how could he have the clearness of mind, the collectedness and composure, the sense of the sanctity of his office, and ministrations which it requires and gives, if he was under the influence of strong drink?
Nothing has more power to blur the sharpness of moral and religious insight than even a small amount of alcohol. God must be worshipped with clear brain and naturally beating heart. Not the fumes of wine, in which there lurks almost necessarily the tendency to ‘excess,’ but the being ‘filled with the Spirit’ supplies the only legitimate stimulus to devotion. Besides the personal reason for abstinence, there was another,-namely, that only so could the priests teach the people ‘the statutes’ of Jehovah. Lips stained from the wine-cup would not be fit to speak holy words. Words spoken by such would carry no power.
God’s servants can never impress on the sluggish conscience of society their solemn messages from God, unless they are conspicuously free from self-indulgence, and show by their example the gulf, wide as between heaven and hell, which parts cleanness from uncleanness. Our lives must witness to the eternal distinction between good and evil, if we are to draw men to ‘abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is good.’
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
offered = brought near. Hebrew. karab. App-43.
strange fire: i.e. fire other than that Jehovah had commanded, required, and given from heaven (Lev 1:7; Lev 6:12; Lev 9:24; Lev 16:12. Compare Exo 30:9). It was of their own kindling: so is all that is offered to God in worship today. If so, according to Joh 4:23, Joh 4:24, it is “strange fire”, and deserves the same judgment! All worship that is not kindled by the Holy Spirit is “strange”, and is of the flesh. Compare Joh 3:6 with Joh 6:63. It “profiteth nothing”, and “God has no respect to it” (Gen 4:4, Gen 4:5. Heb 11:4). The incense of prayer and worship on the golden altar in the holy place was kindled by fire taken from the brazen altar in the outer court, on which atonement was made (see Lev 16:12, Lev 16:13 and Rev 8:5): only those, therefore, whose sin is atoned for can worship. Compare the “strange incense”, Exo 30:9.
commanded them not. Negative. The introduction of anything “strange”, where all is ordered by God, is abomination in His sight; and calls for, and calls down, His judgment. Thus the first recorded individual use of incense began in disobedience (Lev 10:1), and the last ended in unbelief (Luk 1:10, Luk 1:18, Luk 1:20).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 10
And Nadab and Abihu, the two sons of Aaron, took both of them their censers, and they put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He commanded them not ( Lev 10:1 ).
Now in this moment of excitement, in this moment of high emotional pitch, the people are excited. They have seen a miracle of God. They have seen fire from God suddenly consuming this sacrifice, no one around. The glory of God. Aaron’s two sons in the midst of this emotional fervor grabbed their little incense burners and took fire in them and put the incense on and began to go in before the Lord to offer incense, “strange fire, which the Lord commanded not”.
It is interesting God does want us to worship Him, but God has really prescribed the way that we are to worship Him. You see I am not really free to worship God any old way I feel. I can’t come to God any old way I want. If I am to come to God, God has laid out prescribed ways by which I am to come. If I am to worship God, God has laid out prescribed ways by which I am to worship Him. It isn’t up to me to choose how I am to worship God.
So here they were coming in a way in which God didn’t command them to take this fire and to offer the incense at this point. It was something that was totally done on their own part. Juices were flowing because there’s a lot of excitement, people are shouting and all. And, of course, they are important; they are priests and maybe they are wishing to show their importance. Everybody is all excited and watching, now, the things that are happening. And so maybe they want to get into the public eye. And so as they started in with these incense burners and the smoke rising, fire came from the Lord and they both fell dead.
And Moses said this is the thing that God spoke about saying that He would be sanctified before the people and that God would be glorified before the people.
I will be glorified [the Lord said]. And so Aaron held his peace ( Lev 10:3 ).
Perhaps they were seeking, at that point, to rob God from some of His glory. Perhaps, at that point, they were seeking to draw attention to themselves away from God. It is always tragic when the instrument of God receives more attention then God or when the instrument of God seeks to draw attention to itself.
We are to be as a mirror reflecting Christ before the world. The only time a mirror attracts attention to itself is when it is dirty. You really never notice a mirror unless it’s got a flaw in it or unless it’s dirty. When you look at a mirror, you are looking for the reflection. And the only time you really notice the mirror is when there is something wrong with it. Now, we are to be a reflection of Jesus Christ as mirrors reflecting His glory before the world.
Now any time that people are being attracted to me or drawn to me or attention is being put on me, it only indicates there’s something dirty, there’s a flaw, there’s something wrong. I shouldn’t be drawing attention to myself. It is tragic that so many do seek to draw attention to themselves. And I think that we perhaps have all been guilty of that at one time or another in our experiences and for me more times than I wish to remember.
Now, if I’m to worship God, I must come in the way that God has prescribed. And Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man comes to the Father but by Me” ( Joh 14:6 ). So I don’t care how pious you are or anything else. If you don’t come to God through the prescribed way of Jesus Christ, you’re never going to make it to God. No matter how idealistic you might be in your thought patterns. No matter how sincere you might be in your endeavor to reach God. You are never going to reach Him unless you come the prescribed Way through Jesus Christ. It cannot be Jesus and others. Jesus said, “I am the Way, no man comes to the Father but by Me.”
So Aaron’s sons were guilty of taking attention of the people from God to themselves. They had a high hazard job.
And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron and said unto them, Come near, and carry your brothers from before the sanctuary out of the camp. So they went near, and they carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said. And Moses said unto Aaron, to Eleazar and to Ithamar, the other sons, [the brothers of these two guys,] Don’t uncover your heads, don’t tear your clothes; lest you die, lest the wrath of God come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled. And you shall not go out from the doors of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses. And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when you go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout all your generations: that ye may put the difference between the holy and the unholy, between the clean and the unclean ( Lev 10:4-10 );
So Aaron was not to mourn for his two sons publicly or God would wipe him out, because what God had done to his two sons was just. For Aaron to mourn before the people would be actually to indicate an unfairness on God’s part. And then the warning don’t drink any wine or strong drink when you come in before the Lord. He wasn’t to go out either. The anointing oil was upon him, the anointing of God was upon him. He was to stay right there, not to leave as long as the anointing oil was on him. But then the warning not to drink wine or strong drink when you’re doing service to God in order that you might have a clear head, in order that you might be able to discern between the holy and the unholy, between the clean and the unclean. There is perhaps there a hint that Aaron’s sons, the false fire was that they were actually a little bit inebriated, and thus under a false stimulant. Not able to clearly discern their own actions because of drinking and thus in their minds being beclouded and fuzzed because of their drinking. Not really responding to God in the right way that that was what caused them to be wiped out.
In Proverbs we read concerning Lemuel the king. Wine is not for kings. Why? Because if can cause a deterioration of judgment, it can remove natural inhibitions. It can cloud or fuzzy your thinking processes. God wants your mind to be perfectly clear when you worship Him, when you serve Him. He doesn’t want you to be under some kind of a false stimulant.
Now, He will accept people in any condition. We saw God working marvelous miracles in taking kids who were high on LSD and on some wild trip, and we’ve seen the Lord bring them right down and deal with them, bring them right off of it and clear them up and deal with them. But there are a lot of, you know, guys down at the bar tonight who are sitting there, you know, sobbing and saying how horrible they are and how much they need God and all this kind of stuff. But tomorrow they will be right back out cursing and in their old, you know, but it’s just that the booze is working on them. And so their repentance is not a true repentance of their heart. It isn’t from a really clear mind, thus it is of little value, no value really.
God wants you to have your wits about you when you come before Him. He wants you to think of what you’re doing, which is your reasonable service. Come now, let us reason together, saith the Lord. He wants you to be sharp. He wants you to be able to think things through and reason things out to know the difference, to know what you’re doing.
David, in talking about our praises, said, “Let us praise Him with understanding”. A lot of times, I think people praise God really without understanding, in that you start just a little routine of “Oh Bless God, Hallelujah, Praise the Lord. Bless Jesus, Hallelujah kind of thing.” And you can go on uttering these words of praise but your mind can be a million miles away. And that praise is totally worthless and totally meaningless. In fact, it’s almost insulting to God for you to praise Him out of an empty head, you know, be thinking of something else while you’re just mouthing praises to Him. That’s an insult.
If you come up and start to carry on a conversation with me with just inane repetitions and chatter, and I knew that your mind was way off some place else, you weren’t even thinking of what you were saying, you’re just talking for the sake of uttering words; it would be very insulting indeed. And yet we do it when we come to God. “Bless God. Hallelujah. Praise the Lord. Bless Jesus”, you know. And we get into the little singsong, and we start going on and then our minds start tripping out. Man, I wonder if there’ll be much snow on Mammoth this year, you know, and coming down those slopes and “Bless God. Hallelujah. Praise the Lord”, you know and how insulting that must be to God. He wants you to have a clear head.
I think that sometimes it’s good to pray with your eyes closed but sometimes I think it’s good to pray with your eyes open. I like to just sit in my chair and just talk to God, just as though He’s sitting in the chair across the room from me and just to talk to God in conversational tones and in a conversational way. Somehow we have prayer all confused. We even have a prayer voice and a prayer style and we suddenly lapse into Old English because surely that’s more spiritual than modern English in prayer. “O Lord, Thou hath created the heavens and the Earth and Thou hast by Thy mighty hands formed the seas and now we comest Lord to Thee.” But usually we’ve got that prayer voice and so we’re sustaining a little bit because it makes it more spiritual, too. “Oh Lord, how much we need Thee,” a little quiver in the voice and a little sustain of the notes and prayer becomes much more effective.
What if your friends would come up to you, “Oh Doc, I have these symptoms,” and you think what in the world is going on here. And yet people in their prayer have a tone of voice and all which again are totally meaningless as far as prayer goes. I think it’s great to talk with God intelligently. To think of what you’re saying. I’m sure He appreciates it.
