Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 10:8
And the LORD spoke unto Aaron, saying,
8-11. Do not drink wine nor strongdrinkThis prohibition, and the accompanying admonitions,following immediately the occurrence of so fatal a catastrophe[Lev 10:1; Lev 10:2],has given rise to an opinion entertained by many, that the twodisobedient priests were under the influence of intoxication whenthey committed the offense which was expiated only by their lives.But such an idea, though the presumption is in its favor, is nothingmore than conjecture.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the Lord spake unto Aaron,…. Because he was a prophet, Aben Ezra says; but the reason rather seems to be, because be was the high priest, and now invested with his office, and in the execution of it, and therefore the following law respecting the priest’s drinking of wine was given: some say, as the same writer observes, that God spake to him by Moses; but it rather seems that he spoke to Aaron immediately: according to Jarchi, this order was delivered to him as a reward for his silence, and to do honour to him on that account: saying; as follows.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Jehovah still further commanded Aaron and his sons not to drink wine and strong drink when they entered the tabernacle to perform service there, on pain of death, as a perpetual statute for their generations (Exo 12:17), that they might be able to distinguish between the holy and common, the clean and unclean, and also to instruct the children of Israel in all the laws which God had spoken to them through Moses ( … , Lev 10:10 and Lev 10:11, et… et, both…and also). Shecar was an intoxicating drink made of barley and dates or honey. , profanus , common, is a wider or more comprehensive notion than , unclean. Everything was common (profane) which was not fitted for the sanctuary, even what was allowable for daily use and enjoyment, and therefore was to be regarded as clean. The motive for laying down on this particular occasion a prohibition which was to hold good for all time, seems to lie in the event recorded in Lev 10:1, although we can hardly infer from this, as some commentators have done, that Nadab and Abihu offered the unlawful incense-offering in a state of intoxication. The connection between their act and this prohibition consisted simply in the rashness, which had lost the clear and calm reflection that is indispensable to right action.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Cautions for the Priests. | B. C. 1490. |
8 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying, 9 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: 10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; 11 And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.
Aaron having been very observant of what God said to him by Moses, now God does him the honour to speak to him immediately (v. 8): The Lord spoke unto Aaron, and the rather because what was now to be said Aaron might perhaps have taken amiss from Moses, as if he had suspected him to have been a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, so apt are we to resent cautions as accusations; therefore God saith it himself to him, Do not drink wine, nor strong drink, when you go into the tabernacle, and this at their peril, lest you die, v. 9. Probably they had seen the ill effect of it in Nadab and Abihu, and therefore must take warning by them. Observe here, 1. The prohibition itself: Do not drink wine nor strong drink. At other times they were allowed it (it was not expected that every priest should be a Nazarite), but during the time of their ministration they were forbidden it. This was one of the laws in Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek. xliv. 21), and so it is required of gospel ministers that they be not given to wine, 1 Tim. iii. 3. Note, Drunkenness is bad in any, but it is especially scandalous and pernicious in ministers, who of all men ought to have the clearest heads and the cleanest hearts. 2. The penalty annexed to the prohibition: Lest you die; lest you die when you are in drink, and so that day come upon you unawares, Luke xxi. 34. Or, “Lest you do that which will make you liable to be cut off by the hand of God.” The danger of death we are continually in should engage us to be sober, 1 Pet. iv. 7. It is a pity that it should ever be used for the support of licentiousness, as it is by those who argue, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. 3. The reasons assigned for this prohibition. They must needs to be sober, else they could not duly discharge their office; they will be in danger of erring through wine, Isa. xxviii. 7. They must be sure to keep sober, (1.) That they might themselves be able to distinguish, in their ministrations, between that which was sacred and that which was common, and might never confound them, v. 10. It concerns the Lord’s ministers to put a difference between holy and unholy, both things and persons, that they may separate between the precious and the vile, Jer. xv. 19. (2.) That they might be able to teach the people (v. 11), for that was a part of the priests’ work (Deut. xxxiii. 10); and those that are addicted to drunkenness are very unfit to teach people God’s statutes, both because those that live after the flesh can have no experimental acquaintance with the things of the Spirit, and because such teachers pull down with one hand what they build up with the other.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 8-11:
The proximity of this command with the death of Nadab and Abihu may imply that these two had acted under the influence of intoxicating drink.
Wine was made from fermented grape juice; “strong drink” was made from other products, such as dates, honey, or grain (as barley).
The prohibition against intoxication drink was: that the minds of the priests might not be confused, but that they might be able to discern between right and wrong, and what should and should not be done.
This illustrates the prohibition against intoxicating drinks by the “bishop” or the pastor and minister of God today, 1Ti 3:2, 8; 5:23. Eph 5:18, 19 points out the contrast between the influence of wine, and the influence of the Holy Spirit in the life of God’s child.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(8) And the Lord spake unto Aaron.As half of the staff of the priesthood had thus been struck down, and the other half were not allowed to mourn over the departed, the chief of the survivors might have thought that God was altogether displeased with the newly created pontificate. To comfort him, therefore, as well as to restore the prestige of this sacred office in the eyes of the people, who had witnessed the disobedience and punishment of the spiritual functionaries, the Lord, who hitherto made all such communications to Moses, now honours Aaron with speaking to him immediately.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE PRIESTS FORBIDDEN WINE AND STRONG DRINK, Lev 10:8-11.
9. Do not drink wine This wine is in Hebrew yayin, the most general term for this beverage, especially when it is intoxicating. “ Yayin is a mocker.” Pro 20:1. In seventy-five out of a hundred and thirty-six passages it is spoken of with condemnation by reason of its disastrous effects. Unfermented, or new wine, called must, is in the Hebrew expressed by tirosh. This is never prohibited or condemned. It occurs thirty-eight times, with no indication of any intoxicating quality. The solitary apparent exception in Hos 9:11 is explained as the gluttonous use of sweet, nutritious wine as an article of food. The meaning of the passage is, that the three great appetites the sexual, the bibulous, and the gluttonous “take away the heart” or understanding. There are several other terms sparingly used, some of which always involve a bad sense, as sobe, signifying soak and soaker, while others are doubtful.
Nor strong drink The Hebrew shecar is a generic term applied to all fermented liquors except wine. It includes, 1.) Beer, which was largely consumed in Egypt under the name of zythus. It was made of barley and certain herbs, such as lupin and skirrett, as a substitute for hops. 2.) Cider, or apple-wine. 3.) Honey-wine, of which there were two sorts; the first consisting of a mixture of wine, honey, and pepper, the other a decoction of the juice of the grape, termed debash (honey) by the Jews, and dibs by the modern Syrians. 4.) Date-wine, which was the fermentation of dates mashed and mixed with water. 5.) The fermented juices of various other fruits and vegetables, as figs, millet, pomegranates, and carob fruit. According to the latest researches in philology, the English word cider is a modification of shecar, through the Grecized form , sikera. See Webster’s Dictionary.
