And Aaron said unto Moses, &c.— Though Moses had addressed Eleazar and Ithamar only; Aaron, convinced that the reproof concerned himself most, offers, in apology both for them and himself, that the misfortunes of the day had prevented him and them from feasting upon the sin-offering, though they had so far performed their duty as to offer it: but, as a cheerful heart ought to accompany festivals, and holy things should not be eaten in mourning, (Deuteronomy 26:14.) he thought it best to omit this festival in his present melancholy circumstances. Conformably to this opinion of Aaron, God expresses his abhorrence of the sacrifices of sinners by saying, they shall be unto them as the bread of mourners; all that eat thereof shall be polluted, Hosea 9:4; Hosea 1.e. those who partake thereof shall be legally unclean, and unfit for eating of things consecrated to God. This appears to be the plain meaning of Aaron's apology. The answer satisfied Moses, (Leviticus 10:20.) for where the heart is right, the law of God will overlook some defects in the externals of religion. God always prefers mercy to sacrifice; see 2 Chronicles 30:18-20. Dr. Shuckford, however, takes the import of Aaron's apology to be, that the ministrations already performed, had called down upon him the judgments which had been inflicted: that for this reason he feared they had profaned the services of the day, and therefore he did not presume to go on with them; but had burned the goat, instead of reserving it to be eaten according to the orders which he should have observed, if their officiating had been so conducted, as to give him reason to think it would have been accepted in the sight of the Lord.
Note; 1. Holy zeal in God's cause is laudable: but though we condemn, we should hear what may be alledged in mitigation of the offender. 2. We are not forbidden to feel, though we are forbidden to find fault with God's dealings. 3. Worldly sorrows are often great interruptions to our holy duties: the bitter remembrance breaks in, and discomposes us. 4. Moses is satisfied: and Jesus, our High-Priest, is a gracious Master, and is tenderly touched with the feeling of our infirmities.
Reflections on the sin of Nadab and Abihu.
The crime of Nadab and Abihu is generally thought to have consisted in their kindling with a fire, different from that which burned continually on the altar of burnt-offerings, the incense which their office of priest obliged them to offer up to God every morning and evening in the holy place. It was necessary that the profanation of so august a ceremony should be punished after so exemplary a manner, as might serve for ever to deter all others from celebrating it unworthily for the future. The crimes of persons in eminent stations, and who are exposed to the sight of all the world, spread their contagion upon as many as are witnesses of them. Severity, in some degree and on some occasions, is the soul of a law; especially when it is notified to those who are obliged to submit to it: and indulgence is usually of dangerous consequence, especially at the first enacting of any statute. One of the heralds of the Gospel began his ministry with a clap of thunder: some of the first rays he shot from his eyes were mortal, and the death of two of his perfidious disciples was the seal of his apostleship.
Besides, Nadab and Abihu, upon whom great favours had been heaped by God, had greater motives than their brothers, strictly to observe the laws which were promulgated on that formidable mount, where they had the privilege of seeing the symbols of the Divine Presence without being consumed. Accordingly they were punished for their profanation, at the very instant they committed it. A vapour, subtile and inflamed, like that of lightning, which penetrates porous bodies, and which does not act but upon those matters which have some sort of solidity, pierced their garments, but left no mark upon them, and yet slew the men who wore them, either by suffocation, or some other way not described by Moses; who only says, Leviticus 10:2 there went out fire from the Lord, and destroyed them; and they died before the Lord. It should be observed, that the higher the station of these sons of Aaron was, and the more distinguishing the favours they had received, the more provoking was their affront, in attempting to adulterate an ordinance of God's institution. Common fire, they thought, might serve the purpose of burning incense, as well as that which was held more sacred: at least, in the gaiety or rather haughtiness of their hearts, they were minded to make the experiment, even in opposition to the divine command; and therefore it was just and requisite in God, (especially in the beginning of the priesthood, when one alteration of a divine precept might in process of time be productive of many more,) to inflict an exemplary punishment, that others might hear and fear, and not commit the like abomination.
The stroke which deprived Nadab and Abihu of their lives was sufficient, one might think, to make their father Aaron die with grief: and yet Moses obliged him to set bounds to his affliction. He prevented the excess of it by a terrible maxim; but such a one as ought to be received with an entire submission by all those, who, like worthy disciples of the laws of GOD, love nothing so much as Him. This maxim was, that order requires that God should be glorified, either by the obedience of those who live under his laws, or by the destruction of those who dare to oppugn them; and is the precise meaning of those words in Leviticus 10:3 this is that which the Lord spake, saying, I WILL BE SANCTIFIED IN THEM THAT COME NIGH ME.