And so God wants a clear mind. The warning not to drink wine, strong drink. Now it is interesting that this follows through in the New Testament. The overseers of the church, the bishop, were not to be given to wine or strong drink. So, God said this is to be forever among the priesthood and then He carried it over into the church. Any pastor of a church, any overseer of the body of Christ should not drink wine or strong drink because he must keep his mind clear.
Paul the apostle said, “All things are lawful for me.” But then he added, I will not be brought under the power of any. I will not use my liberty in Christ in such a way indulging myself in some things that could bring me under their influence or under their power. Sure, I’m free to do it. Sure, it’s lawful for me but it would be stupid of me to do it because it could bring me under its power. It could bring me under its influence and once I’m under the influence or the power of this drug, or beverage, or whatever, I am no longer free. That very thing that I prize so highly, my glorious freedom in Christ is something that I have to guard very carefully because it’s so easy to exercise my freedom in such a way as to bring me into bondage.
Take a look at Adam. Sure he had the freedom to eat of that fruit, but in so doing, he led himself into bondage. He exercised his freedom in such a way that he was never free again. And it’s possible for you to exercise your freedom in such a way as to bring yourself into bondage and that isn’t very wise because then you’re no longer free.
And so the Lord said He wanted them to have a clear mind so that they could put a difference between the holy and unholy. And that they might be able to teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord has spoken by the hand of Moses.
And so Moses spoke unto Aaron, to Eleazar, to Ithamar, his sons-the two that were left, [they said] Take the meal offerings that remain of the offerings of the Lord that was made by fire, and eat it without the leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy: And you shall eat it in the holy place, because it is your wages, and your son’s wages, of the sacrifices to the Lord that were made by fire: so I am commanded. And so the wave breast, the heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; you, and your sons, and your daughters with thee: for it shall be your wages, and thy son’s wages, which were given out of the sacrifices of the peace offerings of the children of Israel ( Lev 10:12-14 ).
And so Aaron and his sons did as Moses commanded.
So now as we go into chapter eleven of Leviticus, next we then get into some of the dietary laws that God established for them. What animals they could eat, what animals they could not eat. And then the purification rights for the women after they had borne children and all. And then the cleansing for leprosy and on into some very interesting things.
Now there is an interesting book called “None of These Diseases,” by Dr. Maxwell, I believe it is, that deals with some of the dietary laws. And some of these laws in Leviticus, the laws of cleansing and all, showing that the promise of God that if the children of Israel would keep His commandments and do His statutes and all that none of these diseases which came upon the Egyptians would come upon them. And was showing, actually, the wisdom of a lot of the dietary laws and the laws of cleanliness that God gave unto them, that actually they are strictly health codes.
God is interested in your good health. I don’t think God is behind junk food. And I don’t think that we can load ourselves up with junk food and ask God to give us a healthy body. I think there’s an inconsistency there. It used to be going home from Bible school, we would stop by the Boston Market and buy a gallon of ice cream, a pint of whipped cream, and chocolate syrup and bananas, and we’d go home and I would whip up a quick banana cream pie, and then we’d sit down to eat. And the guys would say, “Who’s going to ask the blessing?” I’d say, “You’ve got to be kidding. You can’t in all good conscience ask God to bless this. Just eat it and suffer the consequences.” But don’t ask God to bless what you know is no good for you. And yet some of us are so foolish, you know. We keep supplying our bodies with junk kinds of food and then we ask God for strength and for health. That’s a whole other subject, but we’ll get into that next Sunday as we get into Leviticus and the dietary laws and the value of a good diet and all, as God lays it out to the people. God was interested in their health and in the foods that they ate. And so I think we’ll find it very fascinating.
Shall we stand.
Aren’t you glad you’re not living under the old covenant? Wee, it’s so neat just to have Jesus Christ and to realize that all these ordinances and sacrifices and the whole thing have been done away and now we can relate to God freely, fully, openly. We don’t have to even go to a priest. We don’t have to have this mediator between us, but we can come directly to the throne of grace that we might find mercy because Jesus through His sacrifice has made the way for all of us. And so one thing this does in Leviticus is makes you really appreciate more and more what Jesus Christ has done, for He is our total Sacrifice; the peace offering, our meal offering, our burnt offering, our sin offering, our trespass offering, He’s everything. By His one sacrifice, He’s taken care of it all and made, now, access for each of you directly unto God. How glorious! How wonderful!
God be with you and God bless you and watch over you this week. And just give you a wonderful time in Jesus. As you fellowship together with Him may you experience more and more the glory of God upon your life. I’m convinced that God once again is wanting to reveal His glory to His people. And may He minister to us this week of His love and of His grace. And may you thus be strengthened and blessed in your walk with Him. In Jesus’ name, Amen. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
In the record there breaks in a story full of solemn significance. Two sons of Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu were guilty of offering strange fire before the Lord. They were swiftly consumed by fire. The very fire which was the medium of God’s acceptance of the offering in worship was the minister of His swift judgment against that which was false. Strangely solemn are the words, “Aaron held his peace.” They were his own sons, but his relation to God was superior to his relation to them and his attitude was that of submissive silence.
Closely following these solemn events Moses was charged that Aaron and his sons were to abstain from strong drink. This suggests the possibility that the sin of Nadab and Abihu had been the consequence of their excessive use of wine. Whether this be so or not, the principle is a warning to those devoted to sacred service that they must abstain from any form of false fire.
Moses then repeated instructions already given because of their special value at this juncture. A peril was threatening these men, namely, thinking that in the presence of so severe a judgment they hardly dare partake even of permitted things. The necessity for this is revealed in the fact that Aaron, Ithamar, and Eleazer had not done according to instructions, and Aaron declared he had not dared to do so in view of the things which had befallen him.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
a Deed that Turned Joy into Grief
Lev 9:22-24; Lev 10:1-11
There was a double blessing. First, Aaron blessed the people when he stood against the altar, Lev 9:22, and afterward, when he came out of the Tabernacle, Lev 9:23. We find here the analogue of the double blessing which our Lord gives His own. When He came from offering His supreme sacrifice on Calvary, which was burned-offering, peace-offering, sin- and trespass-offerings combined, He blessed His own. We are told that as He blessed them He was borne upward to heaven, Luk 24:51; but we expect another blessing from Him, when He shall come forth out of the heavenly Temple and extend His hands in benediction, using perhaps the very words of the ancient benediction. But take care lest you ever introduce strange fire into your worship-i.e., the fire of your own emotions, enthusiasm and excitement. Ponder those mighty words in Lev 10:3. We must not rush carelessly into the divine presence, though by the blood of Jesus we have been made nigh, Eph 2:13.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
3. Nadab and Abihu: The False Worship and Its Results
CHAPTER 10
1. The false worship and the judgment (Lev 10:1-7)
2. New instructions (Lev 10:8-15)
3. The neglect of Eleazar and Ithamar (Lev 10:16-20)
The ceremonies were ended and the people, beholding the glory of the Lord, had worshipped. A terrible occurrence follows the beautiful ending to the previous chapter. Nadab and Abihu, two sons of Aaron, offered strange fire before Jehovah. The fire before Jehovah devoured them and they died before the Lord. The sin consisted in taking strange fire, which Jehovah had not commanded; most likely it was fire they produced themselves, instead of taking the fire from off the altar (Lev 16:12). The whole action was in utter disregard of the commandment given and an act of disobedience. This sin in the form as committed by Nadab and Abihu was never repeated. However, the principle of this sin is to be seen on all sides and in many forms in Christendom. It was will worship. It was doing that in their own will, what God had not commanded. And in Christian worship, so called, how much there is which is will worship! How numerous the carnal things, the inventions and traditions of men, used in worship which have not alone no sanction whatever in the Word, but are altogether contrary to a true worship in the Spirit. Well has one said: When one goes into many a church and chapel and sees the multitude of devices by which, as it is imagined, the worship and adoration of God is furthered, it must be confessed that it certainly seems as if the generation of Nadab and Abihu was not yet extinct; even although a patient God, in the mystery of His long suffering, flashes not instantly forth His vengeance. The fire of judgment, however, will some day fall upon all the false worship and make an end of it.
What induced them to act in this way so that the judgment of God fell upon them? The warning which follows this incident gives a strong hint on the possible cause of their presumptuous deed. Read verses 8 and 9. The warning against strong drink hints, no doubt, that they had been under the influence of strong drink. It must have been intoxication. May we remember that there is also another intoxication, which is a strange fire and which God hates. How much of Christian service and activity is there which is not done under the leading of the Holy Spirit. Then there are the so-called revivals, with their purely soulical emotion and carnal means which are used. The unscriptural, and alas! sometimes even vulgar language used by a certain class of evangelists, aiming at excitement and popularity, the forced and often spurious results, heralded to increase the fame of the leader, the aim to receive large financial remuneration, etc., belongs all to the strange fire. In one word, all which is not done in worship and in service in dependence on the Holy Spirit and under His guidance in obedience to the Word, is strange fire.
The judgment of the two sons of Aaron makes known the holiness of Jehovah, who dwelled in the midst of His people. In some respects it is analogous to the judgment of Ananias and Sapphira in the New Testament (Acts 5).
Aaron held his peace. Grace sustained him, so that he could submit to the divine judgment without a murmur, though his heart was greatly burdened (verse 19). He and his sons were not to mourn the dead according to priestly custom. Then follows the command to abstain from the use of wine and strong drink when they were exercising their priesthood. The reason first is stated in verses 10-12. That ye may put a difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes, which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.
The prohibition of wine and strong drink when going into the tent of meeting connects itself, of course, with the sin of Aarons sons: and for us plainly covers all fleshly stimulus, which prevents clear discernment of what is or is not according to the mind and nature of God. For us also who are called to walk in the light of Gods presence continually, this is not a casual, but a constant rule. The impulse of nature needs the restraining of Christs yoke; even where, as the apostle says, things are lawful to us, we must still not be brought under the power of any (1Co 6:12). And how easily do they acquire power! (Numerical Bible).
