Chapter 10

1 Nadab and Abihu, for offering of strange fire, are burnt by fire. 6 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.

1. Nadab and Abihu. These were two of the sons of Aaron, and hence nephews of Moses. Next to Moses and Aaron they occupied the highest positions in Israel and had many advantages and privileges. They had heard the voice of God; they had been with Moses and Aaron in the mount of God; they had seen the God of Israel, and “did eat and drink” (Ex. 24:9–11). They had been greatly favored; but had not profited by their opportunities.

Shortly before the events noted in this chapter they had spent a week in study and meditation, preparing for the day when they should begin their sanctuary service. They had assisted their father as he offered sacrifices, and had brought the blood of the victims to him (Lev. 9:9). They had witnessed the solemn service of dedication, and had themselves been sprinkled with sacrificial blood. They had been thoroughly indoctrinated, and were fully acquainted with the sacredness of God’s work. All of this only made their sin the greater. They were without excuse. When the time came for them to officiate, they did that which the Lord their God “commanded them not.”

Strange fire. Ordinary fire. It was not taken from the altar of burnt offering, whose fire God Himself had kindled and which was therefore sacred (ch. 16:12, 13). In the court of the congregation there were hearths where the priests prepared their food, and it may be that Nadab and Abihu took their common fire from thence.

2. Fire from the Lord. The effect upon the people gathered for the hour of prayer must have been profound. A few months previously Israel had witnessed the great display of God’s power at the giving of the law; then they apostatized and worshiped the golden calf. God was ready to disown them, but at Moses’ pleading they were again restored. Now they had built the tabernacle, which had been accepted, and God had shown His pleasure in the spirit of devotion it represented by sending fire to consume the offering. And now at the time of the evening sacrifice, when the people were gathered expectantly, the stroke came. Two of Aaron’s sons were dead. Rejoicing was turned into grief and perplexity. Had God forsaken them? What did this tragedy mean?

3. Then Moses said. The statement to which Moses refers is probably that of Ex. 19:22: “Let the priests … sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them.” Apparently the sons of Aaron had not sanctified themselves. Consecration to the priesthood had wrought no change in their hearts; they themselves were still “common.”

Aaron’s pliant and indulgent disposition had been at the root of the difficulty. Qualms of conscience must have overwhelmed him as he thought of his own weakness a few months previously. True, God had forgiven him; God had accepted his sin offering; but the results of his weakness had not been warded off by repentance. He held his peace.

6. Neither rend your clothes. It was the custom to rend one’s garments in case of great sorrow. This was done by tearing the upper front of the garments, to expose, as it were, the sorrow of the heart. This Aaron and his remaining sons must not do, as it would appear to show displeasure at God’s judgment. Neither were they to bare their heads and present a disheveled appearance, a common Oriental demonstration of sorrow.

7. According to the word of Moses. With grief in his heart Aaron walked calmly about as he officiated at the evening sacrifice and offered incense. Not by word or gesture did he reveal that grief. As the people saw him go about his work calm and unperturbed, they knew that the tragic loss of two sons had not weakened Aaron’s faith in God. They might not understand, but Aaron’s composure calmed their own fears and restored their faith.

9. Do not drink. This prohibition suggests the cause of the transgression. It seems hardly reasonable to believe that God would issue such an edict at this time and under these circumstances except to clarify the true cause of the tragedy.

Lest ye die. Death was the most severe penalty that could be meted out, and stressed God’s attitude toward the use of strong drink. The sin of the young men was not a light matter that could be erased by the offering of a sacrifice. It was deliberate, and reflected scorn for sacred things. It was a major sin and deserved drastic punishment.

10. Put difference. Wine and strong drink can so benumb the faculties that a man fails to make a clear distinction between right and wrong, between holy and unholy, between clean and unclean. This had led the two sons to take common fire as they entered the sanctuary; in their condition they could see no difference. And as far as men could see, there was no difference. Fire was fire, was it not? But God looked on their hearts and saw something that men could not see. There was a difference. Similarly, the first day of the week is as good as the seventh day, to human reasoning. There is no difference—except in God’s command. And that makes a vital difference, a difference between life and death.

Any form of intemperance blurs the difference between the holy and unholy, and between the clean and unclean, between the right and wrong. The use of spiritous liquors affects all the faculties and disturbs the orderly processes of the mind. He who drives and drinks is a menace to himself and to others, and a potential murderer. His mind is confused, his reflexes are slow, his sight is unreliable, and his sense of responsibility has all but vanished.

The danger is not confined to those who are actually “drunk.” Even a small amount of liquor may cause disaster. The moderate drinker is a social liability, and may do untold harm. The very fact, of which he boasts, that he can “hold” his liquor and control himself, may lead others to think they can do the same. The drunkard wallowing in his filth may disgust the onlooker and thus serve as a warning. The moderate drinker tempts others to follow him by the very fact that he stays “respectable.” Of the two, the moderate drinker, in the end, does the more harm.

