THE FAILURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD
THE FAILURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD
JT This chapter shows how the priestly service began. It is a sad reflection that will, independency, was found in the sons of Aaron at the very outset.
ANW I suppose the fire here would be the vindication of God’s rights. It is very different from the outshining of the glory in the last verse of the previous chapter.
JT In the previous chapter, “there went out fire from before Jehovah, and consumed on the altar the burnt offering, and the pieces of fat”; The fire consumed the burnt-offering, instead of devouring the lawless men as in this chapter. It says, “there went out fire from before Jehovah, and devoured them”.
ANW I was thinking of the people falling on their faces; the contrast between the people there and the two sons of Aaron here.
JT In chapter 9 there is a worshipful spirit in the people. Here it is lawlessness. Chapter 9 would show the appreciation of Christ, as offered, I suppose.
ANW Whereas, in chapter 10, God has to “hallow” Himself by devouring the lawless men. It says in verse 3, “I will be hallowed in them that come near me”.
JT It reminds us of the beginning of things in the assembly and how God vindicated Himself in dealing with evil in Ananias and Sapphira.
FL I suppose the point of the thing was, that they used a different kind of fire than that which was usual?
JT “Strange fire” would be in contrast to that.
FL Do you not think we find the same principle in the assembly?
JT Some other principle of judgment than that which is from God. The word strange suggests the [p. 159] leading thought. It indicates some principle of testing or judgment other than that which is of God. They offered strange fire, “which he had not commanded them”. There was a specific command about it apparently. One is reminded how men have been placed in responsibility, like Adam. How God has given a test by which we prove whether we are obedient or the contrary. Here it is said, “he had not commanded them”.
PHP There was nothing to be gained by offering strange fire. One wonders what their incentive was to do it. I suppose it was allowed as a testimony that the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God.
JT The sin was all the more reprehensible, for evidently there was no temptation.
PHP I was thinking of Acts 5. There was no occasion for the sin that is seen there either.
AFM Do you not think there was some natural excitement which produced this action?
JT The instruction which follows may suggest that. They were clearly governed by the mind of the flesh. These men, Judas, and Ananias and Sapphira, show what the flesh is. In the most favoured circumstances and without any provocation, it is not subject to the law of God. It is essentially lawless.
ARS Why is it in connection with the strange fire that the Lord Himself acts in judgment, whereas when the man gathered sticks upon the sabbath day all the congregation stoned him?
JT The latter happened outside; this happened in the sanctuary before Jehovah, therefore He must act Himself. Just as we were remarking about Acts 5, it was a sin against the Holy Spirit. The gathering of sticks was public. It is said, ‘while the children of Israel were in the wilderness‘ without giving the year or the month. It is within that period during which the children of Israel “were in the wilderness”, Numbers 15:32. It was an occurrence in that period of time. Whereas here it is “before Jehovah”. It says, “they offered strange fire before Jehovah”.
CB I suppose what the saints can detect God lets them deal with?
JT Yes. Stoning enabled the people to commit themselves to the judgment executed. You can have any number of stones thrown at a man. What is before us here is not within the province of man’s dealing in assembly discipline; it is God acting Himself.
BTF Who would Nadab and Abihu represent at the present moment?
JT Those who are responsible in the assembly. Of course, all are responsible, for all Christians are priests. Nadab and Abihu were responsible with the other sons of Aaron; but they acted strangely. That element continues in the assembly; there are those marked by the introduction of what is strange.
BTF In connection with what is commonly known as worship around us, we get natural elements introduced, such as music and so on. Would you connect this with that?
JT Yes. All such innovations are strange, contrary to what is commanded.
ARS Do you not think these men defied God like Hiel in building Jericho?
FL I think Mr. Darby’s translation gives it a little differently. It says, ‘which he had not commanded them’ It would seem that a certain fire had been commanded and they had offered some other fire. These men were so lawless that they had no respect for the holiness of the sanctuary.
