LEVITICUS 10
This chapter shows us the failure of priesthood in Aaron’s two elder sons, but it also shows in “his sons that were left” how the priesthood was to be maintained [p. 108] in a remnant. So that we see here what answers to present conditions. There has been grievous public failure characterized by the introduction of “strange” elements which do not belong at all to the divine system. In that system, as we have seen in type in the tabernacle, every detail was to be “as Jehovah had commanded”. But Nadab and Abihu “presented strange fire before Jehovah, which he had not commanded them”.
It is significant that it had been said, “And ye shall not go out from the entrance of the tent of meeting seven days, until the day when the days of your consecration are at an end: for seven days shall ye be consecrated” (8: 33). This is connected with keeping the charge. Everything that is of God, all that speaks of Christ and the Spirit, all that is the result of divine grace and working in the saints, is within the divine system. We have to keep the charge — to confess the sufficiency of what is within — and to see that no foreign element is introduced.
It seems evident that Nadab and Abihu went outside for their strange fire, and this has been the secret of all the failure. To bring in outside elements is ruinous. I understand that Nadab means “Liberal”! He represents the popular liberal spirit that would regard restriction to the Lord’s commandment, and to what is spiritual, as narrow-minded and bigoted. Abihu means “He is my father”. This would suggest a claim to be in relationship with God, such as is often now found without the moral conditions which are essential to relationship. There is much said today about the Fatherhood of God, but very little thought of what is suitable to Him.
“Strange fire” is what is of the world or of the flesh [p. 109] introduced into the service of God, where nothing really has place but what is of the Spirit of God. “Strange fire” would be a human imitation of what is divine. There would be great danger of this if a man were not saying “Lord” to Jesus. That does not mean merely using the word “Lord”, but being in the truth and spirit of it; it is the setting aside of man’s will and importance in presence of His supremacy. Then, again, to be divinely preserved from what is “strange” there must be the confession of “Jesus Christ come in flesh”. A divine Person come in Manhood to be the Beginning of everything for God! This involves the complete setting aside of man after the flesh. These are God-given tests (see 1 Corinthians 12: 3; 1 John 4: 1 - 3), and the action of the Spirit or what is “strange” would be evidenced by the presence or absence of these confessions.
The introduction of “strange fire” involves the death of priesthood. In Christendom generally priesthood is dead in a moral sense. I could not say precisely when this took place historically, but very early in the history of the church human elements were introduced; things were brought into the service of God which were not according to divine institution, but according to what pleased men.
The act of Nadab and Abihu — Aaron’s two elder sons — is a type of the public failure of the priesthood as committed to man’s responsibility. I think it can be spiritually discerned that publicly the priesthood has failed, and has come under the judgment of the Lord. But notwithstanding this God would have the full thought of priesthood to be maintained by the two younger sons. Eleazar means “God is helper”, and in him and his brother we see, typically, a [p. 110] remnant in whom the priesthood is maintained by God’s help.
The public failure would naturally discourage and dishearten, and lead to giving up divine thoughts. But we have to see to it that we do not uncover our heads nor rend our clothes (verse 6). The “high caps” speak of holy dignity, the clothes of moral suitability to God, and the anointing oil of power and competency in the Spirit. The thought of a remnant in Scripture is not a fag end of secondary value, but a bit of the original; it includes all that is really for God. All saints constitute the remnant today, though all may not take up or maintain the priestly character which attaches to them according to the will of God. Verses 6 and 7 are encouragement to maintain true priestly exercises and conditions in spite of the public failure. It is right that “the whole house of Israel” should bewail what has happened, but neither the holy dignity nor the moral suitability of the priesthood is to be laid aside; the anointing remains as power.
These two exercises are left to us in a day of most serious public failure; outside we bewail the breakdown and the judgment; but within we may, and must, maintain with God all that is priestly. As to the public position we can only bow in confession of the failure, but in relation to what is divine and spiritual the holy service of God is to be carried on; there is to be no discouragement. It says in verse 7, “Lest ye die”. The priesthood may die through the exercise of will as in Nadab and Abihu, or it may die by being given up through weakness. Naturally we might be so affected by the public failure that we surrender priestly conditions ourselves. The tendency might be to say, “It is all over; things are in such a state that [p. 111] it is no good trying to maintain anything”; and everything priestly for God might be let go. But God would have priestly conditions maintained by you and me and all saints. We are to be found spiritually superior to the natural effect of things, and thus true overcomers. Discouragement leads to uncovering the head and rending the clothes. To “bewail the burning” is a right exercise for the people of God, but at the same time priestly dignity and state, and the holy functions of the priesthood, are to be preserved, not surrendered. 2 Timothy was written by Paul after the public failure was fully manifested to encourage Timothy and ourselves to maintain things spiritually for God. The help of God remains, and is available for us.
