And when Moses heard this explanation, he was satisfied. Sermons
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 Leviticus 9:15, 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, 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" (verse 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 (comp. 1 Corinthians 10:7). 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 (verse 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 verse 19.) So Jesus takes the faults of his children upon himself (see Matthew 8:16, 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, 20, 21). 3. But what is the import of Aaron's words (verse 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 verses 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. Deuteronomy 12:7; 1 Samuel 1:7, 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" (John 10:50, 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.
Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering? Part of this goat being a sin offering, should have been eaten — I mean the shoulder and breast allotted to the priest — but it was all burned contrary to the law, for which Moses was justly offended, having seen so lately God's wrath upon the other fault. The answer of Aaron you have in verse 19, in effect and sense as if he should have said, "I confess and acknowledge the ordinance of God is to be kept, and we are to eat with joy of the parts allotted unto us of the sacrifice for sin; the blood was not brought into the Tabernacle of the testimony. But how could I eat with joy in so heavy and woful a case of my children? Compelled, therefore, with the greatness of my grief, I did what I did," &c. At which answer, saith our chapter, Moses was content, so bearing with his infirmity, considering his great sorrow, but not leaving an example to forgive them that maliciously transgress the commandment of God. And as Moses is said to have stayed his anger, so you see the Lord Himself did, not punishing again this fault. It layeth open unto us the great kindness of our gracious God, of whom the psalm saith, "He is full of compassion and mercy, long suffering and of great goodness. He will not always be chiding, neither keepeth He His anger for ever. He dealeth not with us after our sins, neither rewardeth us according to our wickedness," &c. Secondly, you may see here how these ceremonial laws gave place to necessity, as David also in necessity did eat the shewbread, which was otherwise unlawful for him to do; and Hezekiah admitted to the Passover those that were not cleansed. But for moral laws there is no dispensation for corporal necessity, but a constant course must be held in obeying them. For it is not necessary that I should live; but it is ever necessary that I should live righteously. Lastly, in that Moses admitted a reasonable excuse, we may learn to abhor pride and to do the like; pride, I say, which scorneth to hear what may be said against the conceit we have once harboured. A modest man or woman doth not thus; but even for his servant or his maid holy Job had an ear, and did not despise their judgment, their complaint, or grief, when they thought themselves evil entreated by him. The example of God Himself is instead of a thousand, who both heard and accepted of Abimelech his excuse for taking away Abraham's wife, "I know," saith He, "that thou didst it even with an upright mind, and therefore I kept thee also that thou shouldest not sin against Me," &c. Shall the Lord be thus sweet, and we so dogged, so churlish, so stern and sour, that no excuse may serve for a thing done amiss if once we have taken notice of it? Beware, beware, and remember your own frailty well. A stubborn frowardness hath hurt many, sweet gentleness and courtesy never any; but though wicked men were unthankful, yet our gracious God was pleased.(Bp. Babington.) Such things have befallen me I. THAT SORE AFFLICTIONS SOMETIMES BEFALL THE SERVANTS OF GOD.1. The death of two sons by one stroke. 2. The distressing character of their death. 3. The prohibition of any expression of grief. II. THAT UNDER THE PRESSURE OF SORE AFFLICTIONS THE SERVANTS OF GOD ARE REQUIRED TO ATTEND TO RELIGIOUS DUTIES. 1. The obligatoriness of such duties is not annulled by trial. Trust in God, and prayer and praise to him, are binding in sickness as in health, in sorrow as m joy. So are all religious duties. 2. The need of the help which attention to such duties affords is not diminished by trial, but rather increased. III. THAT UNDER THE PRESSURE OF SORE AFFLICTIONS THE MIND AND HEART OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD OFTEN SEEM UNEQUAL TO A PROPER DISCHARGE OF RELIGIOUS DUTIES. On the day when this calamity befell them, Aaron and his surviving sons did not accurately discharge their sacred duties. It was expressly commanded that the flesh of those sin offerings, the blood of which was not carried into the Tabernacle of the congregation, should be eaten by the officiating priests (Leviticus 6:24-30). Instead of doing this, Aaron and his sons burnt the flesh of the sinoffering (vers. 16-18). The error may be viewed as — 1. An oversight caused by the things which had befallen them. In great griefs the heart seems dead to