We draw a broad distinction between positive commandments and moral or religious obligations. But in the Mosaic legislation that distinction does not exist. There, all precepts are G.o.d"s uttered will, and all disobedience is rebellion against Him. Nor could it be otherwise at the stage of development which Israel had reached.
What, then, was the crime of these two rash sons of Aaron? That involves two questions: What did they do? and What was the sin of doing it? The former question may be answered in various ways. Certainly the designation of "strange fire" seems best explained by the usual supposition that it means fire not taken from the altar. The other explanations, which make the sin to have been offering at an unauthorised time, or offering incense not compounded according to the prescription, give an unnatural meaning to the phrase. It was the "fire" which was wrong,--that is, it was "fire which they had kindled,"
caught up from some common culinary hearth, or created by themselves in some way.
What was their sin in thus offering it? Plainly, the narrative points to the essence of the crime in calling it "fire which He had not commanded." So this was their crime, that they were tampering with the appointed order which but a week before they had been consecrated to conserve and administer; that they were thus thrusting in self-will and personal caprice, as of equal authority with the divine commandment; that they were arrogating the right to cut and carve G.o.d"s appointments, as the whim or excitement of the moment dictated; and that they were doing their best to obliterate the distinction on the preservation of which religion, morality, and the national existence depended; namely, the distinction between holy and common, clean and unclean. To plough that distinction deep into the national consciousness was no small part of the purpose of the law; and here were two of its appointed witnesses disregarding it, and flying in its face. The flash of holy fire consuming the sacrifices had scarcely faded off their eyeb.a.l.l.s when they thus sinned.
They have had many successors, not only in Israel, while a ritual demanding punctilious conformity lasted, but in Christendom since.
Alas! our censers are often flaming with "strange fire." How much so-called Christian worship glows with self-will or with partisan zeal!
When we seek to worship G.o.d for what we can get, when we rush into His presence with hot, eager desires which we have not subordinated to His will, we are burning "strange fire which He has not commanded." The only fire which should kindle the incense in our censers, and send it up to heaven in fragrant wreaths, is fire caught from the altar of sacrifice. G.o.d must kindle the flame in our hearts if we are to render these else cold hearts to Him.
"The prayers I bring will then be sweet indeed If Thou the Spirit give, by which I pray."
The swift, terrible punishment does indeed bear marks of the severity of that earlier stage of revelation. But it was not disproportioned to the offence, and it was not the cruelty of a martinet who avenged ceremonial lapses with penalties which should have been kept for moral offences. The surface of the sin was ceremonial impropriety: the heart of it was flouting Jehovah and His law. It was better that two men should die, and the whole nation perish not, as it would have done if their example had been followed. It is mercy to trample out the first sparks beside a powder-barrel.
There is a very striking parallel between verse 2 and the last verse of the preceding chapter. In both the same expression is used, "There came forth fire from before the Lord, and consumed" (the word rendered _devoured_ in verse 2 is the same in Hebrew as _consumed_). So, then, the same divine fire, which had graciously signified G.o.d"s acceptance of the appointed sacrifice, now flashed out with lightning-like power of destruction, and killed the two rebel priests. There is dormant potency of destruction in the G.o.d who reveals Himself as gracious. The "wrath of the Lamb" is as real as His gentleness. The Gospel is "the savour of life unto life" and "of death unto death."
Moses" word to the stunned father is of a piece with the severity of the whole incident. No voice of condolence or sympathy comes from him.
The brother is swallowed up in the lawgiver. He puts into words the meaning of the terrible stroke, and expects Aaron to acquiesce, though his heart bleeds. What was his interpretation? He saw in it G.o.d"s purpose to be "sanctified in them that come nigh Him." The priests were these. Nadab and Abihu had been consecrated for the purpose of enforcing the truth of G.o.d"s holiness. They had done the very opposite, by breaking down the distinction between sacred and common.
But their nearness to G.o.d brought with it not only corresponding obligations, but corresponding criminality and penalty, if these obligations were not discharged. If G.o.d is not "sanctified" _by_ His servants, He will sanctify Himself _on_ them. If His people do not set forth His infinite separation from all evil and elevation above all creatures, He will proclaim these truths in lightning that kills and thunder that roars. It is a universal law which Moses sternly spoke to Aaron instead of comfort, bidding him recognise the necessity of the fearful blow to his paternal heart. "You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities."