JT There was no commandment for it. That is the test of things. Ofttimes it is affirmed that things are expedient and advantageous, although [p. 161] there is no commandment for them; but the absence of the commandment should be enough.
CB Do you think that corresponds with modern innovations in the professing systems?
JT Yes. Whereas the true priest is concerned as to the commandments, as to the principles in Scripture which govern the house, so that introducing strange things is reprehensible.
FL There are things which are absolutely repugnant. Take pride, position, worldly status, and the regulation of worship, so called, regulated according to the principles which previously obtained in idolatry; they have been carried over into Christendom. Strange fire is universal.
JT It is quite obvious the whole system of worship inaugurated among men is of that order. It is professedly under the divine sanction, but how utterly obnoxious to God it must be!
ANW Would not these be more a figure of those who would inaugurate it? Nadab and Abihu were the two eldest sons; those who were in a position to give a lead in evil. Hence the seriousness of their act.
JT Judas held a position that was unique; he was in a position to commit such a sin as he committed; so were these two men.
ANW They are carried out in their garments; their official standing had to go with them.
JT Yes. Their official status went out with them. The priesthood had really broken down.
AFM Will you say why it was that the remaining sons were not to ‘uncover their heads, neither rend their clothes, lest they die’ Natural affection is set here alongside of spiritual position and office, and I think it is a sort of clue to the teaching of the chapter. “Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near,
[p. 162] carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp”. Natural relationship is recognised in connection with the judgment, but those who remained as priests must maintain their service. Even the judgment of God must not interfere with their service before Him. It is said, “And Moses said to Aaron, and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons, Your heads shall ye not uncover, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come on all the assembly but your brethren, the whole house of Israel, shall bewail the burning which Jehovah hath kindled”. It seems as if natural feeling is fully admitted; but the priesthood must be preserved, the spiritual line must be preserved at the expense of the natural.
AFM Is there a connection between that and where Levi gained an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations, when they answered to the challenge, “He that is for Jehovah?” Exodus 32:26. They thus did violence to natural feelings.
JT Yes. That would be the whole tribe of Levi. It seems to be a mark of priesthood that they refuse natural claims.
FL While what is natural is always recognised in its place, yet the principle is, that in the assembly, what is due to the Lord there, what is spiritual, must be supreme, and it is not to be diverted from on account of anything that is natural. Aaron and his sons were anointed for service to God, and nothing of that service was to be allowed to drop before the Lord.
ARS “I will be hallowed in them that come near me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron was silent”. Is it not significant here that Aaron is silent?
JT I think in that he was true to his calling. When things occur amongst the saints, discipline and the like, natural feeling is apt to be aroused;
[p. 163] the relatives of the person are very likely to think and feel on natural lines. This chapter would condemn all that. It is a question of what is due to the Lord. If it be your wife, or your husband, or your brother, it is the same; it is a question of what is due to the Lord and natural feeling must not be admitted in the sanctuary. It seems as though Aaron was true here. Authority comes in immediately to help him, saying, “Your heads shall ye not uncover, neither rend your clothes”; It is a question of the Lord’s rights. It was the breakdown of the priesthood; but it is very comforting to read, his sons that were left. They did not all go; there was a remnant for God, and authority comes in immediately in Moses. It came in to regulate those who were left, which is a principle in the assembly.
FL In connection with Korah there was a consuming in judgment by the Lord; but we find the whole family of Korah was not consumed, “But, the children of Korah died not”, Numbers 26:11. And in the days of David (see the second book of Psalms) the remnant that were left in Korah came into view in very marked favour with God. So here there was a remnant of the priests left.
JT So all the instruction that follows is to regulate those left, the remnant. It has instruction in that way to ourselves, because we are in remnant times. So it is well to pay attention to the regulations given here. Moses immediately says to Aaron in verse 3, “This is what Jehovah spoke, saying, I will be hallowed in them that come near me, and before all the people I will be glorified”. This was a good word, a good principle laid down. And it is added, “And Aaron was silent” as if he acquiesced. Then Moses directs what should be done with the sons of Aaron who died.