Moses forbad Aaron to shew any of those tokens of grief, which might cause it to be thought that he had more love for his children, than zeal for the glory of that GOD who had condemned them to perish after so tragical a manner. He would not allow the high-priest himself, nor the two sons that still remained to him, to rend their clothes, as was the custom in cases of extreme sorrow, or to tear their hair, or take off their priestly ornaments from their heads. He forbad them all such kinds of behaviour as might give room for suspicion, that the death even of such near relations could make them forget the service of their God. As, says a Jewish Doctor, it was anciently an indecent thing to appear before kings with any tokens of grief; so it would have been a profanation for any one to come into the presence of God with a concern, which was capable of making him forfeit the privilege of approaching him. And, above all, Moses would suffer neither Aaron, nor the rest of his sons, to go out of the tabernacle, till they had quite discharged those functions which occasioned their going in.
The command given to these holy men on this occasion, became a law for the future in the commonwealth of Israel. It was a maxim of the Jews, that if the high-priest should happen to be informed of the death of any of his relations while he was in the exercise of his office, he was bound to continue in it. One of their canons speaks thus: in case a priest, of a lower rank, being in the sanctuary, shall hear the death of a friend, for whom he ought to mourn; he shall forbear the exercise of his office, because he is in affliction, though he go not out of the tabernacle.—But if the high-priest continues the service, even when he mourns, he is not guilty of profanation: only it is not lawful for him to eat of the consecrated food. Natural reason has prescribed some of these laws to the Gentiles, at least it has made them imitate the Hebrews therein, and transfer them from one nation to another.*
* See Maimonid. de introitu in Sacrif. c. ii. sect. 6, &c. Apollodor. Biblioth. lib. iii, c. 14. p. 235. and AElian Hist. var. lib. iii. c. 3. p. 63. See likewise in the following authors several examples of the constancy of fathers, &c. Val. Maxim. lib. v. c. 5. p. 251. and Tit. Liv. lib. ii. c. 8. p. 25.
Moses, after having thus satisfied the laws of religion, resolved likewise to satisfy those of nature, which require the shedding tears for unhappy relations, whatever the crime might be which brought their unhappiness upon them. He therefore allowed those of Aaron's family, who were not actually employed in the sacerdotal function, to bewail the tragical death of Nadab and Abihu.
Perhaps it may seem to some, that Moses was too severe in straitening the laws of nature; and perhaps too, that constancy with which he endeavoured to inspire the soul of Aaron, may appear more worthy of those who aim at an heroical ferocity in their great actions, than of such whose hearts, from maxims of religion, ought to be more soft and pitiful. Should not a father in such circumstances, be permitted to give some time to the indulgence of a grief, which the fatal end of two of his children occasioned in him? Should faith and religion restrain our tears, when we see those, whom nature has so closely united to us, die in obduracy and impenitence? Was there any comfort which could balance such a reflection as this, My children are dead in their sins; and the day which I gave them, has opened the way to an eternal night of misery! Can that grief be excessive, which is caused by the loss of a soul?
We answer, men should be extremely cautious in judging or determining concerning the eternal state of their neighbour. But, in case we had been assured by a divine revelation, that those, to whom we were united by the most tender ties of nature, should be sacrificed for ever to the justice of heaven, it would behove us, even in that case, to resign them to the will of God. The excess of grief, which we should feel even then, would be the result of a carnal principle, and a heart self-deceived in the motive wherewith it was inspired. Were our sole concern occasioned by the loss of a soul, or by our zeal for the glory of God; or were it not chiefly on account of those ties which bind between a father and a son; in a word, if the motives were purely spiritual, if a pure and refined charity were the cause or the result of our tears, whence comes it that certain particular objects make us shed them, rather than others of equal importance? How happens it that we see every day, with coldness and indifference, a great part even of nations apparently running headlong in the highway of destruction? Is it less contrary to the glory of God, that such numbers of people should be lost by their sins, than one of our friends?—than our father or our children?—If our zeal were disentangled from carnal bands, would it not diffuse itself far and near? would it not equally extend itself to all who rush forward to their own ruin?—The love we have for God, ought always to be the grand principle of that we shew towards men. We are obliged to love them, because, like us, they bear his image; because, like us, they are called to the same glory. When we see a sinner venturing his salvation by a criminal procedure, then should we be affected. Thus it was that our Lord JESUS CHRIST, placing himself in that period in which mercy was still offered to the ungrateful Jerusalem, and in which she had it still in her power to accept of it; groaned at her obduracy, and deplored the abuse she made of that precious time which he still enjoyed. But if a long series of wickedness, if a total perseverance in rebellion, or rather, if an infallible revelation should assure us, that such a man is finally lost, then ought our love to return to its centre, and be swallowed in the bosom of its Creator, from whence it first sprang:—Henceforth know we no man after the flesh.—If any man love not the Lord JESUS CHRIST, let him be anathema, 2 Corinthians 5:16. 1 Corinthians 16:22.
Aaron had not received any revelation of this nature. He might therefore hope, that the flesh being destroyed, the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, 1 Corinthians 5:5. And, accordingly, severe as were the orders of Moses, Aaron was convinced that they were just. He silently adored the divine hand, which, though armed with thunder, was not the less worthy of his homage. He was dumb, he opened not his mouth, because it was God that did it, Psalms 39:9.