The prohibition to Aaron and his sons to show signs of mourning is as stern as the rest of the story, and serves to insist upon the true point of view from which to regard it. For the official representatives of the divine order of worship to mourn the deaths of its a.s.sailants would have seemed to indicate their murmuring at G.o.d"s judgments, and might have led them to partic.i.p.ate in the sin while they lamented its punishment. It is hard to mourn and not to repine. Affection blinds to the ill-desert of its objects. Nadab"s and Abihu"s stark corpses lying in the forecourt of the sanctuary, and Aaron"s dry eyes and undisturbed attire, proclaim the same truths,--the gravity of the dead men"s sin, and the righteous judgment of G.o.d. But the people might sorrow, for _their_ mourning would help to imprint on them more deeply the lessons of the dread event.
While the victims" cousins carried their bodies to their graves in the sand, their father and brothers had to remain in the Tabernacle, because "the anointing oil of Jehovah is upon you." That oil, as the symbol of the Spirit, separates those on whom it is poured from all contact with death, from partic.i.p.ation in sin, from the weight of sorrow. What have immortality, righteousness, joy in the Holy Ghost, to do with these dark shadows? Those whom G.o.d has called to His immediate service must hold themselves apart from earthly pa.s.sions, and must control natural affection, if indulging it imperils their clear witness to G.o.d"s righteous will.
The prohibition (verses 8-11) of wine and strong drink during the discharge of the priestly functions seems to suggest that Nadab and Abihu had committed their sin while in some degree intoxicated. Be that as it may, the prohibition is rested upon the necessity of preserving, in all its depth and breadth, the distinction between common and holy which Nadab and Abihu had broken down. That distinction was to be very present to the priest in his work, and how could he have the clearness of mind, the collectedness and composure, the sense of the sanct.i.ty of his office, and ministrations which it requires and gives, if he was under the influence of strong drink?
Nothing has more power to blur the sharpness of moral and religious insight than even a small amount of alcohol. G.o.d must be worshipped with clear brain and naturally beating heart. Not the fumes of wine, in which there lurks almost necessarily the tendency to "excess," but the being "filled with the Spirit" supplies the only legitimate stimulus to devotion. Besides the personal reason for abstinence, there was another,--namely, that only so could the priests teach the people "the statutes" of Jehovah. Lips stained from the wine-cup would not be fit to speak holy words. Words spoken by such would carry no power.
G.o.d"s servants can never impress on the sluggish conscience of society their solemn messages from G.o.d, unless they are conspicuously free from self-indulgence, and show by their example the gulf, wide as between heaven and h.e.l.l, which parts cleanness from uncleanness. Our lives must witness to the eternal distinction between good and evil, if we are to draw men to "abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is good."
THE FIRST STAGE IN THE LEPER"S CLEANSING
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2. This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest: 3. And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; 4. Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: 5. And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water: 6. As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar-wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water: 7. And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall p.r.o.nounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field."--LEV. xiv. 1-7.
The whole treatment of leprosy is parabolic. Leprosy itself is a "parable of death." The horrible loathsomeness, the contagiousness, the non-curableness, etc. So the man was shut out from camp and from sanctuary. There was a double process in the cleansing rite, restoring to each.
I. Sketch the ceremonial. Two birds, one slain over a vessel of water so that its blood drained in. Then the living bird was to be dipped into this water and blood, along with cedar, scarlet, and hyssop, and the man sprinkled seven times and the living bird set loose.
II. The significance. This elaborate symbolism was partly intelligible even then. Two birds, like the two goats on the Atonement Day. Did both in some sense symbolise the man? The first one was not exactly a sacrifice. Its death points to the physical death which was the end of the disease, but also in some sense its death symbolised the death by which cleansing was secured.
_(a)_ The purifying water is made by blood added to it, i.e. cleansing by sacrifice.
"By water and by blood."
_(b)_ The sevenfold sprinkling. The cedar, symbol of incorruptibility; the scarlet, of full vital energy; the hyssop, of purifying. So the thought was suggested of the communication of cleansing, full health and incorruption, undecaying strength; all physical contrasts to leprosy sevenfold.
