EXPOSITION
THE COMMAND TO ABSTAIN FROM WINE (Leviticus 10:8-3). 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.
Wine and other intoxicating liquors (שֵׁכר, whence the Greek word σίκερα, Luke 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 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:8; 1 Timothy 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 Ephesians 5:18, Ephesians 5:19, with the physical excitement caused by wine, the former being commended and the latter forbidden.
That ye may teach the children of Israel. This shows that one part of the priest's office was teaching the Law (cf. Deuteronomy 24:8; Malachi 2:7).
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 (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 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 Hosea 6:6; Matthew 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 you—the flesh of the sin offering—to 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,' Leviticus 6:1-3.) 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. Exodus 28:38 and Numbers 18:1, where Aaron is said to bear the iniquity of the holy things and of the sanctuary; and Ezekiel 4:4-26, 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. Isaiah 53:11, "He shall bear their iniquities," and John 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 Ezekiel 10:17).
HOMILETICS
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 (Malachi 2:1); and when he strikes at the priest, he sometimes strikes at the prophet in the same breath (Jeremiah 5:30, Jeremiah 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 Ephesians 4:7-49).
HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE
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.
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 (אהל מועד, 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. Exodus 25:22; Exodus 29:42, Exodus 29:43; Exodus 30:6, Exodus 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 Exodus 3:5; Exodus 19:12; Joshua 5:15).
(3) We should never forget that in our Christian assemblies God is no less certainly present (see Matthew 18:20; Luke 24:36; Revelation 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 (1 Timothy 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 (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 21:22). In some cases "holy" meats might be eaten by the priests and their families, but not by ordinary Israelites (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 7:19); or the flesh of the peace offering eaten on the third day, even by a priest, is profaned, and the priest punishable (Leviticus 7:18; Leviticus 19:7, Leviticus 19:8). Unclean persons must not eat of the holy things on pain of excommunication (Leviticus 7:20, Leviticus 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 Isaiah 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" (James 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 (Hebrews 1:1, Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 2:3, Hebrews 2:4).
(2) The duty of teaching the laws of the Old Testament devolved upon the priests (Deuteronomy 24:8; Nehemiah 8:2, Nehemiah 8:8; Jeremiah 18:18; Malachi 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 (2 Timothy 2:15; Titus 1:7-56). 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.
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" (Leviticus 21:6, Leviticus 21:22). It was therefore "most holy," as typifying Christ (John 6:33). He is "most holy" in the mystery of his birth, as "coming down from heaven" (Luke 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 (Matthew 26:26; John 12:24; 1 Corinthians 11:23-46). The Lord's table is furnished from the altar that was without the camp (Hebrews 13:10-58).
(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 (1 Corinthians 5:6-46). He is the Truth—Truth itself—Truth 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" (Leviticus 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 Leviticus 21:22), and equally points to Christ. Both were alike the priests' due or appointment (Exodus 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 1 Corinthians 10:18-46).
(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 2 Corinthians 6:14-47; James 4:4; 1 John 2:15).—J.A.M.
Moses and Aaron an allegory.
Moses may be taken as the impersonation of the Law which was given by his hand (see Luke 16:29; Acts 15:21). Hence the "body of Moses," about which Michael disputed with Satan, is by some supposed to denote the substance of the Law (Jude 1:9). In this view he appeared upon the mount of transfiguration, surrendering to Christ, who, in like manner, impersonated his gospel (Matthew 17:3-40). 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 (Matthew 27:50, Mat 27:51; 2 Corinthians 3:7; Hebrews 9:3, Hebrews 9:8; Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 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 Leviticus 9:15, Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 4:12; Leviticus 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' (Leviticus 6:16, Leviticus 6:17; Leviticus 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" (John 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" (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 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 Leviticus 10:19.) So Jesus takes the faults of his children upon himself (see Matthew 8:16, Matthew 8:17; 1 Peter 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 (Romans 5:9, Romans 5:20, Romans 5:21).
3. But what is the import of Aaron's words (Leviticus 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 Leviticus 10:4-3), 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. Deuteronomy 12:7; 1Sa 1:7, 1 Samuel 1:8; Hosea 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 Colossians 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
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 (Exodus 29:42; Numbers 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" (Romans 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. (Malachi 1:8), nor the second best, but the very best we can bring—the 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 (Leviticus 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 (1 Peter 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.
Instruction as well as sacrifice.
These words point to—
I. A SECONDARY DUTY OF THE PRIESTHOOD—INSTRUCTION. 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 Deuteronomy 33:8-5; Malachi 2:7; Hosea 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.
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. (Leviticus 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. (Leviticus 10:14.) The whole congregation were to "bewail the burning which the Lord had kindled" (Leviticus 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. (Leviticus 10:16-3.) 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 (Leviticus 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.
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 those—it may be many, at any rate a few—who 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 (Psalms 41:12).
V. The abiding favour and friendship of the Lord (Psalms 125:2).
VI. The hope of eternal life in the presence of God (2 Timothy 4:6).—C.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
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. (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 10:12-3). "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.