“Lest wrath come on all the assembly” (verse 6). It would be a dreadful thing if priestly service ceased. But if a few saints maintain priestly conditions, and are found continually presenting the preciousness of Christ before God, and praying for all saints and all men, things are maintained for the good of “all the assembly”.
Then two everlasting statutes come in which are of permanent importance. “Thou shalt not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, and thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, lest ye die” (verses 9 - 11). The first tendency in presence of public failure is to be discouraged and disheartened. Then, on the other hand, there may be a resorting to that which excites and stimulates in a natural way. There is often a sense of spiritual weakness, and an attempt to make up for it by some kind of natural stimulant. But the bringing in of such things clouds spiritual discernment, and leads to failure in distinguishing “[p. 112] between the holy and the unholy, and between unclean and clean”. And if we cannot distinguish we cannot teach.
This section coming in here would suggest that probably Nadab and Abihu had sinned while under the influence of wine or strong drink. Religious excitement, the exhilarating effect of music, eloquence, and other influences which act on natural sensibilities, are to be avoided if we would preserve spiritual conditions which are suitable to God. Such things only cause people to lose spiritual discernment. Do you think that a person who went in for “Pleasant Sunday Afternoons” and concerts would be able to distinguish between strange fire and divine fire? The priesthood is entirely spiritual, and has to do with a spiritual order of things. It can only be carried on outside the sphere of natural discouragement and natural exhilaration. There are many things which excite nature that would not do violence to the natural conscience, nor even to the unenlightened conscience of a believer. We have to seek divine instruction as to such things, and beware of them, if we would keep ourselves in holy and priestly condition.
The other “everlasting statute” (verse 15), refers to what remains as a positive source of satisfaction and strength for the priesthood, and the priestly family, despite all the failure that has come in. There are “sons” left to eat priestly food, and there is “the oblation that is left” for them to eat (verse 12). “The oblation” is typical, as we have already seen, of all the blessedness and perfection of Christ as found here in holy Manhood for the pleasure and glory of God. If we consider Him we shall find that there was no discouragement there by reason of man’s failure, for it is written, “He shall not faint nor be in haste (or be crushed) till he have set justice in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law” (Isaiah 42: 4). Neither shall we find any natural exhilaration there; He was a true Nazarite to God. In the oblation all was unleavened; there was no corrupting or inflating element present. All that Christ was here for the delight of God is “left” to be “most holy” food for the priesthood in a day of departure and ruin. It is to be eaten “beside the altar”, which suggests preparedness to suffer; for the altar would speak of a suffering Christ, and of a sacrificial spirit in the priesthood as being near to it. Manhood in the power and grace of the Holy Spirit, as seen in Christ, is God’s delight, but it is not acceptable to men. It has the place of suffering and reproach here. The oblation is to be eaten in “a holy place”.
Then “the breast of the wave-offering, and the shoulder of the heave-offering shall ye eat in a clean place, thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee” (verse 14). This is the priestly part of the peace-offerings, and it is shared by all the priestly family — daughters as well as sons. The “daughters” would represent those who are spiritually weaker than “sons”; the female is a weaker vessel (1 Peter 3: 7). But this does not debar them from feeding on the love of Christ, or appropriating His grace for strength of walk The “holy place”, where the oblation is to be eaten, would have a sanctuary reference, but the “clean place” would refer to the purity of our associations as in the fellowship. And the households of the saints would be a “clean place” from which the contaminating influences of the world are excluded. Personally, and in our households, we have to maintain [p. 114] separation from all that is idolatrous and unclean, so that there may be a “clean place” where the wave-breast and the heave-shoulder can be eaten.
All this remains as an “everlasting statute” in spite of the public breakdown of the priesthood. There is a remnant “left” to maintain things by the help of God. The anointing remains; Christ remains in all His perfection as set forth in the oblation; the fellowship remains, too, with its precious sources of satisfaction and strength in the love and power of Christ. As we avail ourselves of these things the priesthood, and all the conditions suitable to the service of God, will be maintained in the vigour of life. So that this chapter, solemn and exercising as it is, is really most encouraging as showing how divine resources are “left” to us in the day of failure, and that priestly service may be continued for the pleasure of God. May we be enabled to take it up, by God’s grace, in faith and love, and with all the spiritual exercise that is becoming!
