EXPOSITION
The further warning to the people and the priests. It is very remarkable that, after all the directions given (Exodus 19:10-2), and all the pains taken by Moses and the Israelites themselves (Exodus 19:14, Exodus 19:15, Exodus 19:23), God should still have thought it necessary to interpose with a fresh warning, and to send Moses back from the top of the mount to the bottom, in order to communicate the renewed warning to the people. We can only suppose that, in spite of the instructions previously given and the precautions taken, there were those among the people who were prepared to "break through" the fence, and invade the mount, and who would have done so, to their own destruction (Exodus 19:21), but for this second warning. The special mention of the "priests" (Exodus 19:22, Exodus 19:24) raises the suspicion, that this proud and rebellious spirit was particularly developed among them. Accustomed to the exercise of sacred functions, they may have been inclined to regard their own purity as equal to that of Moses and Aaron; and they may even have resented their exclusion from a sacred spot to which the two sons of Amram were admitted. Apparently, they had conceived that the injunction to go through the recognised ceremonies of purification (Exodus 19:10) did not apply to them, and had neglected to do so, on which account a special command had.to be issued, addressed to them only (Exodus 19:22).
Charge the people lest they break through—i.e; "lest they force a passage through the barrier made by Moses" in accordance with the command given in Exodus 19:12. And many of them perish. Irreverent gazing on holy things was forbidden by the law (Numbers 4:20), and on one occasion (1 Samuel 6:19) was actually punished with death. It did not, however, require a law to make it an offence, natural reason being quite sufficient to teach the duty of reverence.
Let the priests also. It has been objected, that no priests had been as yet appointed, and that we have here therefore an anachronism. But every nation in ancient times had priests, appointed on one principle or another: and the Levitical priesthood must be regarded as having superseded one previously existent, not as the first priesthood known to Israel. We have a second mention of priests, previous to the appointment of Aaron's sons to the office (in Exodus 24:5), which confirms the present passage. Sanctify themselves. The verb used is identical with that which occurs in Exodus 19:10; and there is no reason to believe that any different sanctification was intended. The natural inference is that the priests had neglected to sanctify themselves. (See the introductory paragraph.) Lest the Lord break forth. Compare 2 Samuel 6:8, where we have an instance of such a "breaking forth" upon Uzzah.
The people cannot come up. Moses can only have meant, that the people could not approach the mount unwittingly, since the fence commanded (Exodus 19:12) was made. But to scale the fence, or break through it, was of course possible. (See Exodus 19:13.)
And the Lord said … Away, Get thee down. God wholly rejected the plea of Moses, that there was no need to give an additional warning. He knew best, and would not have issued the order to "go down and charge the people "(Exodus 19:21), unless there had been a need for it. In the abrupt words "Away, get thee down," we may see a rebuke, addressed to Moses, for his folly in thinking that he could change the purposes of God. Thou and Aaron with thee. This is the first express mention of Aaron as called to ascend with Moses. But it is quite possible that he may have accompanied his brother in either or both the previous ascents (Exodus 19:3, Exodus 19:20. Compare Exodus 10:1, Exodus 10:3; Exodus 12:21, Exodus 12:28; etc.) But let not the priests and the people break through. Both the priests and the people were to be again solemnly warned that it would be death to break through the fence. This warning seems to have been sufficient.
So Moses went down. After the sharp rebuke addressed to him in Exodus 19:24, Moses made no further resistance, but returned to the camp, delivered the warning to priests and people, and having so done re-ascended the mount with Aaron.
HOMILETICS
The priestly office does not dispense a man from personal purity, but obliges him the more to it.