Commandments previously given to them are then restated. The judgment demanded this. All what follows in this chapter may be looked upon as the effect of the judgment which had fallen upon Nadab and Abihu. Eleazar and Ithamar failed in not eating the sin offering, and only the intercession of Aaron kept them from judgment. The earthly priesthood has failure stamped upon it.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Strange fire. Fire “from before the Lord” had kindled upon the altar of burnt-offering the fire which the care of the priests was to keep burning Lev 6:12. No commandment had yet been given Lev 16:12 how the incense should be kindled. The sin of Nadab and Abihu was in acting in the things of God without seeking the mind of God. It was “will worship” Col 2:23 which often has a “show of wisdom and humility.” It typifies any use of carnal means to kindle the fire of devotion and praise.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Nadab: Lev 16:1, Lev 22:9, Exo 6:23, Exo 24:1, Exo 24:9, Exo 28:1, Num 3:3, Num 3:4, Num 26:61
censer: Lev 16:12, Exo 27:3, Exo 38:3, Num 16:6, Num 16:7, Num 16:16, Num 16:17, Num 16:46, Heb 9:4
put incense: Exo 30:1-9, Exo 30:34-36, Exo 31:11, Exo 37:29, Exo 40:27, 1Ki 13:1, 1Ki 13:2, 2Ch 26:16-20, Psa 141:2, Jer 44:8, Jer 44:15, Jer 44:19-21, Luk 1:9-11, Rev 8:3-5
strange: Lev 9:24, Lev 16:12, Num 16:18, Num 16:46
which: Exo 30:9, Deu 4:2, Deu 12:32, Deu 17:3, Jer 7:31, Jer 19:5, Jer 32:35,Bp. Hall says, “It is a dangerous thing, in the service of God, to decline from his institutions; we have to do with a God, who is wise to prescribe his own worship – just to require what he has prescribed – and powerful to avenge what he has not prescribed.
Reciprocal: Exo 8:27 – as he shall Exo 19:22 – the priests Exo 30:20 – die not Lev 1:7 – fire Lev 8:35 – keep Num 4:18 – General Num 20:11 – smote 1Sa 6:19 – he smote 2Sa 6:7 – God smote 1Ch 6:3 – Nadab 1Ch 13:10 – there he died 1Ch 23:13 – to burn incense 1Ch 24:1 – The sons Job 36:14 – They die Psa 119:120 – My flesh Eze 22:26 – put no Act 5:1 – General 1Co 11:27 – whosoever Heb 2:2 – every
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 10:1. Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron He had other sons; but these were the two eldest, Exo 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, Lev 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, Exo 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 Jer 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 Lev 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, (Exo 24:1; Exo 24:9-10,) 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.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 10:1. 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 Lords work in an unsanctified manner.
Lev 10:9. 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.
Lev 10:14. In a clean place. The Septuagint reads, in the holy place.
REFLECTIONS.
The Lord had graciously accepted the sacrifices of his people by fire, filled the tabernacle with glory, and anointed the priesthood with oil; but here a sad check shed a sable gloom on the first day of the glorious service. Nadab and Abihu, elated with the sacerdotal honours, fell victims to their folly and presumption. They burnt incense with strange fire, and in a moment the LORD destroyed them by fire. So he often permits the proud to be destroyed by pride, the irascible to fall by anger, and the voluptuous to perish by pleasure. Let us revere his judgments, because of the equity by which they are inflicted.
The Lord wisely made an example of the first offenders for the prevention of future crimes. On this principle the first blasphemer, and the first sabbathbreaker were stoned. And in the new-testament church, after the descent of the Spirit of truth, Ananias and Sapphira, the first liars, fell down dead at the feet of St. Peter. Nor were they, if we except the first lustre of the dispensation, greater sinners than others in like cases. But they fell that others might fear, and to teach the guilty that punishment for evil deeds is merely delayed.
Nadab and Abihu having fallen victims to divine justice, we see that no mourning must be made for them. Whatever interior sentiments the calamity might excite, no exterior sorrow was allowed in the Lords anointed. Aaron might keep all these things, and ponder them in his heart, but he must own the error of his sons; he must glorify the divine justice, and allow that the punishment was intended to vindicate the purity of the sanctuary. All Israel would see it was the Lords hand. Aaron would be taught humility, and all would fear to invade the duties of his office.
We learn also, that no liberties must be taken with the revelation, the worship, and the commandments of God. He has established a simple but perfect code of discipline in his church; he has afforded us a plenary revelation of his will, and it is safer to keep than to amend the institutions of the Lord.
We are farther taught, that the Lords work must be done in the Lords spirit. He has baptised us with the Holy Ghost, has kindled the altar of the heart with heavenly fire, and we must preach love in the spirit of love, holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience, and never make the religion of Christ subservient to our humours or our interest.
From this extraordinary visitation, we may also learn, that the Lords judgments are far more wise and equitable than the weak and fond decisions of men. Had the Elders of Israel sat on the case, it is probable they would have pleaded mercy from the inexperience of the men, or that they were much younger than their father; but God viewed their crime as a presumptuous contempt of the highest of his precepts. The whole of the Leviticum being a shadow of the gospel, it was a crime against the divine order established for the salvation of man; and if they who despised Moses law died without mercy, how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?
But whatever may be the state of the people, ministers must be holy. God will be sanctified in them that draw nigh to him: no gross breaches of his precepts, no drunkenness, no besetting sin, no habitual lukewarmness can be excused in them. Their hearts must be kindled with the fire of the Lord, and they must glorify his name before all the people.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Leviticus 10
The page of human history has ever been a sadly blotted one. It is a record of failure, from first to last. Amid all the delights of Eden, man hearkened to the tempter’s lie. (Gen. 3) When preserved from judgement, by the hand of electing love, and introduced into a restored earth, he was guilty of the sin of intemperance. (Gen. 9) When conducted, by Jehovah’s outstretched arm, into the land of Canaan, he “forsook; the Lord, and served Baal and Ashteroth.” (Judges 2: 13) When placed at the very summit of earthly power and glory, with untold wealth at his feet, and all the resources of the world at his command, he gave his heart to the uncircumcised stranger. (1 Kings 11) No sooner had the blessings of the gospel been promulgated than it became needful for the Holy Ghost to prophesy Concerning “grievous wolves,” “apostasy,” and all manner of failure. (Acts 20: 29; 1 Tim. 4: 1-3; 2 Tim. 3: 1-5; 2 Peter 3; Jude) And, to crown all, we have the prophetic record of human apostasy from amid all the splendours of millennial glory. (Rev. 20: 7-10)
Thus, man spoils everything. Place him in a position of highest dignity, and he will degrade himself. Endow him with the most ample privileges, and he will abuse them. Scatter blessings around him, in richest profusion, and he will prove ungrateful. Place him in the midst of the most impressive institutions, and he will corrupt them. Such is man! Such is nature, in its fairest forms, and under the most favourable circumstances!
Hence, therefore, we are, in a measure, prepared for the words with which our chapter opens. “And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord which he commanded them not.” What a contrast to the scene with which our last section closed! There all was done “as the Lord commanded,” and the result was, manifested glory. Here something is done which the Lord commanded them not,” and the result is judgement, hardly had the echo of the shout of victory died away ere the elements of a spurious worship were prepared. Hardly had the divine position been assured ere it was deliberately abandoned, through neglect of the divine commandment. No sooner were those priests inaugurated, than they grievously failed in the discharge of their priestly functions.
And in what did their failure consist? Were they spurious priests? Were they mere pretenders? By no means. They were genuine sons of Aaron – true members of the priestly family – duly appointed priests. Their vessels of ministry and their priestly garments, too, would seem to have been alright. What, then, was their sin? Did they stain the curtains of the tabernacle with human blood, or pollute the sacred precincts with some crime which shocks the moral sense? We have no proof of their having done so. Their sin was this:” They offered strange fire before the Lord which he commanded them not.” Here was their sin. They departed in their worship from the plain word of Jehovah, who had fully and plainly instructed them as to the mode of their worship. We have already alluded to the divine fullness and sufficiency of the word of the Lord, in reference to every branch of priestly service. There was no room left for man to introduce what he might deem desirable or expedient. “This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded “was quite sufficient. It made all very plain and very simple. Nothing was needed, on man’s part, save a spirit of implicit obedience to the divine command. But, herein, they failed. Man has always proved himself ill-disposed to walk in the narrow path of strict adherence to the plain word of God. The by-path has ever seemed to present resistless charms to the poor human heart. “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.” (Prov. 9: 17) Such is the enemy’s language; but the lowly, obedient heart knows full well that the path of subjection to the word of God is the only one that leads to “waters” that are really “sweet,” or to “bread” that can rightly be called “pleasant.” Nadab and Abihu might have deemed one kind of “fire” as good as another; but it was not their province to decide as to that. They should have acted according to the word of the Lord; but, instead of this, they took their own way, and reaped the awful fruits thereof “He knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell.”
“And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them; and they died before the Lord.” How deeply Solemn! Jehovah was dwelling in the midst of His people, to govern, to judge, and to act, according to the claims of His nature. At the close of Lev. 9 we read, “And there came a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat.” This was Jehovah’s acceptance of a true sacrifice. But, in Lev. 10 it is His judgement upon erring priests. It is a double action of the same fire. The burnt offering went up as a sweet odour; the “strange fire” was rejected as an abomination. The Lord was glorified in the former; but it would have been a dishonour to accept the latter. Divine grace accepted and delighted in that which was a type of Christ’s most precious sacrifice; divine holiness rejected that which was the fruit of man’s corrupt will – a will never more hideous and abominable than when active in the things of God.
“Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified.” The dignity and glory of the entire economy depended upon the strict maintenance of Jehovah’s righteous claims. If these were to be trifled with, all was forfeited. If man were permitted to defile the sanctuary of the divine presence by “strange fire,” there was an end to everything. Nothing could be permitted to ascend from the priestly censer but the pure fire, kindled from off the altar of God, and fed by the “pure incense beaten small.” Beauteous type of true saintly worship, of which the Father is the object, Christ the material, and the Holy Ghost the power. Man must not be allowed to introduce his devices into the worship of God. All his efforts can only issue in the presentation of “strange fire” – unhallowed incense – false worship. His very best attempts are an absolute abomination in the sight of God.