But there is another important lesson ere this section of the book closes! The goat of the sin-offering should have been eaten by “the sons of Aaron that were left”, but instead of that it had been burnt! This is not the first and public failure, as seen in the Christian profession generally, but it is failure in the reserved and preserved remnant. This has a serious voice for us as indicating a failure that is very likely to be found in a preserved remnant. I think it indicates where we do very often fail.
Moses “diligently sought the goat of the sin-offering”. It was a matter of great concern to him to know how it had been dealt with. “The people” (9: 15), “the assembly” (10: 17), had a great place in Moses’ heart; he was one who had known what it was [p. 115] to bear their iniquity on his spirit before Jehovah — precious type of Him who took it all upon Himself not only in priestly affection and solicitude, but as the actual sin-offering. If we are in sympathy with the thoughts of Christ we shall feel the state of the people of God, and shall realize the necessity that exists for the sin-offering. And we shall not only have a divine estimate of the departure and failure, but we shall eat the sin-offering. We shall identify ourselves with the sin of the people in the grace of Him who has been in the truest and fullest way the Sin-offering for them. This is priestly privilege of a “most holy” character. What spirituality — what nearness to Christ — what freedom from self-occupation and self-consideration does it demand! Alas! must we not own that we are much like Aaron and his sons in this matter? We fail to meet the mind of the Lord, and to be in sympathy with the heart of Christ, as to the state and sin of the assembly at large, and as to the grace which would do in spirit what Christ did actually and sacrificially — that is, make the sin of the people our own. I believe that one result of our not feeling the state of the assembly in priestly sensibilities, and in accord with the sin-offering aspect of Christ’s death, is that we have to be made to feel it personally, and the sorrow and suffering of it, by coming into contact with it in those with whom we walk. It is sometimes as though the Lord said, “If you do not feel the failure of the assembly sympathetically with me, you shall feel it, and know the sorrow of it, in your own associations”.
It is easier to burn the sin-offering than to eat it. There may be righteous indignation against evil, and a dealing with it in a judicial spirit, which wholly fails [p. 116] in this priestly element which so honours God, and which brings the priesthood into such intimate accord with the death of Christ. We may judge evil, and withdraw from it, without ever making it our own in a priestly way. The maintenance of what is due to the Lord is most important. Things that are evil must be dealt with according to the holiness that becomes God’s house. But in what spirit is discipline to be exercised in whatever form it becomes necessary? It is to be exercised in the spirit of those who have made the sin their own in confession before God. We may judge with a legal severity and hardness which is not in keeping with a dispensation pre-eminently marked by priestly grace, and under which the restoration of the offender is always the end in view. But to eat the sin-offering would be to estimate the sin according to God, and according to the death of Christ which was necessary to put it away, but so to make it our own that our spirits are entirely free from harshness or hardness, but are in accord with the grace in which Christ became the Sin-offering.
Aaron was under the pressure of his own exercises, and of the severe discipline of God upon himself; he was not sufficiently at leisure from himself to eat the sin-offering. He had so much trouble and sorrow of his own that he was not free to take up the exercise that the whole state of Israel called for. Is it not often so with ourselves? “Such things have befallen me”. Aaron did not excuse himself; he owned his weakness and inability, and when he did so “Moses heard it; and it was good in his sight”.
It is part of priestly responsibility and privilege to take up the exercise of eating the sin-offering for the people of God — the assembly. “He has given it to [p. 117] you that ye might bear the iniquity of the assembly, to make atonement for them before Jehovah”. It is much to the Lord to be able to look down and see even a few hearts that feel about the sin of the assembly as it ought to be felt about, and in accord with His own death for that sin. But Aaron here represents those who have a sense of what ought to be, and of what is suitable to God, but who have to confess inability to take it up. I would not speak for others, but personally I think this is about as far as one could go. If so, it is better to own it. The Lord can bear with confessed weakness and failure; He cannot support pretension. It is a beautiful touch of tender grace that when Moses heard it, “it was good in his sight”. The Lord has often to be satisfied, if one may so say, with a measure of exercise and spirituality that comes short of what His heart desires. He would have us to be sympathetic with Him as to “the iniquity of the assembly”, and to bear it in our spirits. He looks for this. May He give us grace to eat the sin-offering! Or, at any rate, to own how becoming it is that we should do so, and to confess with lowly hearts how little spiritual ability we have for this function of the holy priesthood!
It is striking and suggestive that this very comprehensive section of the book — dealing with the priesthood in its original institution, in its normal characteristics, in its failure, in its continuance through God’s help in a remnant after the public failure — should end on the note that is struck in the closing verses of the chapter! May its lesson not be overlooked or forgotten!