every feeling but the predominant one, and the mind seems incapable of sustained attention to anything except what is related to its griefs. Meditation upon the holy Scriptures, prayer, spiritual aspirations, communion with God — these seem impossible to the sorrow-stricken soul. Needing them so urgently, yet the soul seems unable properly to attend to them. 2. Intentional because of felt unfitness to eat of the "most holy" flesh. This seems to receive most support from the words following the text: "Such things have befallen me, and if I had eaten the sin-offering to-day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord?" The bereaved father seems to have been not only sorrowful, but deeply awed and humbled by the things which had befallen him, and to have felt that if he had eaten the "most holy" flesh in such a frame of mind it would not have been acceptable to God. His case reminds us of some who absent themselves from the sacrament of the Lord's supper because of a sincere feeling of unworthiness. But let such persons remember that Aaron's sense of unworthiness did not disqualify him for eating the flesh of the sin-offering; he rather erred in not doing so. IV. THAT WHEN THE MIND AND HEART OF THE SUFFERING SERVANTS OF GOD SEEM THUS UNFITTED FOR RELIGIOUS DUTIES, GOD DOES NOT ACCOUNT SUCH UNFITNESS AS SIN. When Moses heard the apology of Aaron "he was content"; and we are warranted in regarding his "content" as an evidence that God also was satisfied with the reason assigned by the high priest for his deviation from the line of duty. Surely the Lord knew the intense anguish which His servant was suffering, and regarded him with deepest, tenderest pity. "The Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy." Here is consolation for the sorrow-stricken soul. If in the day of your sore afflictions you seem to have no heart for worship, your efforts to pray end in what seems to you to be utter failure, and religious thought and emotion seem to have entirely departed from you, remember the touching words of Aaron in his great calamity, "Such things have befallen me"; remember also those other words, "And when Moses heard that, he was content." (W. Jones.) (Bp. Babington.) When Moses heard that, he was content. — Some explanations carry their own conviction. We know the voice of honesty when we hear it; there is a frankness about it that can hardly be mistaken. But the meaning lies deeper; there can be no contentment in the presence of violated law. Where a law is violated wantonly, nature can have no rest; she says, "I cannot sleep to-night." Thank God she cannot! When she can forget her Maker, the end will have come in darkness, and there will in very deed, in spirit and effect, be no more any God. Law must be satisfied in one of two ways. Law can rest upon the ashes of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying, "Judgment has been inflicted, righteousness has been vindicated, and the seal of condemnation has been attached to the testimony of evil"; and mighty, imperial, inexorable law sits on the desolated cities — "content." That is not the way in which the Lord would bring about His own contentment; still, there is the law: fall upon this stone and be broken, or the stone will fall upon you and you will be ground to powder. The gospel is a savour of life unto life, or of death unto death. God would have law obeyed: all His ordinances carried out in simple obedience, every statute turned into conduct, every appointment represented in obedience and praise. Then the universe, faithful to her Creator, the stars never disloyal to their Creator-King — the whole creation will say — "Content."(J. Parker, D. D.). People Aaron, Abihu, Eleazar, Elzaphan, Israelites, Ithamar, Mishael, Moses, Nadab, UzzielPlaces TemanTopics Angry, Content, Hearing, Hearkeneth, Longer, Pleasing, Seemed, Sight, Well-pleasingOutline 1. Aadab and Abihu, for offering strange fire, are burnt by fire6. Aaron and his sons are forbidden to mourn for them 8. The priests are forbidden wine when they are to go into the tabernacle 12. The law of eating the holy things 16. Aaron's excuse for transgressing thereof Dictionary of Bible Themes Leviticus 10:16-20Library Strange Fire'And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He commanded them not. 2. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. 3. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh Me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace. 4. And Moses called Mishael … Alexander Maclaren—Expositions of Holy Scripture December the Thirteenth the Holy and the Profane Sixth Day. Holiness and Glory. Brief Directions How to Read the Holy Scriptures once Every Year Over, with Ease, Profit, and Reverence. The Value of this Doctrine The Third Commandment The Right Understanding of the Law No Sorrow Like Messiah's Sorrow Man's Chief End The Second Commandment Leviticus Links Leviticus 10:20 NIVLeviticus 10:20 NLT Leviticus 10:20 ESV Leviticus 10:20 NASB Leviticus 10:20 KJV Leviticus 10:20 Bible Apps Leviticus 10:20 Parallel Leviticus 10:20 Biblia Paralela Leviticus 10:20 Chinese Bible Leviticus 10:20 French Bible Leviticus 10:20 German Bible Leviticus 10:20 Commentaries Bible Hub |
    |