When ye go into the tabernacle The service of God requires the clearest head and the purest heart. It is an intelligent exercise, and not a blind, mechanical opus operatum, or going through with the motions. If the priest even medicinally used fermented wine or strong drink in the smallest quantity, it disqualified him for his office during that day. What a rebuke is this to the usage still prevalent in some countries of drinking wine in the vestry before going into the pulpit and reasoning of righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come! The enactment of this law immediately after the slaying of Nadab and Abihu affords strong grounds for the theory that they were drunken when they committed the act of sacrilege. The Targum of Palestine plainly sustains this view. “Drink no wine nor any thing that maketh drunk, as thy sons did, who have died by the burning of fire.” See Num 3:4, note.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Yahweh spoke to Aaron, saying,’
This is the first time that God has spoken directly to Aaron, demonstrating his new status. From now on until Leviticus 15, God will speak sometimes ‘to Moses and to Aaron’ (Lev 11:1; Lev 13:1; Lev 15:1) and sometimes just ‘to Moses’ (Lev 12:1; Lev 14:1). The alternation suggests that the aim is to bring in Aaron while retaining the priority of Moses. But speaking solely to Aaron here, the only example, demonstrates the importance of the subject for Aaron. It is he and his remaining sons who are directly responsible for maintaining the holiness of the Sanctuary.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Instructions To The Priests
v. 8. And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, v. 9. Do not drink wine nor strong drink, v. 10. and that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; v. 11. and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses. v. 12. 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, v. 13. And ye shall eat it in the Holy Place, because it is thy due; v. 14. And the wave-breast and 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. v. 15. The heave-shoulder 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 sons’ with thee, by a statute forever, as the Lord hath commanded, v. 16. And Moses diligently sought the go at of the sin-offering, v. 17. Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin-offering in the Holy Place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make an atonement for them before the Lord? v. 18. Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the Holy Place, v. 19. And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering and their burnt offering before the Lord, v. 20. And when Moses heard that, he was content,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
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 10:11
That priests are teachers
is assumed all through the Old Testament. The contrast in this respect which has been found by some between the prophets and the priests, the former being the spiritual guides of the people, and the latter the organs of a dull ceremonial routine or even rude slayers of beasts, has no foundation in fact. It is true that the primary work of the priest was to teach by type and rite, and the primary work of the prophet to declare God’s will by word of mouth; but they were co-ordinate, not hostile, influences and powers, having the same end in view, which they carried out, partly by the same, partly by different means. If the prophet sharply reproves the priests, it is because they are bad priests, not because they are priests (Mal 2:1); and when he strikes at the priest, he sometimes strikes at the prophet in the same breath (Jer 5:30, Jer 5:31).
THE MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL IS THE SUCCESSOR AND REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH PRIEST AND PROPHET. He has to conduct the public worship of God, which must always be a solemn occupation, though now disembarrassed of the minute regulations of the Judaic Law, and he is a channel through whom the Divine blessing flows; in this he represents the priest. He is the expounder and preacher of God’s Word; herein he represents the prophet. He teaches God’s commandments and applies them to the consciences of individuals; herein he does the work of both priest and prophet. But he holds a higher office than either one or the other, inasmuch as he is the dispenser of the gifts of the Holy Ghost for the good of man, which were purchased for man by Christ’s death, received by him of his Father at his ascension, anti shed forth upon his Church in the form of graces dispensed by the apostolic ministry (see Eph 4:7-11).
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
Lev 10:8-11
Abstinence enjoined.
Without asserting positively that inflammatory drink was the cause of the unhallowed presentation made by the sons of Aaron, we may believe that it was the wise and merciful intention of the prohibition herein contained to guard against a possible source of similar heedless attendance upon God in his sanctuary.
I. THE FUNCTIONS OF THE PRIESTS.
1. To observe the various rites connected with the worship of God.
2. To see that nothing unholy entered the precincts of the tabernacle. The incense, which might suffice without, would be an insult to Jehovah within. The fire, useful for common cooking purposes, would be counted “strange fire” if presented to the Lord.
3. To advise the people concerning the distinction made by the Law between things clean and unclean. There was the food permissible to be eaten, the diseases requiring separation, the times in which ceremonial uncleanness was contracted, etc. All these matters were under the supervision of the priests.
4. To instruct the people generally in the statutes of the Lord. In the absence of written documents, this was a very important part of the duties of the priests, and furnished one of the reasons for afterwards locating their cities amongst the different tribes of Israel. This teaching was the origin of the present exposition of Scripture by the preacher, being now the chief feature of the minister’s office. Is the acquaintance of the people with the Bible at all commensurate with the many advantages they enjoy? The Israelites may rise up in the day of judgment to condemn the ignorance of modern civilization.
II. THE IMPORTANCE OF RIGHTLY DISCHARGING THESE FUNCTIONS. Consider the happy results that would flow from a proper fulfillment of their obligations, and the dire effects of lax observance of the regulations of the priesthood. In this latter event God. would be insulted anti profaned, his indignation would destroy the slothful servants, anti the nation of Israel would relapse into a state of idolatry and disgrace. No priest lived or died unto himself. The progress and comfort of others were inseparably bound up with his due attendance at the altar.
III. THE NECESSITY OF ABSTAINING FROM WHATEVER IMPAIRS CLEARNESS OF THOUGHT AND STEADINESS OF CONDUCT. The effects of “wine” or “strong drink” are various in different men and at different stages. Carelessness, excitement, stupefaction,either might ensue, and bring upon the offender the wrath of God. The principle is obvious that the service of God may require abstention from enjoyments otherwise permissible. As the number of priests was at this time so limited, the injunction of the text practically enforced almost continuous abstinence upon them. Enthusiasm stimulated by unworthy means, boldness engendered by false heat, an inability to declare the whole counsel of God, imagination running riot among his precepts,these are offensive to God in his servants, and expose the possessors to his judgments. To walk not in the path of danger is better than to calculate upon successfully encountering its risks. The householder who cuts off the supply of gas is in no fear of an explosion, nor needs continually to examine the pipes. This prudent method is to be commended where the light furnished is unsteady, or superfluous because of the shining of the purer light. Drink not at the ruddy stream, and you will not dread its poison.S.R.A.
Lev 10:8-11
Sobriety in the priesthood.
The Jews say that Nadab and Abihu were inebriated when they sinned in offering strange fire, and that this law, forbidding intoxicants to the priests while serving in the holy place, was given in consequence. It is remarkable that, whereas both before and after this God spake “by the hand of Moses,” the instruction before us was given, immediately, “to Aaron.” The reasons for the prohibition are
I. THAT MINISTERS SHOULD BE RECOLLECTED IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD.
1. He was present in the tabernacle.
(1) In the text, as in many places, it is distinguished as the “tabernacle of the congregation.” The original ( , ohel moed) might perhaps be better rendered, “tabernacle of meeting.” This would not exclude the idea of the congregation or meeting of the people, while it recognizes another more important truth, viz. that the tabernacle was the place appointed for God to meet with his people (comp. Exo 25:22; Exo 29:42, Exo 29:43; Exo 30:6, Exo 30:36).
(2) Apart from this criticism, the fact is patent that the symbol of the Divine presence was there. Where the Shechinah is, the ground is holy; and it behooves the worshipper to put away irreverence, and, with clearness of intellect as well as fervour of holy zeal, to wait upon the Lord (see Exo 3:5; Exo 19:12; Jos 5:15).
(3) We should never forget that in our Christian assemblies God is no less certainly present (see Mat 18:20; Luk 24:36; Rev 1:13).
2. And God is jealous of his honour.
(1) This important truth is here intimated in the caution, “lest ye die.” Confused by inebriation, some error might be committed which would involve fatal consequences (see context).
(2) Now, since this enactment, to taste the cup whose effects may expose to the liability of committing such an error, is itself a crime to be visited with death. The spirit of this instruction is that we must not tempt Satan to tempt us; that we are only safe when at the utmost distance from sin.