FL “The anointing oil of Jehovah is upon you”. The presence of the Spirit typically is recognised.
JT “And they did according to the word of Moses”. It is encouraging to see that they did according to the word of Moses; in that way things were maintained.
ARS Does it not appear that while the priesthood broke down, the Lord sustains it here? For Moses says to Aaron that he is not to rend his clothes.
JT Yes. They have a direct charge, and that charge has to be fulfilled in spite of what had happened. It seems as if it were the principle on which things are to be maintained right up to the end. They did what Moses commanded. Whenever a breakdown occurs there is usually after that a word from the Lord to regulate us as to what is to be done, and the thing is to recognise that, and in the recognition of that things are maintained for God even in a day of weakness and breakdown.
FL When there is a serious trouble, what we call a breakdown, the weight of it and the sorrow of it is to come upon all; all bewail it. But in the assembly convened the burden is not to be in evidence. It is right that the sorrow should rest upon our spirits ordinarily, but when we come together to remember the Lord the weight and sorrow of such a thing is not to be brought there.
JT What is in the sanctuary is not affected by the failure. The sanctuary remains. Christ is the minister of it, so in and notwithstanding the ruin we may have the privileges of it. This is a very important chapter, as showing how those who are left of the priesthood come under the regulation of the Lord. Moses represents His authority. And then it shows that they did as Moses commanded. That is where the safety lies.
Ques Why does Aaron say, “Such things have befallen me”?
JT That shows how he was damaged by what [p. 165] had happened. Many of us come to the assembly with our spirits under the influence of things outside. Our service is thus impaired. But it says, “And Moses heard it; and it was good in his sight”. The Lord takes account of infirmities. The Lord, in His grace, has to be content with us sometimes. Aaron was not actuated by will. He was subject, although affected. The desire of Moses was to maintain Aaron in the right spirit.
ANW Moses was wroth with Eleazar and Ithamar, the two sons, and Aaron, it seems, intercedes for them. It is said, “Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt up: then he was wroth with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron that were left”
JT Love “does not behave in an unseemly manner”, 1 Corinthians 13:5. It was seemly that one should feel such a sorrow, as Aaron did; but there was a measure of confusion and error, too, in their service. No doubt they were all affected by what had happened.
FL That is evident, for Aaron said, “Had I today eaten the sin-offering, would it have been good in the sight of Jehovah?” While Moses calls attention to the two sons whose place it was to preserve the goat of the sin-offering, still Aaron was involved.
JT They should have eaten it, it is clear. For it says, ‘Lo, its blood was not brought in within the sanctuary: ye should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded’ .
BTF The passage emphasises that priesthood in perfection is to be found in the Lord alone.
JT ‘And Jehovah spoke to Aaron, saying, 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 — it is an everlasting statute throughout your generations, that ye may put difference between the holy and the unholy, and between [p. 166] unclean and clean, and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which Jehovah hath spoken to them by the hand of Moses’ . These verses are to preserve the priesthood from being governed by natural excitement or feeling.
PHP It would exclude all natural sentiment.
FL This would include music, paintings, eloquent appeals. These things act on men’s minds and imaginations in regard to divine things. And, under such impulses, the question is not raised whether the man is right with God or not. Multitudes are swayed. This is universal in Christendom.
JT The cathedrals with their stained glass windows, fine painting, music, represent what is intended to affect the flesh religiously. It has a subduing effect on the mind of man, creating what he thinks for the moment to be spiritual. On the other hand lively ranting singing, would also appeal to the flesh. All that is contrary to priestly intelligence and feeling. Wine excites the flesh. The priests were required even to wear linen because the tendency in that is to subdue. Wool causes heat and excites in that way. The priest is thus guarded so that the flesh should have no place.
FL Ephesians gives us, “Be not drunk with wine, in which is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit”, Ephesians 5:18. These men were probably under the influence of wine. One would judge so from the way in which it comes in here.
JT Whereas, “Be filled with the Spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and chanting with your heart to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:18 - 19) suggests the subdued outgoing of the heart Godward.
