Leviticus 10:1-7
Nadab and Abihu were the eldest sons of Aaron; he had two other sons Eleazar and Ithamar (Exodus 6:23). The glory of the Lord had appeared to all the people (9:23). It is believed the sons of Aaron were trying to burn incense to shield the people from God's glory. A censer was probably like a long-handled pan that was used to burn incense in. They were supposed to obtain fire from the main altar of burnt offering. Fire had just come out of the glory of the Lord and consumed the offering. The fire they put in their censer with the incense was profane, strange or unauthorized fire. This may be that it was taken from the wrong place, or just offered in a way or for a purpose not specified, making it profane. The same fire that had come from the Lord for the offering was the same fire of judgment that consumed them.
The overriding lesson: the priesthood is serious business. Moses brought this theme to Aaron. God must be regarded as holy by the priests and represented to the people in a way that glorifies Him. God is very specific and very serious about our worship and how we approach him. He isn't interested in what we bring or our opinion. He is God; he tells us how it will be. We choose to obey or suffer the consequences.
The priests could not touch the dead bodies. Aaron's cousins, the closest family members, took care of carrying them from the tabernacle. Aaron and his family couldn't leave the tabernacle to mourn for them. They were not allowed to mourn within their function of the priesthood. They didn't dare disobey. Their disobedience would bring God's wrath on all the people, since they represented the people before God. This was part of their responsibility. As such, the people had the responsibility to take care of the family matter and wail and mourn over their death.
The anointing oil was on the priests. The process had been started and it was not to be interrupted.
Leviticus 10:8-11
Aaron and his sons were not to drink wine or intoxicating drink when they went into the tabernacle. There are a couple ideas to consider. First, wine came from fermentation; similar to leaven, it was a corruption that was symbolic of sin. Second, and probably more importantly is the Lord is setting his priest apart from other priests who practiced ritual intoxication. There is some indication this made its way into temple worship in Isaiah's days.
7 But they also have erred through wine,
And through intoxicating drink are out of the way;
The priest and the prophet have erred through intoxicating drink,
They are swallowed up by wine,
They are out of the way through intoxicating drink;
They err in vision, they stumble in judgment.
8 For all tables are full of vomit and filth;
No place is clean. (Isaiah 28:7-8)
Third, Peter exhorts us in a way that shows why the priests needed to avoid strong drink.
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. (1 Peter 5:8)
Peter's use of the word 'sober' was more of the idea of being alert, serious, reasonable and self-controlled. However, there is nothing more 'un-sober' and irreverent than intoxication by a priest. Since we are a kingdom of priests, we have to be wise about the use of strong drink.
Finally, it is one of the priests' primary roles to distinguish between the holy and unholy, and between the unclean and clean. They were to maintain these boundaries:
Everything that was holy (consecrated to deity) was clean (ritually purified). That which was not holy (therefore profane or common) could be either clean or unclean. It was the duty of the priests to maintain the distinctions between these categories, and they did so by maintaining what is called the sacred compass. In this concept the center of sacred space was the Most Holy Place, where the ark was. Radiating from that point out were concentric zones of holiness, each with its requirements of levels of purity. The priests enforced the rules that would maintain the appropriate level of holiness and purity for each zone. (Matthews, V. H., Chavalas, M. W., & Walton, J. H. (2000). The IVP Bible background commentary: Old Testament (electronic ed., Le 10:10). InterVarsity Press.)
Deuteronomy 24:8 offers an example of these priestly instructions.
God could not abide in the unholy and the unclean could not survive in the midst of a holy God. Is this a cruel, aloof God? Not in the least. If this bothers us, it reveals a too high view of sin-fallen man and a low view of God.
Contemporary Christians might compare this thinking to the way C. S. Lewis portrays Aslan in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Upon finding out that Aslan is a lion, not a man, Susan asks, "Is he quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion." To which Mrs. Beaver responds, "If there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they're either braver than most or else just silly." A young Lucy reiterates Susan's question: "Then he isn't safe?" Mr. Beaver then answers, "Safe? . . . Don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you." [Thiessen, Matthew. Jesus and the Forces of Death (p. 12). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.]
Leviticus 10:12-15
Moses instructs the priests of their provision as given to them by the Lord. It was theirs, as provided by God through the people. It was to be eaten as instructed. Notice the different locations.
- The remaining grain offering, it was to be eaten without leaven beside the altar, a holy place.
- The breast of the wave offering and thigh of the heave offering were to be eaten in a clean place. It could be shared with others.
In verses 16-20 we see that Aaron's sons didn't follow the direction and eat the sacrifice but allowed it to be burned up outside the camp. Aaron explained that with all that happened today he couldn't eat it. Moses agreed and stopped.
Leviticus 10:16-20
Moses inquiry was to make sure the sacrifices were offering correctly, particularly after the loss of Nadab and Abihu. The sin offering (9:3 and 9:15) were burned up. Since the blood was not taken into the tabernacle, parts of the sin offering were to be eaten by the priests. This was their way of bearing the built of the congregation before the Lord. Moses was angry. Their failure might bring a similar fate to that of Nadab and Abihu, thereby threatening proper temple worship.
Aaron offers his reason. They offered their sin offering, it was done correctly. Then 'such things have befallen me!" Aaron said. He speaks of the death of his sons which he could not grieve or mourn in any way. However, fasting would have been proper and apparently accepted.
There is another thought, that Aaron was concerned the act of eating that sin offering would cause the Lord's anger. Was the sin offering burned up when the fire went out from the Lord against the sons of "Aaron?
The purification offering was believed to absorb the impurities that it was presented to remedy. This concept of ritual absorption is common in the ancient Near East. When a great amount is absorbed (as on the Day of Atonement), the entire offering is burned so as to dispose of the impurity. But on most occasions the priest's eating of the prescribed parts plays a role in the purification process. Milgrom suggests that it symbolized holiness swallowing up impurity. If this is so, Milgrom is right in understanding Aaron's explanation to Moses here as reflecting his fearful caution. The presence of his sons' corpses in the sanctuary area may have greatly increased the amount of impurity absorbed by the purification offering, making it lethal to the priest.
[Matthews, V. H., Chavalas, M. W., & Walton, J. H. (2000). The IVP Bible background commentary: Old Testament (electronic ed., Le 10:16). InterVarsity Press.]
Moses accepted Aaron's reasoning.
©2022 Calvary Chapel Sweetwater
Facebook