(3) Abstinence at other times was not obligatory upon the priests, but they might become Nazarites if they pleased. Gospel ministers should be sober men (1Ti 3:3).
II. THAT THEY NEED THEIR FACULTIES TO KEEP THEIR CHARGE,
1. They have to judge in holy things.
(1) in the service of the tabernacle some food was “most holy,” and had to be eaten beside the altar (Lev 10:12). This must not be eaten by “females among the priests.” Yet a son of Aaron who had such a blemish as would preclude his attendance at the altar may eat of it (Lev 21:22). In some cases “holy” meats might be eaten by the priests and their families, but not by ordinary Israelites (Lev 10:14); while in others the offerer had his share of the offering.
(2) Holy things might be polluted by accident. Thus a defiled person touching them would profane them (Lev 7:19); or the flesh of the peace offering eaten on the third day, even by a priest, is profaned, and the priest punishable (Lev 7:18; Lev 19:7, Lev 19:8). Unclean persons must not eat of the holy things on pain of excommunication (Lev 7:20, Lev 7:21).
(3) For the carrying out of all these laws, together with those of the distinction between persons, animals, and things, clean and unclean, the priest needed a clear head,
(a) that he might save his soul alive,
(b) and that he might fittingly typify Christ, whose judgment in moral and spiritual causes is true.
(4) Therefore he must abstain from wine and strong drinks (see Isa 28:7). And ministers of the gospel must be sober. If not types, they are “ambassadors,” of Christ. They need a sound judgment to pronounce clearly and firmly against the efforts of antichrist to profane the laver and the altar in the sanctuary.
2. They have to teach the statutes of the Lord.
(1) The Law is the standard of appeal. It was spoken by the Lord from Sinai. It was “given by the hand of Moses,” who authenticated it to be the Word of God by many miracles. The gospel is the “engrafted Word” (Jas 1:21),” spoken to us by the Son of God, confirmed by them that heard him, and authenticated by signs and wonders and divers miracles and distributions of the Holy Ghost (Heb 1:1, Heb 1:2; Heb 2:3, Heb 2:4).
(2) The duty of teaching the laws of the Old Testament devolved upon the priests (Deu 24:8; Neh 8:2, Neh 8:8; Jer 18:18; Mal 2:7). Christian ministers now stand in a similar relation to the Church under the New Testament.
(3) If sobriety was necessary in the teachers of the Law, it is surely no less necessary in those who teach the vital truths of the gospel (2Ti 2:15; Tit 1:7-9). Ministers of the New Testament may become Nazarites if they please; they should at least be Nazarites when “holding forth the Word of life.”J.A.M.
Lev 10:12-15
The eating of the holy things.
In the words of the last paragraph God speaks immediately to Aaron; here Moses resumes, addressing now “Aaron and his sons that were left,” or who had escaped the terrible judgment in which Nadab and Abihu were involved. He repeats his instructions concerning
I. THE MEAT OFFERING REMAINING OF THE OFFERINGS MADE BY FIRE.
1. This was accounted “most holy.”
(1) This is equivalent to calling it the “bread of God” (Lev 21:6, Lev 21:22). It was therefore “most holy,” as typifying Christ (Joh 6:33). He is “most holy” in the mystery of his birth, as “coming down from heaven” (Luk 1:35). Also in his death, by which he was able to “give his life unto the world.”
(2) It was the priests’ due, or appointment, viz. from God. For it was first given to God, and now came from him. So Jesus, whom we bring to God as the Atoning Sacrifice for our sin, God gives to us for the nourishment of our souls. To the spiritual priesthood he is still the “Bread of God that cometh down from heaven.”
2. It was to be eaten, viz.
(1) “Beside the altar.” Jesus becomes the’ food of his people after his passion. The bread of the Eucharist was “broken” before it was “given” to the disciples to eat (Mat 26:26; Joh 12:24; 1Co 11:23-26). The Lord’s table is furnished from the altar that was without the camp (Heb 13:10-12).
(2) It was to be eaten “without leaven.” There was neither “malice” nor “wickedness” in Jesus, nor should there be in those who seek his fellowship (1Co 5:6-8). He is the TruthTruth itselfTruth essential; fellowship with him, therefore, must be in “sincerity and truth.”
(3) It was to be eaten “in the holy place.” The joys of the Christian profession should be sought in the fellowship of the saints. Odd persons, who stand aloof from Church communion, are not serving God according to his order.
II. THE WAVE BREAST AND HEAVE SHOULDER.
1. These were accounted “holy.”
(1) They were so because they had been offered to God. Julius Bate construes the words rendered “wave breast and heave shoulder” (Lev 10:14), “the breast that is presented, and the shoulder that is lifted up.” This at least expresses the spirit of the original.
(2) The “holy” as well as “most holy” bread is the same as the bread of God (see Le Lev 21:22), and equally points to Christ. Both were alike the priests’ due or appointment (Exo 29:24).
2. The holy things were to be eaten in a clean place.
(1) This marks the difference between the “holy” and the “most holy.” The “most holy” must be eaten in the holy place, in the court of the priests, and therefore by the priests alone, but the “holy” may be eaten in the houses, and therefore by the daughters of the priests.
(2) The moral teaching is that while the “most holy” communion with Christ is by the altar-side in his Church, we may have “holy” communion with him in our families. The ordinary meals of godly persons will be received as from God with thanksgiving, and thereby become in a sense sacramental (see 1Co 10:18-31).
(3) The one limitation is that the holy things of the peace offerings must be eaten “in a clean place.” Viewed in the letter, this means that the house must not be polluted by the dead, or by a leper, or anything for which the purifications of the Law may be required. Viewed in the spirit, the teaching is that if we would have communion with Christ in our families, vicious dispositions and ungodly strangers must be excluded. “The friendship of the world is enmity against God” (see 2Co 6:14-18; Jas 4:4; 1Jn 2:15).J.A.M.
Lev 10:16-20
Moses and Aaron an allegory.
Moses may be taken as the impersonation of the Law which was given by his hand (see Luk 16:29; Act 15:21). Hence the “body of Moses,” about which Michael disputed with Satan, is by some supposed to denote the substance of the Law (Jud 1:9). In this view he appeared upon the mount of transfiguration, surrendering to Christ, who, in like manner, impersonated his gospel (Mat 17:3-5). So the vail over Moses’ face represented the shadows in which the Law invested the glory of the Lord until the death of Christ, when the darkness passed away and the true light shined forth. Hence, when the vail, that is to say, the flesh of Christ, was tom in death, the vail of the temple was rent from the top throughout (Mat 27:50, Mat 27:51; 2Co 3:7; Heb 9:3, Heb 9:8; Heb 10:19, Heb 10:20). Aaron’s function was to bring out the spiritual meaning of the Law; and so he was a type of Christ, who came not to destroy but to fulfill it. Bearing these things in mind, light may be let in upon the remarkable passage before us. We have here
I. THE ANGER OF MOSES.
1. Look at the history in the letter.
(1) Moses had given instructions to Aaron and his sons respecting the goat which was to be offered for the sin of the people (see Le Lev 9:15, Lev 9:16).
(2) These instructions were not fully carried out. The goat was killed and its fat burnt upon the altar; but the flesh was not eaten in the holy place.