I speak not, here, of the honest struggles of earnest spirits searching after peace with God – of the sincere efforts of upright, though unenlightened, consciences, to attain to a knowledge of the forgiveness of sins, by works of law or the ordinances of systematic religion. All such will, doubtless, issue, through the exceeding goodness of God, in the clear light of a known and an enjoyed salvation. They prove, very clearly, that peace is earnestly sought; though, at the same time, they prove, just as clearly, that peace has not yet been found. There never yet was one, who honestly followed the faintest glimmerings of light which fell upon his understanding, who did not, in due time, receive more. “To him that hath shall more be given.” And again, “The path of the just is as the shining light, which shineth more and more unto the perfect day.”
All this is as plain as it is encouraging; but it leaves wholly untouched the question of the human will, and its impious workings in connection with the service and worship of God. All such workings must, inevitably, call down, sooner or later, the solemn judgement of a righteous God who cannot suffer His claims to be trifled with. “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. Men will be dealt with according to their profession. If men are honestly seeking, they will, assuredly, find; but, when men approach as worshippers, they are no longer to be regarded as seekers, but as those who profess to have found; and, then, if their priestly censer smokes with unhallowed fire, if they offer unto God the elements of a spurious worship, if they profess to tread His courts, unwashed, unsanctified, unsubdued, if they place on His altar the workings of their own corrupt will, what must be the result? Judgement! Yes, sooner or later, judgement must come. It may linger; but it will come. It could not be otherwise. And not only must judgement come, at last; but there is, in every case, the immediate rejection, on the part of Heaven, of all worship which has not the Father for its object, Christ for its material, and the Holy Ghost for its power. God’s holiness is as quick; to reject all “strange fire” as His grace is ready to accept the faintest, feeblest breathings of a true heart. He must pour out His righteous judgement upon all false worship, though He will never “quench the smoking flax nor break the bruised reed,” The thought of this is most solemnising, when one calls to mind the thousands of censers smoking with strange fire throughout the wide domain of Christendom. May the Lord, in His rich grace, add to the number of true worshippers who worship the Father in spirit and in truth. (John 4) It is infinitely happier to think of the true worship ascending, from honest hearts, to the throne of God, than to contemplate, even for a moment, the spurious worship on which the divine judgements must, ere long, be poured out. Every one who knows, through grace, the pardon of his sins, through the atoning blood of Jesus, can worship the Father, in spirit and in truth. He knows the proper ground, the proper object, the proper title, the proper capacity of worship. These things can only be known in a divine way. They do not belong to nature or to earth. They are spiritual and heavenly. Very much. of that which passes among men for the worship of God is but “strange fire “after all. There is neither the pure fire nor the pure incense, and, therefore, Heaven accepts it not; and, albeit the divine judgement is not seen to fall upon those who present such worship, as it fell upon Nadab and Abihu, of old, this is only because “God is in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” It is not because the worship is acceptable to God, but because God is gracious. The time, however, is rapidly approaching when the strange fire will be quenched for ever, when the throne of God shall no longer be insulted by clouds of impure incense ascending from unpurged worshippers; when all that is spurious shall be abolished, and the whole universe shall be as one vast and magnificent temple, in which the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, shall be worshipped throughout the everlasting ages.
Grateful incense this, ascending
Ever to the Father’s throne;
Every knee to Jesus bending,
All the mind in heaven is one.
All the Father’s counsels claiming
Equal honours to the Son,
All the Son’s effulgence beaming,
Makes the Father’s glory known.
By the Spirit all pervading,
Hosts unnumbered round the Lamb,
Crowned with light and joy unfading
Hail Him as the great “I AM.”
For this the redeemed are waiting; and, blessed be God, it is but a little while when all their longing desires shall be fully met, and met for ever – yea met, after such a fashion, as to elicit from each and all the touching confession of Sheba’s queen, that “the half was not told me.” May the Lord hasten the happy time!
We must, now, return to our solemn chapter, and, lingering a little longer over it, endeavour to gather up and bear away with us some of its salutary teaching, for truly salutary it is, in an age like the present, when there is so much “strange fire” abroad.
There is something unusually arresting and impressive in the way in which Aaron received the heavy stroke of divine judgement. “Aaron held his peace.” It was a solemn scene. His two sons struck dead at his aide, smitten down by the fire of divine judgement.* He had but just seen them clothed in their garments of glory and beauty – washed, robed, and anointed. They had stood with him, before the Lord, to be inaugurated into the priestly office. They had offered, in company with him, the appointed sacrifices. They had seen the beams of the divine glory darting from the shekinah, they had seen the fire of Jehovah fall upon the sacrifice and consume it. They had heard the shout of triumph issuing from an assembly of adoring worshippers. All this had but recently passed before him; and now, alas! his two sons lie at his side, in the grasp of death. The fire of the Lord which so recently fed upon an acceptable sacrifice, had, now, fallen in judgement upon them, and what could he say? Nothing. “Aaron held his peace.” “I was dumb and opened not my mouth, because thou didst it.” It was the hand of God; and although it might, in the judgement of flesh and blood, seem to be a very heavy hand, yet he had only to bow his head, in silent awe and reverent acquiescence. “I was dumb . . . .because thou didst it.” This was the suited attitude, in the presence of the divine visitation. Aaron, doubtless, felt that the very pillars of his house were shaken by the thunder of divine judgement; and he could only stand, in silent amazement, in the midst of the soul subduing scene. A father bereaved of his two sons, and, in such a manner, and under such circumstances, was no ordinary case. It furnished a deeply-impressive commentary upon the words of the Psalmist, “God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints; and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.” (Psalm 89) “Who would not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name?” May we learn to walk softly in the divine presence – to tread Jehovah’s courts with unshod foot and reverent spirit. May our priestly censer ever bear upon it the one material, the beaten incense of Christ’s manifold perfections, and may the power of the Spirit kindle up the hallowed flame. All else is not only worthless, but vile. Everything that springs from nature’s energy, everything produced by the actings of the human will, the most fragrant incense of man’s devising, the most intense ardour of natural devotion, will all issue in “strange fire” and evoke the solemn judgement of the Lord God Almighty. Oh! for a thoroughly truthful heart, and worshipping spirit, in the presence of our God and Father, continually!
{*Lest any reader should be troubled with a difficulty in reference to the souls of Nadab, and Abihu, I would say that no such question ought ever to be raised. In such cases as Nadab and Abihu, in Leviticus 10; Korah and his company, in Numbers 16; the whole congregation, Joshua and Caleb excepted, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness, Numbers 14 and Hebrews 3; Achan and his family, Joshua 7; Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5; those who were judged for abuses at the Lord’s table, 1 Cor. 11. In all such cases, the question of the soul’s salvation is never raised. We are simply called to see, in them, the solemn actings of God, in government in the midst of His people. This relieves the mind from all difficulty. Jehovah dwelt, of old, between the Cherubim, to judge His people in everything; and God the Holy Ghost dwells, now, in the church, to order and govern, according to the perfection of His presence. He was so really and personally present that Ananias and Sapphira could lie to Him, and He could execute judgement upon them. It was as positive and as immediate an exhibition of His actings in government as we have in the matter of Nadab and Abihu, or Achan, or any other.
This is a great truth to get hold of. God is not only for His people, but with them, and in them. He is to be counted upon, for everything, whether it be great or small. He is present to comfort and help. He is there to chasten and judge. He is there “for exigence of every hour. He is sufficient. Let faith count upon Him. “Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I.” (Matt. 18: 20) And, assuredly, where He is, we want no more.}
But let not any upright, though timid, heart be discouraged or alarmed. It is too often the case that those who really ought to be alarmed take no heed; while those for whom the Spirit of grace would only design a word of comfort and encouragement, apply to themselves, in a wrong way, the startling warnings of Holy Scripture. No doubt, the meek and contrite heart that trembles at the word of the Lord, is in a safe condition; but then we should remember that a father warns his child, not because he does not regard him as his child, but because he does; and one of the happiest proofs of the relationship is the disposition to receive and profit by the warning. The parental voice, even though its tone be that of solemn admonition, will reach the child’s heart, but, certainly, not to raise, in that heart, a question as to its relationship with the one who speaks. If a son were to question his sonship whenever his father warns, it would be a poor affair indeed. The judgement which had just fallen upon Aaron’s house did not make him doubt that he was really a priest. It merely had the effect of teaching him how to conduct himself in that high and holy position.
“And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people; but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled. And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.”
Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar, were to remain unmoved in their elevated place – their holy dignity – their position of priestly sanctity. Neither the failure, nor yet the judgement consequent thereon, was to be allowed to interfere with those who wore the priestly robes, and were anointed with “the oil of the Lord.” That holy oil had placed them in a sacred enclosure where the influences of sin, of death, and of judgement could not reach them. Those who were outside, who were at a distance from the sanctuary, who were not in the position of priests, they might “bewail the burning;” but as for Aaron and his sons, they were to go on in the discharge of their hallowed functions, as though nothing had happened. Priests in the sanctuary were not to bewail, but to worship. They were not to weep, as in the presence of death, but to bow their anointed heads, in presence of the divine visitation. “The fire of the Lord” might act, and do its solemn work of judgement; but, to a true priest, it mattered not what that “fire” had come to do, whether to express the divine approval, by consuming a sacrifice, or the divine displeasure, by consuming the offerers of “strange fire,” he had but to Worship. That “fire was a well-known manifestation of the divine presence, in Israel of old, and whether it acted in “mercy or in judgement,” the business of all true priests was to worship. “I will sing of mercy and of judgement; unto thee, O Lord, will I sing.”