_(c)_ The free, glad activity. The freed bird. The restored leper.
THE DAY OF ATONEMENT
"And the Lord spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron when they offered before the Lord, and died; 2. And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy-seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy-seat. 3. Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place; with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. 4. He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on. 5. And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. 6. And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house. 7. And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 8. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat. 9. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord"s lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering: 10. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with Him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
11. And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself. 12. And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail: 13. And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not: 14. And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy-seat eastward; and before the mercy-seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times. 15. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat. 16. And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
17. And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel. 18. And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. 19. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel."--LEV. xvi. 1-19.
The Talmudical treatise on the ritual of the day of atonement is ent.i.tled "Yoma," _the_ day, which sufficiently expresses its importance in the series of sacrificial observances. It was the confession of the incompleteness of them all, a ceremonial proclamation that ceremonies do not avail to take away sin; and it was also a declaration that the true end of worship is not reached till the worshipper has free access to the holy place of the Most High. Thus the prophetic element is the very life-breath of this supreme inst.i.tution of the old covenant, which therein acknowledges its own defects, and feeds the hopes of a future better thing. We do not here consider the singular part of the ritual of the Day of Atonement which is concerned with the treatment of the so-called "scapegoat" but confine ourselves to the consideration of that part of it which was observed in the Tabernacle and was intended to expiate the sins of the priesthood and of the people. The chapter connects the rites of the Day of Atonement with the tragic death of the sons of Aaron, which witnessed to the sanct.i.ty of the inner shrine, as not to be trodden but with the appointed offerings by the appointed priest; and so makes the whole a divinely given instruction as to the means by which, and the objects for which, Aaron may enter within the veil.
I. In verses 3-10 we have the preliminaries of the sacrifices and a summary of the rites. First, Aaron was to bathe, and then to robe himself in pure white. The dress is in singular contrast to the splendour of his usual official costume, in which he stood before men as representing G.o.d, and evidently signifies the purity which alone fits for entrance into the awful presence. Thus vested, he brings the whole of the animals to be sacrificed to the altar,--namely, for himself and his order, a bullock and a ram; for the people, two goats and a ram. The goats are then taken by him to the door of the tent,--and it is to be observed that they are spoken of as both const.i.tuting one sin offering (v. 5). They therefore both belong to the Lord, and are, in some important sense, one, as was recognised by the later Rabbinical prescription that they should be alike in colour, size, and value. The appeal to the lot was an appeal to G.o.d to decide the parts they were respectively to sustain in a transaction which, in both parts, was really one. The consideration of the meaning of the ritual for the one which was led away may be postponed for the present.
The preliminaries end with the casting of the lots, and in later times, with tying the ominous red fillet on the head of the dumb creature for which so weird a fate was in store.
II. The first part of the ritual proper (vs. 11-14) is the expiation for the sins of Aaron and the priesthood, and his entrance into the most holy place. The bullock was slain in the usual manner of the sin offering, but its blood was destined for a more solemn use. The white-robed priest took a censer of burning embers from the altar before the tent-door, and two hands full of incense, and, thus laden, pa.s.sed into the Tabernacle. How the silent crowd in the outer court would watch the last flutter of the white robe as it was lost in the gloom within! He pa.s.sed through the holy place, which, on every day but this, was the limit of his approach; but, on this one day, he lifted the curtain, and entered the dark chamber, where the glory flashed from the golden walls and rested above the ark. Would not his heart beat faster as he laid his hand on the heavy veil, and caught the first gleam of the calm light from the Shechinah? As soon as he entered, he was to cast the incense into the censer, that the fragrant cloud might cover the mercy-seat. Incense is the symbol of prayer, and that curling cloud is a picture of the truth that the purest of men, even the anointed priest, robed in white, who has offered sacrifices daily all the year round, and today has anxiously obeyed all the commands of ceremonial cleanliness, can yet only draw near to G.o.d as a suppliant, not entering there as having a right of access, but beseeching entrance as undeserved mercy. The incense did not cover "the glory" that Aaron might not gaze upon it, but it covered him that Jehovah might not look on his sin. It would appear that, between verse 13 and verse 14, Aaron"s leaving the most holy place to bring the blood of the sacrifice must be understood. If so, we can fancy the long-drawn sigh of relief with which the waiting worshippers saw him return, and carry back into the shrine the expiating blood. The "most holy place" would still be filled and its atmosphere thick with the incense fumes when he returned to perform the solemn expiation for himself and the whole priestly order. Once the blood was sprinkled on the mercy-seat, and seven times, apparently, on the ground in front of it. The former act was intended, as seems probable, to make atonement for the sins of the priesthood; the latter, to cleanse the sanctuary from the ideal defilements arising from their defective and sinful ministrations.