(3) Moses made search, and behold the goat was burnt, probably without the camp (Lev 4:12; Lev 6:11). This angered him, and led him to question the “sons of Aaron who were left,” or had escaped the fire that consumed their brethren, as to why they had deviated from his directions.
2. Now look at the moral.
(1) It should have been eaten in the holy place, because it was “most holy,” that is to say, the “bread of God’ (Lev 6:16, Lev 6:17; Lev 21:22); that which wrath was to feed upon. This significantly pointed to Christ. After declaring himself to be the “bread of God which cometh down from heaven,” he explains, “the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (Joh 6:51). How remarkably the mysteries of the bread offering and the “flesh” of the sin offering, associated on the Levitical altar, are again associated in this gospel explanation!
(2) By the fire of God feeding upon the sin offering, it bore “the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord” (Lev 10:17). But this is said of the eating of the flesh by Aaron and his sons. By eating the flesh of the sin offering, then, Aaron was to appear as in the place of it. This significantly indicated that the true sin offering was not to be an animal, but a man.
(3) The rule is laid down that if the blood was not brought in within the holy place, the flesh should be eaten in the holy place (Lev 10:18). That rule showed that the Law priests were typically to bear the iniquity of the people, until that High Priest should come who would carry his own blood into the holy place not made with hands. In that event their functions were destined to cease.
II. THE EXPLANATION OF AARON.
1. The anger of Moses was with the sons of Aaron.
(1) We are not told that he felt any anger towards Aaron. We see a propriety in this when we consider that Aaron was a type of Christ. Moses directed Aaron all through the ceremonials of his consecration, and so Christ in this world, in which he was consecrated to his priesthood, was “made under the Law.” But the Law could have no anger against Christ, “who fulfilled all its righteousness,” and in every way “magnified and made it honourable.”
(2) But against the sons of Jesus, who are far from being as perfect as their Head, the Law may have occasion for anger.
2. But Aaron speaks in his own person for his sons.
(1) (See Lev 10:19.) So Jesus takes the faults of his children upon himself (see Mat 8:16, Mat 8:17; 1Pe 2:24).
(2) And speaking for them thus, Aaron was able to appease Moses. Not only was Moses “satisfied,” as in the text, but what Aaron urged was “well pleasing in his eyes,” as in the Hebrew. So triumphantly is Jesus able to deliver us from the anger of the Law (Rom 5:9, Rom 5:20, Rom 5:21).
3. But what is the import of Aaron’s words (Lev 10:19)?
(1) Here he concedes that the sin offering had been offered, and that, under usual conditions, to have complied with all the directions of Moses would have been proper. But he explains, “such things have befallen me,” referring to his parental sorrow in the loss of his sons under most distressing circumstances. He was, therefore, a mourner, not outwardly (see Lev 10:4-7), but in spirit, so, had he eaten the sin offering, would it have been accepted by the Lord, viz. who looketh upon the heart? Moses had nothing to reply to this (comp. Deu 12:7; 1Sa 1:7, 1Sa 1:8; Hos 9:4).
(2) But was there not a prophetic meaning in these words of Aaron? As Caiaphas “spake not of himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation” (Joh 10:1-42 :50, 51), does not Aaron as truly in the spirit of prophecy here say that the death of the priest sets aside the type (see Col 2:14)?
(3) The consent of Moses shows how the Law bears testimony to Christ, and is itself to vanish as a shadow when the substance takes its place.
(4) It also shows that it is proper to break the Law in the letter, when to do so is necessary to its observance in the spirit. The spirit of the Law is the gospel.J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Lev 10:8-10
Wine and worship.
The prohibition of the text only extends to the priest about to officiate in the worship of God; “when ye go into the tabernacle.” It had no reference to the domestic use of wine; nor did it separate “strong wine” from sacred service altogether (Exo 29:42; Num 28:7). Perhaps, as some think, it was consequent upon the foregoing scene. But if not so closely connected with it as to be occasioned by it, the fact that its announcement followed that scene in order of time suggests the truth
I. THAT FROM THE WORSHIP OF GOD EVERY TEMPTATION SHOULD BE RELIGIOUSLY EXCLUDED. If intoxicants would have even the slightest effect on the understanding so that error might be committed, they should be scrupulously avoided: and so with any and every source of peril, whatever it may be. Whatsoever would lead the mind away from God and his truth; whatsoever would interfere with the purity, sincerity, spirituality of public worship, should be shunned. It may be beautiful attire, ornamentation, music, rhetoric, philosophizing, etc. Every man must judge for himself; “happy is he who condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth” (Rom 14:22).
II. THAT IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD EVERY FACULTY SHOULD BE IT FULLEST EXERCISE, If intoxicants are anywise injurious, they enfeeble, they make the body drowsy, the intellect clouded, the spirit heavy and unaspiring. To the worship of God we should bring our best; not by any means the lame and the blind, etc. (Mal 1:8), nor the second best, but the very best we can bringthe flower in the bud, the fruit adorned with its bloom; not the wearied bodily frame that sinks to sleep while God is being approached; not the mind that has lost its elasticity and strength, but our most vigilant and wakeful, our most vigorous and energetic self. We should bring to his altar the power that can discern between the evil and the good, between the acceptable and the offensive (Lev 10:10); and the power that can rise on fleetest and most enduring wing into the heavens of joyful praise and earnest prayer and saving truth.
III. THAT FOR THE WORSHIP OF GOD THERE SHOULD BE CAREFUL PREPARATION. The priests were, in virtue of this and other precepts, to consider carefully beforehand what they should do and what they should avoid, that they might be ready to minister unto the Lord. Whether our offering of spiritual sacrifices unto God in his sanctuary (1Pe 2:5) be acceptable or not, depends not more on the provision which is prepared in the house for us than on the conscientious preparing of our heart before we go up unto it.C.
Lev 10:11
Instruction as well as sacrifice.
These words point to
I. A SECONDARY DUTY OF THE PRIESTHOODINSTRUCTION. No doubt the primary object of their appointment was sacrifice. Their function was, first of all, to mediate between God and the people, to stand at his altar and present sacrifices unto him. But this did not constitute their whole duty; they were to “teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord had spoken.” No doubt the whole tribe of Levi was associated with the priesthood in “teaching Jacob the judgments and Israel the Law” of the Lord (see Deu 33:8-11; Mal 2:7; Hos 4:6).
II. THE TWOFOLD TASK THIS INSTRUCTION INVOLVED. The priests and Levites would have:
1. To make known the particular precepts of the Law, so that the people might bring their proper sacrifices, come at the appointed seasons to the sacred festivals, shun all those things which were prohibited, act rightly in their various domestic and social relations, etc.
2. To explain the spirit and significance of the ritual, so that when the worshippers came to the tabernacle they might not only go through the right forms, but also enter into the spirit of them; so that they should be affected by a sense of sin, by a hope of forgiveness, by a desire to dedicate themselves unto God, by a spirit of holy joy in God and of brotherly love toward their fallows. To communicate all the particulars of the Law, and leave uninterpreted their spiritual significance, would have been to omit an essential part of their sacred duty as religious instructors of the nation. We may be reminded of
III. THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. The privilege of those who minister for Christ is also twofold:
1. To lead souls with them to God; to suggest those thoughts and words through which the worshippers may address themselves to him and make their own personal, direct appeal to him.