FL Do you not think it is of value to see that this is a direct word of the Lord to Aaron?
JT The first direct communication to him [p. 167] after his anointing. So that he is formally recognised, as it were, after the failure.
ANW In the previous verse we have in type apostolic authority; verse 8 is a direct word from the Lord to Aaron.
AAT Does not Moses shine specially in this chapter?
JT In this chapter he is more a type of Christ’s authority. He represents the authority of God. That authority comes in and asserts itself in the way of regulation when failure takes place. The Lord usually gives a word if there is exercise after a breakdown.
BTF We find the spirit of Aaron good all the way through.
JT I think he was greatly affected by what had happened; but he was subject. Another point, which we might notice here, is the question of food. Verses 8 - 11 form a direct word from the Lord to Aaron. Then it is said in verse 12, “And Moses spoke to Aaron, and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the oblation that is left of Jehovah’s offerings by fire, and eat it with unleavened bread beside the altar; for it is most holy”. The priesthood is now to be sustained. A word from the Lord reassures Aaron. The word left seems to me suggestive. We are on remnant ground now. What were the sons that were left to feed upon? The meat-offering, which is typically the humanity of Christ. That is what the priest is to feed upon. It is said, “Take the oblation that is left of Jehovah’s offerings by fire, and eat it with unleavened bread beside the altar; for it is most holy. And ye shall eat it in a holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons’ due, of Jehovah’s offerings by fire; for so I am commanded”. It seems that there the priesthood is formally sustained. It is regulated by [p. 168] a word from the Lord; but the right food is presented, and where that food is to be eaten is specified; that is, priestly state is sustained in the sanctuary. We feed on Christ, as Man, in the holy place. It is our due, it is allotted to us. We are to grow in the order of Christ. We do not make anything of natural status and the like. It is the order of Man suggested in the meat-offering that we are built up in. So, as wine is refused, and we feed on the meat-offering, that order of Man is built up in us.
AFM The peace-offering seems to be wider?
JT Therefore, we drop in a measure. For in the next paragraph it is said, “And the wave breast and heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee”. There we come down simply to “a clean place”. It is not necessarily now the assembly in function, as we speak, but it is a place where evil is not allowed.
FL Such an occasion as this.
JT Where the saints are viewed as related to Christ; but not necessarily exercising priestly functions. We are related to Christ, and in a clean place, and we have fellowship one with another.
ANW A Christian’s house may be regarded in this way.
FL The suggestion is of a sphere where we can enjoy reconciliation. The peace-offering would be in keeping with that.
ANW It is where love (the breast) and strength (the shoulder) are developed.
JT Yes. These offerings suggest Christian affection, as you say. There is affection and support when the saints come together as we are now. We have fellowship in what pertains to Christ; but not exactly as exercising our priestly functions.
PHP And what you feed upon is pleasurable to God.
FL In such a meeting, it is inevitable that in [p. 169] some way or other Christ, who has gone into death, thus supplying pleasure to God, will be brought before us.
PHP I suppose the first two sons sinned, because they did what the Lord had not commanded; and the other two sinned because they did not do that which was commanded. Do you not think that we might be driven to these two extremes in our meetings? Very often people do things which should not be done, and the opposite.
FL There is a very great difference, however, for the eldest two are cut off; but the other two are left.
AFM Which chapter, the eighth or ninth, is our standard regarding what is priestly?
JT Chapter 8 shows our place as priests, but chapter 9 shows, in part, the manner of Aaron’s ministry. There is a standard in this way. For us the standard, of course, is Christ. The apostles, especially Paul, as following Him are examples for us. It is so striking that the strange fire should appear immediately after the divine fire (chapter 9:24) had come out, making it all the more serious. It is very encouraging to see here how the priestly remnant, those “that were left”, is provided for immediately; so the priestly system is maintained. In spite of the breakdown the service of God is to be carried on.
FL There is a wide difference between the use of strange fire and failure to eat the sin-offering.