Holiness of office, of profession, of function is too often regarded as if it secured, by some occult power, the personal holiness of the individual, or even of the class, exercising it. The priest castes of Egypt, India, and other countries, assumed to stand on a completely different footing from the rest of the community in respect of nearness, and acceptability to God. And both under the Jewish and the Christian dispensation, there has been in different times and countries a vast amount of sacerdotal pretension, a wide-spread disposition to assume that official covers and includes personal holiness. But Holy Scripture abounds in warnings against any such assumption. "Let the priests sanctify themselves." Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, were chosen among the first of the Levitical priests (Exodus 28:1); yet their priestly office did not prevent them from sinning grievously by offering "strange fire before the Lord," and perishing for their impiety (Numbers 10:1, Numbers 10:2). Eli's sons were "sons of Belial" (1 Samuel 2:12), whose "sin was very great before the Lord" (1 Samuel 2:17). Even among the apostles there was a "son of perdition." Priests have to remember—
I. THAT THE PRIESTLY OFFICE DOES NOT SECURE THEM AGAINST BEING TEMPTED. Even Christ, our great High Priest—the only true priest that the world has ever seen, was "in all points tempted like as we are" (Hebrews 4:15). Eli's sons were tempted by greed and fleshly lusts (1 Samuel 2:16, 1 Samuel 2:22); Nadab and Abihu by pride; Judas by covetousness. All men have the same nature, like passions, similar appetites. The priest, after all, is a man. Satan watches for him no less—or rather much more—than for others. It is a greater triumph for him to lead astray the shepherd than the sheep. And the relations of a priest towards his flock are of such a nature—so close, so private sometimes—as to lay him open to special temptations.
II. THAT THE PRIESTLY OFFICE DOES NOT SECURE THEM AGAINST YIELDING TO TEMPTATION. Jesus alone was "in all points tempted, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). "ALL we the rest, although baptised and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things," yield to the temptations which surround us, transgress the Divine law. Nadab, Abihu, Eli's sons, Judas, were not only tempted, but fell. The priests of Judah, towards the close of the independent kingdom, were among those who provoked God the most (Jeremiah 32:32; Zephaniah 3:4). Christian ministers, even at the present day, too often disgrace their profession, bring shame upon their church, and even upon religion itself, by acts of sin or sometimes by scandalous lives, no better than those of the sons of Eli. These terrible examples should be a warning to all of their danger, and should render the minister distrustful of himself, circumspect, vigilant, and above all prayerful. Only by God's help can he hope to stand upright.
III. THAT SIN IS WORSE IN THE PRIEST THAN IN OTHERS, AND WILL ENTAIL A SORER PUNISHMENT. Ministers of Christ pledge themselves by special vows, over and above their baptismal vows, to lead godly lives. They are bound to be examples to the flock. They have greater opportunities of grace than others. Their offences cause greater scandal than the offences of others, and do greater damage to the cause of religion. There is something shocking, even to the worldly man, in the immorality of one whose business in life is to minister in holy things. The impure minister is a hypocrite; and hypocrisy is hateful to God, and even in the sight of man contemptible.
IV. THAT THE PRIESTLY PROFESSION BINDS TO HOLINESS. Priests are they whose office it is to "come near the Lord" (Exodus 19:22)—to draw closer to him than others—to lead others on to him, by exhortation, by example, by intercessory prayer. Without holiness they are impotent to perform their work—they are of no service either to God or man—they do but help forward the work of the devil. Ministering in a holy place, in holy things, with holy words continually in their mouths, if they have not holiness in their hearts, their lives must be a perpetual contradiction, a continual profanity. Again, as already observed, they take special vows: they profess before God and the congregation to have an inward call; they spontaneously promise to live as examples to others; they enter on their position in life on these conditions: they bind themselves. Not to live holy lives is to fly in the face of these obligations—to break the promises made to man and the vows offered to God—to violate faith—to destroy, so far as lies in their power, the great bond of human society. And what must not the offence be to God which they commit, by continually drawing near to him with their lips, when their hearts are far from him? He is "of purer eyes than to behold iniquity." "Without holiness no one shall see him." "Let the priests sanctify themselves."