2. To instruct in Christian truth. And this instruction is to combine two things: it is
(1) to make known the will of God as stated in the sacred Scriptures;
(2) to impress that will on the conscience of the congregation. The Christian minister seeks to enlighten and to enforce. Then he must leave those whom he serves, to act; they must then “bear their own burden.” Thus we come to
IV. THE DUTY OF THE CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION. That is, to avail themselves of the work of the minister.
1. To follow him spiritually and sympathetically to the throne of grace and, with him, draw nigh to God. in prayer.
2. To seek to understand the mind of God as it is stated and explained.
3. To apply to themselves and their own need. the exhortations which are given.C.
Lev 10:12-20
The spirit of obedience.
The words of Moses appear to have followed. closely upon the incidents described in the opening verses of the chapter. Thus viewed, they show
I. THAT THE SIN OF SOME MUST NOT INTERFERE WITH THE SERVICE OF OTHERS. (Lev 10:12.) Consternation or resentment might have led Aaron and “his sons that were left” to leave the remainder of their sacred duties undischarged. This must not be. The sin of the two sons must not interrupt the service of the Most High. His worship must not cease because two men have erred. Men often plead the inconsistencies and transgressions of others as an excuse for their own shortcoming. They decline to worship God, or to sit down to the table of the Lord, or to work in the vineyard of the Great Husbandman because of their resentment against the wren.doing of their fellows. This may satisfy themselves, but it will have no weight at all in the balances of the Divine Judge.
II. THAT THE SIN OF SOME NEED NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PRIVILEGE OF OTHERS. (Lev 10:14.) The whole congregation were to “bewail the burning which the Lord had kindled” (Lev 10:6). But they were, nevertheless, to “eat in a clean place of the sacrifices of peace offerings.” The saddest things need not interpose to prevent our enjoyment of the sacred privileges with which God has provided us.
III. THAT RESPONSIBLE MEN MAY WELL BE VIGILANT IN ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE SERVICE OF GOD. (Lev 10:16-18.) Moses “diligently sought” the goat which should not have been burnt, but eaten, he showed a holy solicitude to conform to the exact requirements of “the Law of the Lord,” and a commendable concern when he thought he discovered a slight departure therefrom. In Christ Jesus we are not bound by any minute commandments like those which regulated the temple service of the Jews. But there is room enough in the Church of Christ for holy vigilance on the part of those who are “over others in the Lord.” They should watch keenly to observe and to correct the slightest departure from the spirit of the Master; from the spirit
(1) of reverence, or
(2) of earnestness, or
(3) of humility, or
(4) of charity.
IV. THAT THE SPIRIT OF OBEDIENCE IS EVERYTHING IN THE SIGHT OF GOD. There is something profoundly touching in the excuse (Lev 10:19) which Aaron urged. His sons who “were left” had, spite of their bereavement and their fraternal sorrow, “offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord;” they had laid great restraint upon their feelings; they had striven to render the service required of them. And when “such things had befallen him;” when Aaron “held his peace,” indeed, but “his sorrow was stirred;” when his parental heart was bleeding,would the eating of the flesh of the goat in such a “day of desperate grief” have been an acceptable service in the sight of the Lord? Would an act in which there must have been so large a measure of constraint have been in accordance with the will of God? Moses was content with Aaron’s plea; he felt that it was sound. We may infer that he was right in accepting it. Had Aaron repined, or had he resented the retributive act of God, he would certainly have sinned. But this he did not. He summoned himself and his sons to continue in the service of the Lord, and only stopped at the point where overcoming sorrow laid its arresting hand upon him. God desires of us
(1) the will to serve him,
(2) the faith in him which uncomplainingly accepts his decisions when these are painful and perplexing, and
(3) the endeavour, to the height of our power, to continue at our post. When the spirit of obedience is thus in our hearts, he does not exact a strict measure of work to be accomplished by our hands.C.
Lev 10:12
That which is left to us.
“His sons that were left.” Happily and mercifully, it is not often that we suffer such a breach in our life or in our home as that which Aaron was called upon this day to endure; but inroads arc made, suddenly or gradually, upon our sources of joy. Accident (as we call it), disease, treachery, misfortune, the band of time,these take away our treasures; they strip the goodly tree of its branches, as well as of its leaves. But “though much is taken, much abides.” The good man has always consolation in that which is left to him. There is left to us
I. SOME HUMAN AFFECTION. If not “sons that are left,” or daughters, yet friends whose attachment has grown with the growing years.
II. SOME HUMAN ESTEEM. There are thoseit may be many, at any rate a fewwho hold us in genuine regard; who honour us, and pour on our wounded spirit the precious ointment of their esteem.
III. Solacing memories of faithful work.
IV. The consciousness of our own integrity (Psa 41:12).
V. The abiding favour and friendship of the Lord (Psa 125:2).
VI. The hope of eternal life in the presence of God (2Ti 4:6).C.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Lev 10:8-20
Ministers to be examples of purity
The ministers of God’s house must be examples of purity and obedience.
I. The influence of PERSONAL CHARACTER on the work of the teacher, “that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes,” etc. (Lev 10:11).
1. Self-control and temperance necessary to a wise judgment and a correct life. Possibly the offense of Nadab and Abihu owing to intemperance.
2. The teacher needs the respect of the taught to uphold him in his work.
3. The difference between the holy and the unholy, the clean and the unclean, should be seen as well as heard described.
II. THE SUPPORT OF THE MINISTRY may be safely left to come out of the faithful discharge of duty. If the priests are at their post, they will get their portion (Lev 10:12-15). “It shall be thine by a statute for ever.”
III. THE ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, as well as sins of the ministry, should be “diligently sought after.” But in the spirit of charity, not with harsh and censorious judgment. Aaron’s excuse was the overwhelming stress of natural feeling. Ministers are but men. Domestic affliction often clouds their mind and burdens their spirit. Moses was content when he understood that the law of nature was honoured; and there is no true sanctity in observances which violate the first principles of humanity, and subvert the natural feelings of the human heart. The slavish system of Rome exalts religious law at the expense of natural justice, and destroys man while it professes to save him. No true religion is cruel The Spirit of Christ is the spirit of mercy.R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Some have thought from this precept, that the sin of Aaron’s sons was drunkenness. It is possible that Nadab and Abihu might have been intoxicated at the time they offered the strange fire. But then, though this horrid state of drunkenness might have been in some degree instrumental to the commission of the sin for which GOD smote them, certain it is, that this was not the sin itself. For it is expressly said, that the offering of strange fire was the crime. Reader! pause over the account, and think how awful it must be in any, and how infinitely more so in ministers, to be given to wine, wherein is excess. And what a daring act of impiety in a state of this kind, to rush into the divine presence. LORD! keep the souls of men by thy grace from such presumptuous sins; Luk 21:34 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
spake. The only time to Aaron alone. See note on Lev 5:14.
wine. Hebrew. yayin. See App-27.
strong drink. Hebrew. shekar. App-27. Does this law follow here, because it was intoxication which led to the sin of Nadab and Abihu?
when ye go. Compare Eze 44:21. The exception implies the rule. Nothing may be done to excite or stimulate the flesh in the sanctuary: neither drink within, nor music without, nor sensuous surroundings. The old nature must not be stimulated by moving scenes or mere human eloquence. All “must” be of the Spirit. Joh 4:24.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
We notice that in verse Lev 10:8 the Lord speaks directly to Aaron and not as previously to Moses. This is doubtless because the matter of which He spoke concerned only the priests, and was in view of the failure that had just supervened. To the priests ministering in the sanctuary wine and strong drink of any kind were forbidden, for such only excite the natural powers and feelings of men, to the point of clouding their memory and their judgment.