There is a deep and holy lesson for the soul in all this. Those who are brought nigh to God, in the power of the blood, and by the anointing of the Holy Ghost, 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, such a sense of the rightness of all His dispensations, that one is enabled to worship in His presence, even though the stroke of His hand has removed from us the object of tender affection. It may be asked, Are we to be stoics? I ask, were Aaron and his sons stoics? Nay, they were priests. Did they not feel as men? Yes; but they worshipped as priests. This is profound. It opens up a region of thought, feeling, and experience, in which nature can never move – a region of which, with all its boasted refinement and sentimentality, nature knows absolutely nothing. We must tread the sanctuary of God, in true priestly energy, in order to enter into the depth, meaning, and power of such holy mysteries.
The Prophet Ezekiel was called, in his duty, to sit down to this difficult lesson. “Also the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the desire of thine eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down. Forbear to cry, make no mourning for the dead, bind the tire of thine head upon thee, and put on thy shoes upon thy feet, and cover not thy lips, and eat not the bread of men . . . . And I did in the morning as I was commanded.” (Ezek. 24: 16-18) It will be said that all this was as “a sign” to Israel. True; but it proves that in prophetic testimony, as well as in priestly worship, we must rise superior to all the claims and influences of nature and of earth. Aaron’s sons and Ezekiel’s wife were cut down with a stroke; and, yet, neither the priest nor the prophet was to uncover his head or shed a tear.
Oh! my reader, how far have you and I progressed in this profound lesson? No doubt, both reader and writer have to make the same humiliating confession. Too often, alas! we “Walk as men” and “eat the bread of men.” Too often are we robbed of our high priestly privileges by the workings of nature and the influences of earth. These things must be watched against. Nothing save realised priestly nearness to God can ever preserve the heart from the power of evil, or maintain its spiritual tone. All believers are priests unto God, and nothing can possibly deprive them of their position as such. But though they cannot lose their position, they may grievously fail in the discharge of their functions. These things are not sufficiently distinguished. Some there are who, while looking at the precious truth of the believer’s security, forget the possibility of his failing in the discharge of his priestly functions. Others, on the contrary, looking at the failure, venture to call in question the security.
Now, I desire that my reader should keep clear of both the above errors. He should be fully established in the divine doctrine of the eternal security of every member of the true priestly house; but he should also bear in mind the possibility of failure, and the constant need of watchfulness and prayer, lest he should fail. May all those who have been brought to know the hallowed elevation of priests unto God be preserved, by His heavenly grace, from every species of failure, whether it be personal defilement, or the presentation of any of the varied forms of” strange fire” which abound so in the professing church.
“And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations; and that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.” (Ver. 8-11)
The effect of wine is to excite nature, and all natural excitement hinders that calm, well-balanced condition of soul which is essential to the proper discharge of the priestly office. So far from using any means to excite nature, we should treat it as a thing having no existence. Thus only shall we be in a moral condition to serve in the sanctuary, to form a dispassionate judgement between clean and unclean, and to expound and communicate the mind of God. It devolves upon each one to judge, for himself, what, in his special case, would act as “wine or strong drink.”* The things which excite mere nature are manifold indeed – wealth, ambition, politics, the varied objects of emulation around us in the world. All these things act, with exciting power, upon nature, and entirely unfit us for every department of priestly service. If the heart be swollen with feelings of pride, covetousness, or emulation, it is utterly impossible that the pure air of the sanctuary can be enjoyed, or the sacred functions of priestly ministry discharged. Men speak of the versatility of genius, or a capacity to turn quickly from one thing to another. But the most versatile genius that was ever possessed could not enable a man to pass from an unhallowed arena of literary, commercial, or political competition, into the holy retirement of the sanctuary of the divine presence; nor could it ever adjust the eye that had become dimmed by the influence of such scenes, so as to enable it to discern, with priestly accuracy, the difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean.” No, my reader, God’s priests must keep themselves apart from “wine and strong drink.” Theirs is a path of holy separation and abstraction. They are to be raised far above the influence of earthly joy as well as earthly Sorrow. If they have ought to do with “strong wine,” it is only that it may be poured unto the Lord for a drink offering, in the holy place.” (Num. 28: 7) In other words, the joy of God’s priests is not the joy of earth, but the joy of heaven, the joy of the sanctuary. “The joy of the Lord is their strength.”
{*Some have thought that, owing to the special place which this direction about wine occupies, Nadab and Abihu must have been under the influence of strong drink, when they offered the “strange fire.” But, be this as it may, we have to be thankful for a most valuable principle, in reference to our conduct, as spiritual priests. We are to refrain from everything which would produce the same effect upon our spiritual man, as strong drink produces upon the physical man.
It needs hardly to be remarked that the Christian should be most jealous over himself as to the use of wine or strong drink. Timothy, as we know, needed an apostolic recommendation to induce him even to touch it, for his health’s sake. (1 Tim. 5) A beauteous proof of Timothy’s habitual self-denial, and of the thoughtful love of the Spirit, in the apostle. I must confess that one’s moral sense is offended by seeing Christians making use of strong drink in cases where it is, very manifestly, not medicinal. I rarely, if ever, see a spiritual person indulge in such a thing. One trembles to see a Christian the mere slave of a habit, whatever that habit may be. It proves that he is not keeping his body in subjection, and he is in great danger of being “disapproved.” (1 Cor. 9: 27)}
Would that all this holy instruction were more deeply pondered by us! We, surely, stand much in need of it. If our priestly responsibilities are not duly attended to, all must be deranged. When we contemplate the camp of Israel, we may observe three circles, and the innermost of these circles had its centre in the sanctuary. There was first the circle of men of war. (Num. 1, 2) Then the circle of Levites round about the tabernacle. (Num. 3, 4) And, lastly, the innermost circle of priests, ministering in the holy place. Now, let it be remembered that the believer is called to move in all those circles. He enters into conflict, as a man of war. (Eph. 6: 11-17; 1 Tim. 1: 18; 1 Tim. 6: 12; 2 Tim. 4: 7) He serves, as a Levite, in the midst of his brethren, according to his measure and sphere. (Matt. 14: 14, 15; Luke 19: 12, 13.) Finally, he sacrifices and worships, as a priest, in the holy place. (Heb. 13: 15, 16; 1 Peter 2: 5, 9) The last of these shall endure for ever. And, moreover, it is as we are enabled, now, to move aright in that holy circle, that all other relations and responsibilities are rightly discharged. Hence, every thing that incapacitates us for our priestly functions – every thing that draws us off from the centre of that innermost circle, in which it is our privilege to move – every thing, in short, that tends to derange our priestly relation, or dim our priestly vision, must, of necessity, unfit us for the service which we are called to render, and for the warfare which we are called to wage.
These are weighty considerations. Let us dwell upon them. The heart must be kept right – the conscience pure – the eye single – the spiritual vision undimmed. The soul’s business in the holy place must be faithfully and diligently attended to, else we shall go all wrong. Private communion with God must be kept up, else we shall be fruitless, as servants, and defeated, as men of war. It is vain for us to bustle about, and run hither and thither, in what we call service, or indulge in vapid words about Christian armour and Christian warfare. If we are not keeping our priestly garments unspotted, and if we are not keeping ourselves free from all that would excite nature, we shall, assuredly, break down. The priest must keep his heart with all diligence, else the Levite will fail, and the warrior will be defeated.
It is, let me repeat it, the business of each one to be fully aware of what it is that to him proves to be “wine and strong drink” – what it is that produces excitement – that blunts his spiritual perception, or dims his priestly vision. It may be an auction mart, a cattle-show, a newspaper. It may be the merest trifle. But no matter what it is, if it tends to excite, it will disqualify us for priestly ministry; and if we are disqualified as priests, we are unfit for everything, inasmuch as our success in every department and in every sphere must ever depend upon our cultivating a spirit of worship.
Let us, then, exercise a spirit of self-judgement – a spirit of watchfulness over our habits, our ways, and our associations; and when we, by grace, discover ought that tends, in the smallest degree, to unfit us for the elevated exercises of the sanctuary, let us put it away from us, cost what it may. Let us not suffer ourselves to be the slaves of a habit. Communion with God should be dearer to our hearts than all beside; and just in proportion as we prize that communion, shall we watch and pray against anything that would rob us of it – everything that would excite, ruffle, or unhinge.*
{*Some, perhaps, may think that the warning of Lev. 10: 9 affords a warrant for occasional indulgence in those things which tend to excite the natural mind, inasmuch as it is said, “Do not drink wine nor strong drink . . . . . when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation.” To this we may reply, that the sanctuary is not a place which the Christian is, occasionally, to visit, but a place in which he is, habitually, to serve and worship. It is the sphere in which he should “live, and more, and have his being.” The more we live in the presence of God, the less can we bear to be out of it; and no one who knows the deep joy of being there could lightly indulge in ought that would take or keep him Hence. There is not that object within the compass of earth which would, in the judgement of 3 spiritual mind, be an equivalent for one hour’s fellowship with God.}
“And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar, and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar; for it is most holy: and ye shall eat it in the holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons’ due, of the sacrifices of the Lord made by fire; for so I am commanded.” (Ver. 12, 13)
There are few things in which we are more prone to fail than in the maintenance of the divine standard, when human failure has set in. Like David, when the Lord made a breach upon Uzza, because of his failure in putting his hand to the ark, “He was afraid of God that day, saying, How shall I bring the ark of God home to me?” (1 Chr. 13: 12) It is exceedingly difficult to bow to the divine judgement, and, at the same time, to hold fast the divine ground. The temptation is to lower the standard, to come down from the lofty elevation, to take human ground. We must ever carefully guard against this evil, which is all the more dangerous as wearing the garb of modesty, self-distrust, and humility. Aaron and his sons, notwithstanding all that had occurred, were to eat the meat offering in the holy place. They were to do so, not because all had gone on in perfect order, but “because it is thy due,” and “so I am commanded.” Though there had been failure, yet their place was in the tabernacle; and those who were there had certain “dues” founded upon the divine commandment. Though man had failed ten thousand times over, the word of the Lord could not fail; and that word had secured certain privileges for all true priests, which it was their place to enjoy. Were God’s priests to have nothing to eat, no priestly food, because failure had set in? Were those that were left to be allowed to starve, because Nadab and Abihu had offered “strange fire?” This would never do. God is faithful, and He can never allow any one to be empty in His blessed presence. The prodigal may wander, and squander, and come to poverty; but it must ever hold good that “in my Father’s house is bread enough and to spare.”