This completed the part of the ceremonial which belonged immediately to Aaron and the priests. It carries important lessons. Could there be a more striking exhibition of their imperfect realisation of the idea of the priestly office? Observe the anomaly inherent in the very necessity of the case. Aaron was dressed in the white robes emblematic of purity; he had partaken in the benefit of, and had himself offered, sacrifices all the year round. So far as ritual could go, he was pure, and yet so stained with sin that he dared not enter into the divine presence without that double safeguard of the incense and the blood. The priest who cleanses others is himself unclean, and he and his fellows have tainted the sanctuary by the very services which were meant to atone and to purify. That solemn ritual is intended to teach priest and people alike, that every priest "taken from among men" fails in his office, and pollutes the temple instead of purifying the worshipper.
But the office was G.o.d"s appointment, and therefore would not always be filled by men too small and sinful for its requirements. There must somewhere and somewhen be a priest who will be one indeed, fulfilling the divine ideal of the functions, and answering the deep human longings which have expressed themselves in all lands, for one, pure with no ceremonial but a real purity, to bring us to G.o.d and G.o.d to us, to offer sacrifice which shall need no after atonement to expiate its defects, and to stand without incense or blood of sprinkling for himself in the presence of G.o.d for us. The imperfections of the human holders of the Old Testament offices, whether priest, prophet, or king, were no less prophecies than their positive qualifications were.
Therefore, when we see Aaron pa.s.sing into the holy place, we see the dim shadow of Christ, who "needeth not to make atonement" for His own sins, and is our priest "for ever."
III. The ritual for the atonement of the sins of the people follows.
The two goats had been, during all this time, standing at the door of the Tabernacle. We have already pointed out that they are to be considered as one sacrifice. There are two of them, for the same reason, as has been often remarked, as there were two birds in the ritual of cleansing the leper; namely, because one animal could not represent the two parts of the one whole truth which they are meant to set forth. The one was sacrificed as a sin offering, and the other led away into a solitary land. Here we consider the meaning of the former only, which presents no difficulty. It is a sin offering for the people, exactly corresponding to that just offered for the priests. The same use is made of the blood, which is once sprinkled by Aaron on the mercy-seat and seven times on the ground before it, as in the former case. It is not, however, all employed there, but part of it is carried out into the other divisions of the Tabernacle; and first, the holy place, which the priests daily entered and which is called in verse 16 "the tent of meeting," and next, the altar of burnt offering in the outer court, are in like manner sprinkled seven times with the blood, to "hallow" them "from the uncleanness of the children of Israel"
(verse 19). The teaching of this rite, in its bearing upon the people, is similar to that of the previous priestly expiation. The insufficiency of sacrificial cleansing is set forth by this annual atonement for sins which had all been already atoned for. The defects of a ritual worship are proclaimed by the ritual which cleanses the holy places from the uncleanness contracted by them from the worshippers. If the altar, the seat of expiation, itself needed expiation, how imperfect its worth must be! If the cleansing fountain is foul, how shall it be cleansed, or how shall it cleanse the offerers? The bearing of the blood of expiation into the most holy place, where no Israelite ever entered, save the high priest, taught that the true expiation could only be effected by one who should pa.s.s into the presence of G.o.d, and leave the door wide open for all to enter. For surely the distance between the worshippers and the mercy-seat was a confession of imperfection; and the entrance there of the representative of the sinful people was the holding out of a dim hope that in some fashion, yet unknown, the veil would be rent, and true communion be possible for the humble soul. The Epistle to the Hebrews tells us where we are to look for the realities of which these ceremonies were the foreshadowings. The veil was rent at the crucifixion. Christ has gone into "the secret place of the Most High,"
and if we love Him, our hearts have gone with Him, and our lives are "hid with Him, in G.o.d."