Now the priest was to draw near to God in strict conformity to the prescribed order and not as Nadab and Abihu had done. Moreover he was to put a difference between holy and unholy, between clean and unclean, as verse Lev 10:10 says. He was also to teach the people all that God had ordained, and for this a clear mind was needed. The tendency of strong drink would be to disqualify him for all these things.
The application of this to ourselves is very clear. All who have come to the Lord, while He is still disallowed of men, are constituted priests, as we learn in 1Pe 2:3, 1Pe 2:4, and all of us should be in right priestly condition. But the position is one thing; and the condition which answers to it, is another. Hence that important word, “Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph 5:18). When thus filled we can offer the sacrifice of praise, as the next verse indicates. The contrast is between what is fleshly and what is spiritual. We are to decline what excites the flesh that we may know the power of the Spirit.
The same thing of course is true not only of our praise but also as to our powers of spiritual discernment, and as to our ability to teach others that which we may have learned from God of His things.
The next paragraph (verses Lev 10:12-15) shows how carefully Moses handed on to Aaron and his remaining sons the instructions as to their eating what remained of the meat and peace offerings. The last paragraph (verses Lev 10:16-20) indicate that further failure supervened in the priestly family. Part of the sin offering was to be eaten by the priests but instead it had been burnt. This failure sprang out of human weakness and not out of human wilfulness, as in the case of Nadab and Abihu, and hence no summary judgment was executed. Herein lies a lesson for us.
The weakness of the Aaronic priesthood is twice stated in the Epistle to the Hebrews – Heb 5:2 and Heb 7:28 – they were men “compassed with infirmity.” Our High Priest is the Son of God, who has passed through the heavens, and though all-perfect and all-powerful, He is touched with the feeling of our infirmities. Hence the contrast, made so plain in Hebrews, since all the infirmities are ours and not His.
So we note how Moses, acting on God’s behalf, was content with the confession of Aaron’s weakness. We might summarize the chapter as, “Strange fire,” which was judged. “Strong drink,” which was forbidden. “Sin-offering mishandled,” which was passed over, as being the result of human infirmity.
The whole of Lev 11:1-47 is occupied with regulations as to the food of the people, whether in relation to beasts, fishes, birds or creeping things. Through the priest the people were to be instructed in what was to be regarded as clean, and what unclean. Among animals those only were clean that possessed the two marks: chewing the cud and the cloven hoof. Animals that chew the cud are classified as “ruminants,” and to “ruminate ” has acquired “meditate” as a secondary meaning. The animals with cloven hoof are sure-footed and also in many cases light-footed. When Habakkuk wrote, “The Lord God… will make my feet like hinds’ feet, and He will make me to walk upon mine high places,” he seemed to indicate both these ideas. If the word of God is hid in our hearts by meditation, and if it affects our outward walk in this fashion, our way will be clean in the sight of God.
Similarly with the fishes; there had to be the scales, indicating protection from the waters without, and the fins that gave power of propulsion, and ability to swim against the stream. A spiritual application of this to ourselves is very obvious.
In general the creeping things were forbidden, though in verses 21 and 22 there are certain exceptions. So when John the Baptist made locusts his food he was strictly within the law.
The latter part of the chapter gives rules as to how unclean creatures might communicate defilement to other things or persons. Here we have foreshadowed what is plain in the New Testament. There is an infection or a contagion about what is evil, so that the Christian has to be on his guard as to his associations. Such scriptures as 1Co 5:11; 1Th 5:22; 1Ti 5:22; 2Ti 2:19 are quite clear as to this.
One other thing we may remark in connection with this chapter: these distinctions were not made in Noah’s day – see Gen 9:2, Gen 9:3. This fact, we believe, lies behind Paul’s statement, “there is nothing unclean of itself” (Rom 14:14); and again, “all things are lawful for me” (1Co 10:23). In Noah’s day all men were in view. In Moses’ day Israel only was in question, and these special laws were intended to impress them with the holiness of God, on the one hand, and to help to keep them distinct and separate from the nations, on the other. The first council in Jerusalem recognized this distinction, as we see in Act 15:19-21.
So, while we see some spiritual instruction in this chapter and gladly accept it, we know that we are living in a dispensation when we “should not call any man common or unclean” (Act 10:28), as far as the Gospel is concerned. This was the lesson conveyed to Peter by the vision of the great sheet let down from heaven, wherein were all manner of creatures. All were embraced in the sheet, and, cleansed by God all were taken up into heaven.
Lev 12:1-8 is short, but its theme shows that sin having entered into the world, its defiling power extends over the very beginnings of human life. Both child and mother were unclean and had to be purified. If a man-child, purification was complete by circumcision on the eighth day, and the New Testament significance of that rite is “putting off the body of the flesh,” as it should read in Col 2:11; that is, the refusal of the flesh as having been condemned in the cross of Christ. When a daughter was born the period of the mother’s defilement was twice as long as when a son was born; a reminder of the fact that sin came in through Eve. But whether son or daughter the offerings for purification were the same – a burnt offering and a sin offering had to be brought. If there was poverty so small an offering as two young pigeons might be brought.
When we turn to the account of the birth of our Lord, as recounted in Luk 2:1-52, we note that Mary brought this smallest of offerings; a testimony to the poverty of Joseph and herself. We also note that our Lord was circumcised on the eighth day, according to the law, though there was no sinful flesh in Him to be “put off.” This is in keeping with the fact of His baptism at the hands of John, thus fulfilling all righteousness, though He had no sins to confess, as had the people: in keeping also with the fact that He was carried down into Egypt, so that, retracing Israel’s history, it might be said of Him, “Out of Egypt have I called My Son.”
Lev 13:1-59 is lengthy in contrast with chapter 12. This is easily understood when we say that the one deals with the defilement that marks the very start of man’s life, the other with the working and development of that defilement all through the days of his life, involving such a variety of detail. There can be no doubt that leprosy is as striking a type of sin as the Bible affords. The instructions of this chapter are given to Aaron as well as Moses, for the detection and treatment of leprosy was the peculiar province of the priest. Be it noted that leprosy, as a type, lays stress not on the guilt of sin so much as on its corrupting and defiling power.
A large part of the chapter is occupied with instructions to the priest, which would enable him to diagnose the case and determine whether the sufferer was afflicted with leprosy or not. If leprosy was indicated the man was to be declared unclean. If only some skin trouble or inflammation was discerned, then the man was to be pronounced clean.
One remarkable contingency is contemplated, as we see in verses Lev 10:12-13, and again in verse Lev 10:17, If the disease should come completely to the surface, so that the flesh is white and covered, and so further spreading became impossible, the man was to be pronounced clean. This may have seemed a remarkable ruling in Aaron’s day, but its typical meaning for us is simple and striking. Sin defiles as long as it is working beneath the surface, but when it is brought completely to the surface by honest and thorough confession on the part of the sinner, it ceases to defile. In confession the sinner has judged himself and the spreading and defiling power of his sin is broken.
Apart from this exceptional case the poor leper had to dwell alone without the camp. He had to put a special mark upon himself and continually declare his uncleanness, so that others might not be defiled by him.