“And the wave breast and the heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they be thy due, and thy sons’ due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel . . . . . .by a statute for ever; as the Lord hath commanded.” (Ver. 14, 15.) What strength and stability we have here! All the members of the priestly family, “daughters” as well as “sons” – all, whatever be 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, in resurrection, before God. This precious privilege is theirs as, “given, by a statute for ever, as the Lord hath commanded.” This makes all “sure and steadfast,” come what may. Men may fail, and come short; strange fire may be offered, but God’s priestly family must never be deprived of the rich and gracious portion which divine love has provided, and divine faithfulness secured, “by a statute for ever.”
However, we must distinguish between those privileges which belonged to all the members of Aaron’s family, “daughters” as well as “sons,” and those which could only be enjoyed by the male portion of the family. This point has already been referred to, in the notes on the offerings. There are certain blessings which are the common portion of all believers, simply as such; and there are those which demand a higher measure of spiritual attainment and priestly energy to apprehend and enjoy. Now, it is worse than vain, yea, it is impious, to set up for the enjoyment of this higher measure, when we really have it not. It is one thing to hold fast the privileges which are “given” of God, and ran never be taken away, and quite another to assume a measure of spiritual capacity to which we have never attained. No doubt, we ought to desire earnestly the very highest measure of priestly communion, the most elevated order of priestly privilege. But, then, desiring a thing, and assuming to have it, are very different.
This thought will throw light upon the closing paragraph of our chapter. “And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left, saying, Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord; and such things have befallen me; and if I had eaten the sin offering today, should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord And when Moses heard that, he was content.”
The “daughters” of Aaron were not permitted to eat of “the sin offering.” This high privilege belonged only to the “sons,” and it was a type of the most elevated form of priestly service. To eat of the sin offering was the expression of full identification with the offerer, and this demanded an amount of priestly capacity and energy which found its type in “the sons of Aaron.” On the occasion before us, however, it is very evident that Aaron and his sons were not in a condition to rise to this high and holy ground. They ought to have been, but they were not. “Such things have befallen me,” said Aaron. This, no doubt, was to be deplored; but, yet, “when Moses heard it, he was content.” It is far better to be real in the confession of our failure and shortcoming, than to put forth pretensions to spiritual power which are wholly without foundation.
Thus, then, Leviticus 10 opens with positive sin, and closes with negative failure. Nadab and Abihu offered “strange fire;” and Eleazar and Ithamar were unable to eat the sin offering. The former was met by divine judgement; the latter, by divine forbearance. There could be no allowance for “strange fire.” It was positively flying in the face of God’s plain commandment. There is, obviously, a wide difference between a deliberate rejection of a plain command, and mere inability to rise to the height of a divine privilege. The former is open dishonour done to God; the latter is a forfeiture of one’s own blessing. There should be neither the one nor the other, but the difference between the two is easily traced.
May the Lord, in His infinite grace, ever keep us abiding in the secret retirement of His holy presence, abiding in His love, and feeding upon His truth. Thus shall we be preserved from “strange fire,” and “strong drink” – from false worship of every kind, and fleshly excitement, in all its forms. Thus, too, shall we be enabled to carry ourselves aright in every department of priestly ministration, and to enjoy all the privileges of our priestly position. The communion of a Christian is like a sensitive plant. It is easily hurt by the rude influences of an evil world. It will expand beneath the genial action of the air of heaven; but must firmly shut itself up from the chilling breath of time and sense. Let us remember these things, and ever seek to keep close within the sacred precincts of the divine presence. There, all is pure, safe, and happy.
Far from a world of grief and sin,
With God eternally shut in.
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Lev X contains four appendices on the priests duties, of which the first and the fourth are in the form of ideal narratives (a caution and a misunderstanding), like chs. 8f.
Lev 10:1-7. The Sin of Nadab and Abihu.Nadab and Abihu, the eldest sons of Aaron (Exo 6:23), had been privileged to go up and see the God of Israel with Moses and Aaron and seventy elders (Exo 24:1 ff., J). Here, they offer fire which has not been taken from the altar hearth or was not in accordance with the proper receipt for the sacred incense, and are themselves at once consumed. The bodies are withdrawn from the camp by their fathers cousins, and Aaron and his remaining sons are forbidden to mourn for them. The catastrophe is here described very briefly, in contrast to that of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, Numbers 16; cf. Num 3:1-4; in 1Ch 24:2, Nadab and Abihu are simply mentioned as dying before their father. Bertholet suggests that the narrative points back to a struggle with a class of priests in the N. Kingdom who attempted to become naturalised at Jerusalem, and who were recognised as previously existing, but illegitimate; cf. Ezekiels insistence on the sole legitimacy of the sons of Zadok, the Jerusalemite priests, an insistence which could not be carried out after the Exile. This narrative would thus be intended to account for their illegitimacy. The fire which consumed them is probably thought of as overwhelming them with a sudden flash. Their bodies are still covered with their outer garments. For Mishael, etc., see Exo 6:18-22. All the priests are here forbidden to show the ordinary signs of mourning. These would be regarded as an interference with their ritual condition which would mean general danger or disaster; here, too, all the priests are regarded as anointed. The reference to the tent of meeting obviously refers to the prohibition in Lev 8:35. In Lev 21:10 f. (H) and in Eze 44:25, mourning is restricted, but not entirely prohibited, for all priests.
Lev 10:8-11. Prohibition of Alcohol.The prohibition refers to periods when the priests are on duty (so Eze 44:21); but the reason given, that the priests may be able to instruct the people, seems to imply a wider abstinence. The priestly excesses referred to in the earlier prophets (Isa 28:7, Eze 22:26) are thus guarded against. In Rome, the Flamen Dialis was even prohibited from walking on a path between vineyards (p. 217). Yahweh does not elsewhere speak to Aaron alone.
Lev 10:12-15. The Eating of the Priests Dues (cf. Lev 6:14-18, Lev 7:28-34). The meal offering is most holy, i.e. it is to be eaten only by the priests themselves, and in a holy place; the flesh is holy, and may be eaten by the priests families, and in a clean place. The distinction is not easy to explain; but degrees of holiness are simply equivalent to degrees in restrictions surrounding the object or action. The thigh as well as the breast is to be waved (cf. Lev 7:32*); this statement may be intended to correct an earlier custom of waving only the breast; the distinction between the two, however, remains quite plain in this passage, as elsewhere.
Lev 10:16-20. Explanation of a Ritual Error.Aaron and his sons had not eaten the sin offering. Moses is angered with the sons; but the reason is given that such an act would have been inapposite after the catastrophe of Lev 10:1-7. Moses accepts the explanation. But why should they have eaten the sin offering? Cf. Lev 6:26; Lev 6:29; Lev 4:21 (cf. Lev 4:12) implies that the sin offering for the assembly is not to be eaten. Leviticus 4, however, must be looked upon as earlier. Leviticus 10 looks on the eating as a priestly duty on behalf of the community. According to Lev 6:23, the sin offering is not to be eaten when its blood is brought into the sanctuary; in this case (Lev 9:9) the blood is not so brought in. Thus, according to Leviticus 4 (probably earlier), no excuse was needed. Aarons explanation is based on the fact that through the death of his sons, he feels himself to be under the wrath of God, and therefore unable to consume a holy thing. The representation of Aaron as correcting or reminding Moses is unique in P.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
FAILURE IN THE PRIESTHOOD (vv. 1-7)
Priestly ministry had barely begun when those entrusted with it failed seriously. Two of Aaron’s four sons put in their censers incense other than that which the Lord had commanded, and offered this in fire before the Lord (v. 1). Notice that it is not said the Lord commanded that they should not do what they did, but He had not commanded them to do it. This is most serious where worship of the Lord is concerned. Only what He has indicated is acceptable to Him. If we add any humanly conceived notions to this, God will consider it strange fire. In some areas of life we may have no explicit directions from the Lord, and where this is true we must not dare to lay down our own regulations, but it is wise always to seek the Lord’s guidance in the scriptures, for this is the one safe preservative for us.
God’s displeasure with Nadab and Abihu was immediately and strongly expressed in His sending out fire to consume them. He had before (Lev 9:24) sent fire to consume the burnt offering, in token of His acceptance of it; but this fire did not consume the offering, but the offerers, indicating God’s refusal of their offering. Though He may not bring the same swift judgment today, yet any man-devised pretensions of worship are just as abominable to Him as this strange fire of Nadab and Abihu.
Moses discerned just what was involved in this, and told Aaron that God was indicating by such an infliction the fact that He must be regarded as holy, that is, as set apart from all that is merely men’s conception, and glorified above and before all the people. This was especially important at the institution of the public worship of Himself. Aaron at the time was wise enough to say nothing.
The cousins of Nadab and Abihu were called upon to carry the bodies of the offenders outside the camp to bury them (vv. 4-5). Then Moses instructed Aaron and his two remaining sons not to even uncover their heads and not to tear their clothes (which in Israel was a sign of mourning). It was not consistent with priestly character to show signs of mourning, for the priest is one who draws near to God, in whose presence mourning has no place. A priest was never to tear his garments, though Caiaphas did this when interrogating the Lord Jesus (Mat 26:65), a trespass for which the law demanded the death penalty. For above all, the High Priest is typical of the Lord Jesus. Will His garments of priestly dignity every be torn? Absolutely not! For this would indicate some failure or fault in His priestly work. Thank God this is impossible. He remains faithful and true forever!
The rest of Israel could mourn for Nadab and Abihu, but the priests were told to remain in the tabernacle at this time because the anointing oil of the Lord was upon them. The oil is typical of the Holy Spirit whose power is such as to lift the soul above every circumstance of sorrow. Thus we may learn today that in the Lord’s presence (the holy place), where the Spirit of God pervades the atmosphere, we may rise above the sorrows of earth, in holy confidence and peace.