"THE SCAPEGOAT"
"And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited...."-LEV. xvi. 22.
The import of the remarkable treatment of this goat does not depend on the interpretation of the obscure phrase rendered in the Authorised Version "for the scapegoat." Leaving that out of sight for the moment, we observe that the two animals were one sacrifice, and that the transaction with the living one was the completion of that with the slain. The sins of the congregation, which had been already expiated by the sacrifice, were laid by the high priest on the head of the goat, which was then sent away into the wilderness that he might "bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited" (v. 22). Nothing depends on the fate of the goat, though, in after times, it was forced over a precipice and so killed. The carrying away of expiated sin, and not the destruction of unexpiated sinners, is the meaning of the impressive rite, and, had it been possible, the same goat that was sacrificed would have been sent into the desert. As that could not be done, an ideal unity was established between the two: the one sacrificed represented the fact of expiation, the one driven away represented the consequences of expiation in the complete removal of sin. The expiation was made "within the veil"; but a visible token of its completeness was given to help feeble faith, in the blessed mystery of the unseen propitiation. What was divided in the symbol between the twin goats is all done by the one Sacrifice, who has entered into the holiest of all, at once Priest and Sacrifice, and with His own blood made expiation for sin, and has likewise carried away the sin of the world into a land of forgetfulness, whence it never can return.
The clear meaning of the rite is thus obtained, whatever be the force of the difficult phrase already referred to. "Scapegoat" is certainly wrong. But it may be questioned whether the Revised Version is right in retaining the Hebrew word untranslated, and, by putting a capital letter to it, marking it as a proper name ("for Azazel"). The word occurs only here, so that we have no help from other pa.s.sages. It seems to come from a root meaning "to drive away," and those who take it to be a proper name, generally suppose it to refer to some malignant spirit, or to Satan, and interpret it as meaning "a fiend whom one drives away," or, sometimes, "who drives away." The vindication of such an interpretation is supposed to lie in the necessity of finding a complete ant.i.thesis in the phrase to the "for Jehovah" of the previous clause in verse 8. But it is surely sacrificing a good deal to rhetorical propriety to drag in an idea so foreign to the Pentateuch, and so opposed to the plain fact, that both goats were one sin offering (v. 5), in order to get a pedantically correct ant.i.thesis. In the absence of any guidance from usage, certainty as to the meaning of the word is unattainable. But there seems no reason, other than that of the said ant.i.thesis, against taking it to mean removal or dismissal, rather than "a remover." The Septuagint translates it in both ways: as a person in verse 8, and as "sending away" in verse 10. If the latter meaning be adopted, then the word just defines the same purpose as is given more at length in verse 22, namely, the carrying away of the sins of the congregation. The logical imperfection of the opposition in verse 8 would then be simply enough solved by the fact that while both goats were "for the Lord," one was destined to be actually offered in sacrifice, and the other to be "for dismissal." The incomplete contrast testifies to the substantial unity of the two, and needs no introduction, into the most sacred rite of the old covenant, of a ceremony which looks liker demon-worship than a parable of the great expiation for a world"s sins.
The question for us is, What spiritual ideas are contained in this Levitical symbolism? There is signified, surely, the condition of approach to G.o.d. Remember how the Israelites had impressed on their minds the awful sanct.i.ty of "within the veil." The inmost shrine was trodden once a year only by the high priest, and only after anxious l.u.s.trations and when clothed in pure garments, he entered "with sacrifice and incense lest he die." This ritual was for a gross and untutored age, but the men of that age were essentially like ourselves, and we have the same sins and spiritual necessities as they had.
The two goats are regarded as _one_ sacrifice. They are a "sin offering." Hence, to show how unimportant and non-essential is the distinction between them, the "lot" is employed; also, while the one is being slain, the other stands before the "door of the Tabernacle." This shows that both are parts of one whole, and it is only from the impossibility of presenting both halves of the truth to be symbolised in one that two are taken. The one which is slain represents the sacrifice for sin. The other represents the effects of that sacrifice.
It is never heard of more. "The Lamb of G.o.d taketh away the sins of the world." "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us."
I. The perfect removal of all sin is thus symbolised.