In the latter part of this chapter we find that leprosy might also be discovered in garments of wool or linen or skin, and if so, the article was to be destroyed by fire. So leprosy might affect the surroundings of men and not only their bodies. Again care was to be taken that the trouble really was leprosy. It might be defilement of a different nature, which should have different treatment so that the whole garment was not destroyed. The instructions we have in Jud 1:22-23, give us in New Testament terms what is a counterpart of this. Indeed it is possible that the last clause of verse 23 is an allusion to the verses we are considering. Under the Mosaic law the priests were to exercise care and discrimination in their dealings, and no less discrimination is demanded under grace. It would be much easier no doubt to have a rigid rule applicable in all cases, which would eliminate all exercise of mind as to how things should be dealt with, but such is not God’s way.
It is to be noted that time was allowed for the diagnosis to be made by the priest. The garment was shut up for seven days, and if then there was no certain indication, it should be washed and again shut up seven days, and then the true nature of the trouble would be revealed. If the trouble was other than leprosy, then only the affected part was to be torn out; if leprosy, all was to be destroyed in the fire. In the New Testament garments are used figuratively to express our associations and surroundings – see, for instance, Rev 3:4; Rev 7:14; Rev 16:15 – and this helps us to see an application of these instructions to ourselves.
The leprous garment was to be destroyed. The leprous man was to dwell without the camp, and he could only be readmitted if and when he was cleansed. His cleansing was an elaborate process and the whole of Lev 14:1-57 is occupied with it, until we come to verse 33, when a similar plague in a house is in question. The ceremonies connected with his cleansing divide into two parts: first, those which took place without the camp, detailed in verses Lev 10:3-8; second, those which took place on the seventh and eighth days after he had entered it.
We must carefully note that the ceremonies did not cleanse the leper, they only began when it was quite clear that he was cleansed. The healing that is contemplated is an act of God, which took place while the leper was still outside the camp. The priest had to go forth outside the camp and inspect him, and if he was cleansed it was the responsibility of the priest to pronounce him clean, and having done so to carry out the prescribed ceremony, which typified the ground and basis of his cleansing. In the two birds, one killed and the other set free, we see the death and resurrection of Christ set forth.
It may seem a strange regulation that one of the birds had to be, “killed in an earthen vessel over running water;” but in the light of the New Testament use both of “earthen vessel,” and “running” or “living water,” we begin to discern the significance. Dimly foreshadowed we see incarnation indicated as the necessary preliminary for the blood-shedding of our Lord, and also the fact that the offering of Himself to God was in the power of the eternal Spirit.
Then the bird that was released was first dipped in the blood of the slain bird, and thus identified with it. Two birds were needed in the type to set forth Christ in death and in resurrection. As the released bird soared into the heavens it carried the blood not into the sanctuary but into the heavens. This was the basis of all that followed.
But the blood had not only to be shed, and then carried on high to God’s heaven, it had also to be applied to the cleansed leper. Seven times was it sprinkled upon him; applied, that is, in a full and complete way. Then, and then only, was the cleansed leper pronounced to be clean. Here again we observe an important type, which agrees with what we saw in Exo 12:1-51. The blood must be applied as well as shed. The precious blood of Jesus was indeed “shed at Calvary,” but in order to share in the benefit thereof each of us has to be able to say, “shed for me.”
Notice too, that into the blood of the slain bird were to be dipped the cedar wood, the scarlet and the hyssop. The cedar is the most majestic of trees, hyssop is the humblest of herbs, and scarlet bespeaks the glory of men. The death of Christ has stained the pride of all human glory and of all that is natural to this first creation from the greatest things to the least.
Brought into the camp, the cleansed leper had to remain outside his tent for seven days, and then he had to divest himself of the hair that naturally characterized him, and thoroughly wash himself and his clothes. Then on the eighth day he submitted to further ceremonies, very similar to those which inaugurated the priests. Offerings of all kinds – save the peace offering – were presented to God, and then the blood and also the oil were applied to the leper; to his right ear, his right hand, his right foot. The significance of thus we saw when reading Lev 8:1-36.
It seems to us remarkable that the cleansed leper should have been accorded treatment so similar to the priests, though he was not a priest. This type seems designed to “shew forth all longsuffering ” to use Paul’s expression from 1Ti 1:16. There we have Paul lifted from the leprosy of being “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious,” into the exceeding abundance of “the grace of our Lord.” Here we find a loathsome leper cleansed and brought into the camp almost as if he had been a priest.
From verse 33 to the end of the chapter we have the law concerning leprosy in a house, which would apply when they entered the land. Again we notice that great care is enjoined to make sure that the trouble is leprosy, and if the evil can be stayed by the removal of affected parts, well and good. If not, the whole house had to be broken down and the rubbish deposited in an unclean place without the city. If cleansed, the procedure was very similar to that in connection with persons.
There is no record in Scripture of leprosy occurring in a house, but these instructions stand in Scripture and have a warning voice for us. The church today is “the house of God,” and in its external character may be corrupted. Hence we read, “that judgment must begin at the house of God” (1Pe 4:17), and in Rev 2:1-29; Rev 3:1-22 we find the churches of Asia scrutinized by the Lord, and in result the threat of a breaking down, and even a total repudiation.
Chapters 13 and 14 have been occupied with the worst form of defilement; one which usually was lifelong and entailed total exclusion from the camp of Israel, in the midst of which it was God’s pleasure to dwell. Lev 15:1-33 is occupied with a variety of lesser defilements, which entailed a temporary separation and diligent washings before re-admission to the camp and its privileges was possible. These defilements sprang from the weakness of human nature and conditions as they exist today, as the result of the fall. Many of them were of an unavoidable nature but nevertheless they were to be recognized as being of a defiling nature and treated as such. Thus Israel was to be impressed with the holiness of their God and how everything of a defiling nature must be removed, if His presence was to be enjoyed.
We do well to remember that the fall has produced in us many a weakness affecting our spirits as well as our bodies. For instance, many of us have to say with sad feeling what a very true servant of God wrote in days gone by:
“Yet, Lord, alas! what weakness
Within myself I find,
No infant’s changing pleasure
Is like my wandering mind.”
It is because of this weakness, the more felt as the believer is marked by spirituality of mind, that defilement is so easily contracted, and consequently the “feet-washing,” of which Joh 13:1-38 speaks, is so needed by us all.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
The Lord’s commands to Aaron 10:8-11
This is the only time that Leviticus records God speaking directly to Aaron by himself. This shows the importance of what follows and that God still approved of Aaron as the high priest.
The "strong drink" referred to (Lev 10:8) was an intoxicating drink. The commentators differ in their understanding of its composition. It was inappropriate for the priests to drink this concoction on duty. The inclusion of this prohibition in this context has led some commentators to assume that Nadab and Abihu must have been under the influence of this drink. [Note: E.g., Harrison, p. 114; and George Bush, Notes . . . on . . . Leviticus, p. 88.] This is a possibility. Other students of the passage see the tie as being rash behavior. [Note: E.g., Keil and Delitzsch, 2:354.]
"The essence of the priestly ministry is articulated in Lev 10:10-11 . . . . Israel, then, was a people separated to Yahweh from among all the nations of the earth. Her lifestyle and, indeed, her very character must advertise to all peoples the meaning of that identity and mission." [Note: Merrill, pp. 57-58.]
Leaders of the Christian church should also be temperate in their use of drink (1Ti 3:3; 1Ti 3:8; Tit 2:2-3).