FITTING PRIESTLY BEHAVIOR (vv. 8-20)
The Lord now speaks directly to Aaron to forbid him and his sons to drink wine or other intoxicating drinks when they were serving in the tabernacle, lest this should lead to their death (v. 9). They were to have their minds unclouded so as to be able to distinguish between what was unclean and what was holy. It may be that Nadab and Abihu had had their minds impaired because of liquor.
Liquor was not forbidden generally to the people, though they were warned against drunkenness. But a priest was in a special place of responsibility, and in the service of God he was not to allow his mind to be impaired. The mother of Solomon also warned him that it was not for kings to drink wine or strong drink (Pro 31:4-5) lest this should impair their ability to govern fairly. Believers today, who are both kings and priests (Rev 1:6) should take this to heart, and not indulge in anything that might becloud their sober discernment and wisdom in bearing witness to the Lord. For we might be intoxicated by pleasures or other things that would affect our judgment just as liquor might.
Besides this, the priest should be in proper control of his mind in order to teach the children of Israel all the statutes that the Lord had laid down for them (v. 11). This is an honorable privilege and one that should always exercise the teacher to practice self-discipline.
Moses then instructed Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar to eat all that remained of the meal offerings, doing so without leaven. This is said to be the due of Aaron and his sons. God had decided this, and whatever God provides us in a spiritual way we should rightly respond by appropriating it. The breast of the wave offering and the thigh of the heave offering are specifically mentioned (v. 14). The priests were to thus (typically) enter into the affections of Christ as glorified in heaven (the breast waved), and into the power of His resurrection (the thigh heaved). The entire family of the priests was to share in this, daughters as well as sons, just as the entire priestly family today (all saints) is called to enjoy such spiritual blessing. The repetition of verse 15 is to emphasize the importance of this provision of which the priestly family was responsible to partake.
However, in verse 16 we are told that when Moses inquired about the goat of the sin offering, he found that it had all been burned. Therefore he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, questioning why they had not eaten this sin offering in the holy place, since its blood had not been taken into the sanctuary (v. 15). This offering was for the people, and the priests’ eating it symbolized the fact of the priests entering into and feeling the guilt of the people as though it had been their own. This is what the Lord Jesus did in the fullest way, even taking that guilt upon His own shoulders in going to the cross. Every believer should have this same attitude. It will make us true intercessors rather than critics.
In this case, however, Aaron explained to Moses that, since his two sons had died that day, it would be too hard for him to rise above the level of his own distresses, therefore he would not be in a fitting state of soul to rightly feel the failure of others. He asks then, would his eating of the sin offering outwardly be accepted in the sight of the Lord? In other words, he would be going through the form without any real heart in it. Moses recognized the force of this, and was content.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered {a} strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
(a) Not taken from the altar, which was sent from heaven, and endured till the captivity of Babylon.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fire from the Lord again 10:1-7
Moses did not identify Nadab and Abihu’s exact offense in the text. However the "strange fire" seems most likely to have been an incense offering that somehow violated God’s will. It may have involved assuming the role of the high priest (cf. Heb 5:4) or offering incense at a time or in a way contrary to God’s prescription. [Note: See Rooker, p. 157, for other theories.] The incident took place on the eighth day of the priests’ inauguration (ch. 9; cf. Lev 10:12; Lev 10:16). Perhaps Nadab and Abihu wanted to add to the festivities by offering an additional incense offering. Nevertheless their action constituted disobedience to God’s word regardless of how good its ends might have seemed to them. They acted in the things of God without first seeking the will of God.
This incident should warn modern readers against worshipping God in ways that we prefer because they make us feel "good." We must be careful about worship that is designed to produce effects in the worshipers rather than honoring God. Some forms of contemporary and traditional worship may reflect the selfish spirits of Nadab and Abihu. Such "self-made worship" often has "the appearance of wisdom" (Col 2:23).
The same fire that had sanctified Aaron’s service brought destruction on Nadab and Abihu because they had not sanctified God (Lev 10:2; cf. Exo 24:17; Num 11:1; Num 16:35; Deu 5:22; 1Sa 15:22; 2Ki 1:10; 2Ki 1:12; Heb 12:29). Previously it had fallen only after all the sacrifices had been offered, but now it fell instantly. Then it signified God’s blessing, but now it manifested His judgment. Then the people rejoiced, but now they were silent.
"Just as ’the fire that came from before the LORD’ had been a sign of God’s approval of the dedication of the tabernacle and the priests in the previous chapter (Lev 9:24), so also ’the fire that came from before the LORD’ in this chapter (Lev 10:2) was a sign of God’s disapproval. The writer’s clear purpose in putting these two narratives together is to show the importance that God attached to obeying his commands." [Note: Sailhamer, p. 330.]
Moses explained God’s judgment to Aaron (Lev 10:3). Aaron did not reply apparently because he accepted the rightness of God’s action in judging his sons’ sin.
"If we reflect how holy a thing God’s worship is, the enormity of the punishment will by no means offend us. Besides, it was necessary that their religion should be sanctioned at its very commencement; for if God had suffered the sons of Aaron to transgress with impunity, they would have afterwards carelessly neglected the whole law. This, therefore, was the reason for such great severity, that the priests should anxiously watch against all profanation." [Note: John Calvin, cited by Wenham, The Book . . ., pp. 156-57.]
The fire had not consumed Nadab and Abihu but simply killed them. Aaron was not to demonstrate any dissatisfaction with God’s judgment (Lev 10:4-7). God permitted the people to mourn because of the loss the nation experienced in the death of these priests and so they would remember His punishment a long time. The anointing oil symbolized the Spirit of God who gives life. For this oil to have any contact with death was inappropriate.
Eleazar and Ithamar replaced their older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, in a way similar to the way Judah and Levi replaced their older brothers, Reuben and Simeon (Gen 49:2-7). In both families, Jacob’s and Aaron’s, the sins of the firstborn and secondborn resulted in God passing over them for blessing. They disqualified themselves from some of the inheritance that could have been theirs had they remained faithful.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
NADABS AND ABIHUS “STRANGE FIRE”
Lev 10:1-20
The solemn and august ceremonies of the consecration of the priests, and the tabernacle, and the inauguration of the tabernacle service, had a sad and terrible termination. The sacrifices of the inauguration day had been completed, the congregation had received the priestly benediction, the glory of Jehovah had-appeared unto the people, and, in token of His acceptance of all that had been done, consumed the victims on the altar. This manifestation of the glory of the Lord so affected the people-as well it might-that when they saw it, “they shouted, and fell on their faces.” It was, probably, under the influence of the excitement of this occasion that (Lev 10:1-2), “Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And there came forth fire from before the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.”
There has been no little speculation as to what it was, precisely, which they did. Some will have it, that they lighted their incense, not from the altar fire, but elsewhere. As to this, while it is not easy to prove that to light the incense at the altar fire was an invariable requirement, yet it is certain that this was commanded for the great day of atonement; {Lev 16:12} and also, that when Aaron offered incense in connection with the plague which broke out upon the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, Moses commanded him to take the fire for the censer from off the altar; {Num 16:46} so that, perhaps this is not unlikely to have been one element, at least, in their offence. Others, again, have thought that their sin lay in this, that they offered their incense at a time not commanded in the order of worship which God had just prescribed; and this, too, may very probably have been another element in their sin, for it is certain that the divinely-appointed order of worship for the day had been already completed. Yet again, others have supposed that they rashly and without Divine warrant pressed within the veil, into the immediate presence of the Shekinah glory of God, to offer their incense there. For this, too, there is evidence, in the fact that the institution of the great annual day of atonement, and the prohibition of entrance within the veil at any other time, even to the high priest himself, is said to have followed “after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord, and died.” {Lev 16:1-2}
It is perfectly possible, and even likely, that all these elements were combined in their offence. In any case, the gravamen of their sin is expressed in these words; they offered “fire which the Lord had not commanded them”: offered it, either in a way not commanded, or at a time not commanded, or in a place not commanded; or, perhaps, in each and all of these ways, offered “fire which the Lord had not commanded.” This was their sin, and one which brought instant and terrible judgment.
It is easy enough to believe that yet they meant well in what they did. It probably seemed to them the right thing to do. After such a stupendous display as they had just witnessed, of the flaming glory of Jehovah, why should they not, in token of reverence and adoration, offer incense, even in the most immediate presence of Jehovah? And why should such minor variations from the appointed law, as to manner, or time, or place, matter very much, so the motive was worship? So may they probably have reasoned, if indeed they thought at all. But, nevertheless, this made no difference; all the same, “fire came forth from Jehovah, and devoured them.” They had been but so lately consecrated! and-as we learn from Lev 10:5 -their priestly robes were on them at the time, in token of their peculiar privilege of special nearness to God! But this, too, made no difference; “there came forth fire from before the Lord and devoured them.”
Their sin, in the form in which it was committed, can never be repeated; but as regards its inner nature and essence, no sin has been in all ages more common. For the essence of their sin was this, that it was will worship; worship in which they consulted not the revealed will of God regarding the way in which He would be served, but their own fancies and inclinations. The directions for worship had been, as we have seen, exceedingly full and explicit; but they apparently imagined that the fragrance of their incense, and its intrinsic suitableness as a symbol of adoration and prayer, was sufficient to excuse neglect of strict obedience to the revealed will of God touching His own worship. Their sin was not unlike that of Saul in a later day, who thought to excuse disobedience by the offering of enormous sacrifices. But he was sharply reminded that “to obey is better than sacrifice”; {1Sa 15:22} and the priesthood were in like manner on this occasion very terribly taught that obedience is also better than incense, even the incense of the sanctuary.