"The conclusion one could draw from these passages is that the common or regular use of intoxicants is incompatible with spiritual service or spiritual growth. Their use was permissible in ordinary life, especially for great celebrations; but it may not have been wise or advisable. Moses’ warning to the priests of his day should be carefully considered today, in an age when alcoholism is rampant." [Note: Ross, pp. 236-37.]
"Those set aside for service to the holy God must sanctify the LORD before the people by how they conduct themselves in ministry." [Note: Ibid., p. 238.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CAREFULNESS AFTER JUDGMENT
Lev 10:8-20
“And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, 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 forever throughout your generations: and that ye may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the 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. 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 the Lord made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy: and ye shall eat it in a holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons due, of the offerings of the Lord made by fire: for so I am commanded. 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 due, and thy sons due, out of the sacrifices of the peace offerings of the children of Israel. 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 the Lord: and it shall be thine, and thy sons with thee, as a due forever; as the Lord hath commanded. 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. 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 the Lord? Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within: ye should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded. And Aaron spake unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord; and there have befallen me such things as these: and if I had eaten the sin offering today, would it have been well pleasing in the sight of the Lord? And when Moses heard that, it was well pleasing in his sight.”
Such a judgment as the foregoing ought to have had a good effect, and it did. This appeared in renewed carefulness to secure the most exact obedience hereafter in all their official duties. To this end, the Lord Himself now laid down a law evidently designed to preclude, as far as possible, every risk of any such fault in the priestly service as might again bring down judgment. It is not only holiness, but considerate and anxious love, which speaks in the next words, addressed to Aaron (Lev 10:8-9): “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 forever throughout your generations.”
And for this prohibition the reason is given (Lev 10:10-11): “That ye may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the 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.”
It was not then that the use of wine was in itself sinful; for this is taught nowhere in the Old or New Testament, and as a doctrine of religion is characteristic, not of Judaism or Christianity, but only of Mohammedanism, of Buddhism and other heathen religions. The ground of this command of abstinence, as of the New Testament counsel, {Rom 14:20-21} is that of expediency. Because, in the use of wine or strong drink, there was involved a certain risk, that by undue indulgence, the judgment might be confused or the memory weakened, so that something might be done amiss; therefore the priests, who were specially commissioned to teach the statutes of the Lord to Israel, and this most of all, by their own carefulness to obey all the least of His commandments, are here warned to abstain whenever about engaging in their official duties. As suggested above, it is at least very natural to infer, from the historical setting of this prohibition, that the fatal offence of Nadab and Abihu was occasioned by such an indulgence in wine or strong drink as made it possible for impulse to get the better of knowledge and judgment.
But, however this may be, the lesson for us abides the same; a lesson which each one according to his circumstances must faithfully apply to his own case. For the Christian it is not enough that he shall abstain from what is in its own nature always sinful; it must be the law of our life that we abstain also from whatever may needlessly become occasion of sin. In this we cannot, indeed, lay down a universal code of law. Heathen reformers have done this, and their imitators in the Church, but never Christ or His Apostles. And this with reason. For that which for one carries with it inevitable risk of sin, is not always fraught with the same danger to another person with a different temperament, or even to the same person under different circumstances. In each instance we must judge for ourselves, taking heed not to abuse our liberty to anothers harm; and also, on the other hand, being careful how we judge others in regard to things which in their essential nature are neither right nor wrong. But we shall be wise to recognise the fact that it is just in such things that many Christians do most harm, both to their own souls and to those of others. And in regard to the drinking of wine in particular, one must be blind indeed not to perceive it to be the fact that, whatever the reason may be, the English-speaking peoples seem to be peculiarly susceptible to the danger of undue indulgence in wine and strong drink. On both sides of the Atlantic, drunkenness must be set down as one of the most prevalent national sins.
In deciding the question of personal duty in this and like cases, all believers are bound, as the Lords priestly people, to, remember that He has appointed them that they should walk before Him as a separated people, who, by their daily walk, above all, are to teach others to “put a difference between holy and common, and unclean and clean, and to observe all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken.”
In Lev 10:12-15 we have a repetition of the commandments previously given, concerning the use to be made of the meal offering and the peace offering. From this it appears that Moses himself, in view of the tragic occurrence of the day, was stirred up to charge Aaron and his sons anew on matters on which he had already commanded them. And with this intensified care on his part is evidently connected the incident recorded in the verses which follow, where we read that, having repeated the directions as to the meal offering and the peace offering (Lev 10:16-17), “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, 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 the Lord?”
It had indeed been commanded, in the case of those sin offerings of which the blood was brought into the holy place, that their flesh should not be eaten; but that the flesh of all others should be eaten, as belonging to the class of things “most holy,” by the priests alone within the Holy Place. Hence Moses continued (Lev 10:18): “Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within: ye should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.”
What had been done, as it appears, had been done with Aarons knowledge and sanction; for Aaron then answered in behalf of his sons (Lev 10:19): “Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord; and there have befallen me such things as these: and if I had eaten the sin offering today, would it have been well pleasing in the sight of the Lord?”
Of which answer, the intention seems to have been this. In this day of special exaltation and privilege, when for the first time they had performed their solemn priestly duties, when most of all there should have been the utmost care to please the Lord in the very smallest things, His holy Name had been profaned by the will worship of his sons, and the wrath of God had broken out against them, and, in them, against their fathers house. Could it be the will of God that a house in which was found the guilt of such a sin, should yet partake of the most holy things of God in the sanctuary?
From this it appears that the judgment sent into the house of Aaron had had a most wholesome spiritual effect. They had received such an impression of their own profound sinfulness as they had never had before.
And it is very instructive to observe that they assume to themselves a part in the sinfulness which had been shown in the sin of Nadab and Abihu. It did not occur to Aaron or his remaining sons to say, in the spirit of Israel in the day of our Lord, “If we had been in their place, we would not have done so.” Rather their consciences had been so awakened to the holiness of God and their own inborn evil, that they coupled themselves with the others as under the displeasure of God. Was it possible, even though they personally had not sinned, that such as they should eat that which was most holy unto God? They had thus in the letter disobeyed the law; but because their offence was begotten of a misapprehension, and only showed how deeply and thoroughly they had taken to heart the lesson of the sore judgment, we read that “when Moses heard” their explanation, “it was well pleasing in his sight.”
All this which followed the sin of Nadab and Abihu, and the judgment which fell on them, and thus upon the whole house of Aaron, is a most instructive illustration of the working of the chastising judgments of the Lord, when rightly received. Its effect was to awaken the utmost solicitude that nothing else might be found about the tabernacle service, even through oversight, which was not according to the mind of God; and, in those immediately stricken, to produce a very profound sense of personal sinfulness and unworthiness before God. The New Testament gives us a graphic description of this effect of the chastisement of God on the believer, in the account which we have of the result of the discipline which the Apostle Paul inflicted on the sinning member of the Church of Corinth; concerning which he afterward wrote to them {2Co 7:11} “Behold, this selfsame thing, that ye were made sorry after a godly sort, 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!”
A good test is this, which, when we have passed under the chastising hand of God, we may well apply to ourselves: this “earnest care,” this “clearing of ourselves,” this holy fear of a humbled heart, -have we known what it means? If so, though we sorrow, we may yet rejoice that by grace we are enabled to sorrow “after a godly sort,” with “a repentance which bringeth no regret.”