In all ages, men have been prone to commit this sin, and in ours as much as any. It is true that in the present dispensation the Lord has left more in His worship than in earlier days to the sanctified judgment of His people, and has not minutely prescribed details for our direction. It is true, again, that there is, and always will be, room for some difference of judgment among good and loyal servants of the Lord, as to how far the liberty left us extends. But we are certainly all taught as much as this, that wherever we are not clear that we have a Divine warrant for what we do in the worship of God, we need to be exceeding careful, and to act with holy fear, lest possibly, like Nadab and Abihu, we be chargeable with offering “strange fire,” which the Lord has not commanded. And when one goes into many a church and chapel, and sees the multitude of remarkable devices by which, as is imagined, the worship and adoration of God is furthered, it must be confessed that it certainly seems as if the generation of Nadab and Abihu was not yet extinct; even although a patient God, in the mystery of His long suffering, flashes not instantly forth His vengeance.
This then is the first lesson of this tragic occurrence. We have to do with a God who is very jealous; who will be worshipped as He wills, or not at all. Nor can we complain. If God be such a Being as we are taught in the Holy Scripture, it must be His inalienable right to determine and prescribe how He will be served.
And it is a second lesson, scarcely less evident, that with God, intention of good, though it palliate, cannot excuse disobedience where He has once made known His will. No one can imagine that Nadab and Abihu meant wrong; but for all that, for their sin they died.
Again, we are herein impressively taught that, with God, high position confers no immunity when a man sins; least of all, high position in the Church. On the contrary, the greater the exaltation in spiritual honour and privilege, the more strictly will a man be held to account for every failure to honour Him who exalted him. We have seen this illustrated already by the law of the sin offering; and this tragic story illustrates the same truth again.
But the question naturally arises, How could these men, who had been so exalted in privilege, who had even beheld the glory of the God of Israel in the holy mount, {Exo 24:1; Exo 24:9-10} have ventured upon such a perilous experiment? The answer is probably suggested by the warning which immediately followed their death (Lev 10:8-9): “The Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Drink no wine nor strong drink when ye go into the tent of the meeting, that ye die not.” It is certainly distinctly hinted by these words, that it was under the excitement of strong drink that these men so fatally sinned.
If so, then, although their sin may not be repeated in its exact form among us, yet the fact points a very solemn warning, not only regarding the careless use of strong drink, but, more than that, against all religious worship and activity which is inspired by other stimulus than by the Holy Spirit of God. Of this every age of the Churchs history has furnished sad examples. Sometimes we see it illustrated in “revivals,” even in such as may be marked by some evidence of the presence of the Spirit of God; when injudicious speakers seek by various methods to work up what is, after all, merely a physical excitement of a strange, infectious kind, though too often mistaken for the work of the Holy Spirit of God. More subtle and yet more common is the sin of such as in preaching the Word find their chief stimulation in the excitement of a crowded house, or the visible signs of approbation on the part of the hearers; and perhaps sometimes mistake the natural effect of this influence for the quickening power of the Holy Ghost, and go on to offer before the Lord the incense of their religious service and worship, but with “strange fire.” Of this all need to beware; and most of all, ministers of the Word.
The penalty of sin is often long delayed, but it did not lag in this case. The strange fire in the hands of Nadab and Abihu was met by a flash of flame that instantly withered their life; and, just as they were, their priestly robes upon them unconsumed, their censers in their hands, they dropped dead before the fatal bolt.
In reading this account and other similar narratives in Holy Scripture, of the deadly outbreak of Gods wrath, many have felt not a little disquieted in mind because of the terrific severity of the judgment, which to them seems so out of all proportion to the guilt of the offender. And so, in many hearts, and even to many lips, the question has perforce arisen: Is it possible to believe that in this passage, for instance, we have a true representation of the character of God? In answering such a question we ought always to remember, first of all, that, apart from our imperfect knowledge, just because we all are sinners, we are, by that fact, all more or less disqualified and incapacitated for forming a correct and unbiassed judgment regarding the demerit of sin. It is quite certain that every sinful man is naturally inclined to take a lenient view of the guilt of sin, and, by necessary consequence, of its desert in respect of punishment. In approaching this question, here and elsewhere in Gods Word, it is imperative that we keep this fact in mind.
Again, it is not unnecessary to remark, that we must be careful and not read into this narrative what, in fact, is not here. For it is often assumed without evidence, that when we read in the Bible of men being suddenly cut off by death for some special sin, we are therefore required to believe that the temporal judgment of physical death must have been followed, in each instance, by the judgment of the eternal fire. But always to infer this in such cases, when, as here, nothing of the kind is hinted in the text, is a great mistake, and introduces a difficulty which is wholly of our own making. That sometimes, at least, the facts are quite the opposite, is expressly certified to us in 1Co 11:30-32, where we are told that among the Christians of Corinth, many, because of their irreverent approach to the Holy Supper of the Lord, slept the sleep of death; but that these judgments from the Lord, of bodily death, instead of being necessarily intended for their eternal destruction, were sent that they might not finally perish. For the Apostles words are most explicit; for it is with reference to these cases of sickness and death of which he had spoken, that he adds (1Co 11:32): “But when we are (thus) judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.”
What we have here before us, then, is not the question of the eternal condemnation of Nadab and Abihu for their thoughtless, though perhaps, not so intended, profanation of Gods worship, -a point on which the narrative gives us no information, -but, simply and only, the inflicting on them, for this sin, of the judgment of temporal death. And if this yet seem to some undue severity, as no doubt it will, there remain other considerations which deserve to have great weight here. In the first place, if this reveal God as terribly severe in His judgment, even upon what, compared with other crimes, may seem a small sin, we have to remember that, after all, this God of the Bible, this Jehovah of the Old Testament, is only herein revealed as in this respect like the God whose working we see in nature and in history. Was the God of Nadab and Abihu a severe God? Is not the God of nature a terribly severe God? Who then is it that has so appointed the economy of nature that even for one thoughtless indulgence by a young man, he shall be racked with pain all his life thereafter? It is a law of nature, one says. But what is a law of nature but the ordinary operation of the Divine Being who made nature? So let us not forget that the reasoning which, because of the confessed severity of this judgment on the sons of Aaron, argues God out of the tenth of Leviticus, and refuses to believe that this can be a revelation of His mind and character, by parity of reasoning must go on to argue God out of nature and out of history. But if one be not yet ready for the latter, let him take heed how he too hastily decide on this ground against the verity of the history and the truth of the revelation in the case before us.
Then, again, we need to be careful that we pass not judgment before considering all that was involved in this act of sin. We cannot look upon the case as if the act of Nadab and Abihu had been merely a private matter, personal to themselves alone. This it was not, and could not be. They did what they did in their official robes; moreover, it was a peculiarly public act: it took place before the sanctuary, where all the people were assembled. What was the influence of this their act, if it passed unrebuked and unpunished, likely to be? History shows that nothing was more inbred in the nature of the people than just this tendency to will worship. For centuries after this, notwithstanding many like terrible judgments, it mightily prevailed, taking the form of numberless attempted improvements on the arrangements of worship appointed by God, and introducing, under such pretexts of expediency, often the grossest idolatry. And although the Babylonian judgment made an end of the idolatrous form of will worship, the old tendency persisted, and worked on under a new form till, as we learn from our Lords words in the Gospel, the people were in His day utterly overwhelmed with “heavy burdens and grievous to be borne,” rabbinical additions to the law, attempted improvements on Moses, under pretext of honouring Moses, all begotten of this same inveterate spirit of will worship. Nor are such things of little consequence, as some seem to imagine, whether we find them among Jews or in Christian communions. On the contrary, all will worship, in all its endless variety of forms, tends to confuse conscience, by confounding with the commandments of God the practices and traditions of men; and all history, no less of the Church than of Israel, shows that the tendency of all such will worship is to the subversion alike of morality and religion, occasioning, too often, total misapprehension as to what indeed is the essence of religion well pleasing to God.
Was the sin of the priests, Nadab and Abihu, then, committed in such a public manner, such a trifling matter after all? And when we further remember the peculiar circumstances of the occasion, -that the whole ceremonial of the day was designed in a special manner to instruct the people as to the manner in which Jehovah, their King and their God, would be worshipped, -it certainly is not so hard, after all, to see how it was almost imperative that in the very beginning of Israels national history, God should give them a lesson on the sanctity of His ordinances and His hatred of will worship, which should be remembered to all time.
The solemn lesson of the terrible judgment, Moses, as Prophet and Interpreter of Gods will to the people, declares in these words (Lev 10:3): “This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh Me, and before all the people I will be glorified.”
If God separate a people to be specially near unto Him, it is that, admitted to such special nearness to Himself, they shall ever reverently recognise His transcendent exaltation in holiness, and take care that He be ever glorified in them before all men. But if any be careless of this, God will nevertheless not be defrauded. If they will recognise His august holiness, in the reverence of loyal service, well; God shall thus glorify Himself in them before all. But if otherwise, still God will be glorified in them before all people, though now in their chastisement and in retribution. The principle is that which is announced by Amos: {Amo 3:2} “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities.” And when we remember that the sons of Aaron typically represent the whole body of believers in Christ, as a priestly people, it is plain that the warning of this judgment comes directly home to us all. If, as Christians, we have been brought into a relation of special nearness and privilege with God, we have to remember that the place of privilege is, in this case, a place of peculiar danger. If we forget the reverence and honour due to His name, and insist on will worship of any kind, we shall in some way suffer for it. God may wink at the sins of others, but not at ours. He is a God of love, and desires not our death, but that He may be glorified in our life; but if any will not have it so, He will not be robbed of his glory. Hence the warning of the Apostle Peter, who was so filled with these Old Testament conceptions of God and His worship: “It is written, Ye shall be holy, for I am holy. And if ye call on Him as Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to each mans work, pass the time of your sojourning in fear”. {1Pe 1:17}
Lev 10:3 : “And Aaron held his peace.” For rebellion were useless; nay, it had been madness. Even the tenderest natural affection must be silent when God smites for sin; and in this case the sin was so manifest, and the connection therewith of the judgment so evident, that Aaron could say nothing, though his heart must have been breaking.