Not only are the physical faculties affected by drink, but the moral as well; and this may be the worse of two evils. Assault, murder, rape, disloyalty, take on another aspect to the man who drinks. Under the influence of wine men will do what they would never consider doing were they sober. Only the judgment will reveal the sin of intoxication in its true dimensions. God’s warning to Aaron and his sons is fully applicable today. Men cannot drink and yet have a clear perception of the difference between the holy and the unholy, between the clean and the unclean (Isa. 28:7).

This instruction is particularly addressed to leaders. Teaching is more than oral instruction; it includes example as well as precept. But what if the teacher’s own sense of right and wrong is blurred, and his conduct belies his words? Of all men, those who teach others, whether in state or church, must have a constantly alert mind, ready to cope with whatever problems may come before them. As we consider some of the decisions arrived at in councils of state, and know of the liquor consumed on such occasions, we are reminded that God’s counsel not to drink wine or strong drink is present truth.

11. That ye may teach. The priests were teachers. It was their work to instruct the people in the statutes and ways of God. But how could they do this if they themselves were unable to discern the difference between right and wrong? With a befuddled brain it is impossible to teach or lead others in the way they should go.

Spoken … by the hand of Moses. To this day there are some who disparage Moses. Let such know that it was God who spoke through him, for in these words God endorsed his life and work. Christ said, “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me. … But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46, 47). True, some provisions were for Israel alone, and applied to local conditions. But such can easily be discerned. The eternal principles that God communicated “by the hand of Moses” are of as much force and value as ever. Let every Christian ponder the words of Christ: “If ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” This pronouncement cannot lightly be put aside, for it was spoken by Christ.

13. Ye shall eat it. In the confusion that followed the death of his two sons, Aaron had omitted eating the portion of the meat offering that was his due. A tragedy had occurred, but this must not affect the prescribed ritual. The work must go on in spite of it.

14. Thy daughters with thee. This particular meat offering evidently included the peace offering, as Aaron’s daughters were to have a share in it (ch. 9:17–21). The meat offerings were most holy, and of them only the priests were to eat. Of the peace offerings the whole family, as well as other “clean” persons, might partake.

15. As the Lord hath commanded. The idea that nothing must hinder the work of God, that circumstances must not interrupt the sanctuary ritual, became deeply rooted in the mind of the priesthood as the years went by. It came to an extreme test in the final capture and destruction of the Temple under the Romans, a.d. 70. It was the time of the evening sacrifice. Jerusalem had already been taken, but the Temple still stood. Solemnly and unperturbedly the priests carried out the ritual as the Romans scaled the walls and entered the Temple precincts. The buildings were set on fire, and flames were all about. But with slowly measured steps the priests continued their work, not even looking about. Nothing must interfere with the work of God.

Royalty learns the same lesson. A bomb may explode near the royal carriage, but the king is not supposed to notice it. He must retain his composure and permit nothing to ruffle him. The parade must go on, and there must be no looking back.

Jesus’ answer to certain would-be disciples who chose to make personal matters first may appear hard and unfeeling (see Luke 9:59–62). Few duties are considered more urgent than that of caring for one’s parents. Yet even these—and they may be called sacred duties—must not stand in the way of doing the work of God. The work must go on.

16. Moses diligently sought. Moses was still in charge, making sure that all was done as God commanded. When a goat was used for a sin offering, the blood was not carried into the sanctuary but placed on the horns of the altar of burnt offering. According to the law, the flesh in such cases should be eaten by the priests (ch. 6:26). That day a goat had been offered as a sin offering (ch. 9:15), and since the blood was not carried into the sanctuary, the flesh should have been eaten. This had not been done; consequently, the symbolism of the service had been effectively marred.

In failing to eat the flesh Aaron also failed to bear the sins of the people. He could not make atonement for sins he did not bear. This was what made the mistake so serious. The sins that the goat bore should have been transferred to the priests, who would make atonement for them. But in this case there could be no transfer because the priests had not eaten the flesh. All the goat could do was to die. But the work of intercession remained to be done.

He was angry. Moses was noted for his meekness (Num. 12:3), but that did not prevent righteous indignation. At one time his indignation was so great that he threw down the two tables of stone and broke them in pieces, an act for which God did not rebuke him (Ex. 32:19). God Himself was angry (Ex. 32:9, 10). Moses’ anger did not immediately subside, for when he saw the golden calf he ground it to pieces and made Israel drink the water (Ex. 32:20).

There are times when righteous indignation may appropriately be displayed. It is at such times, doubtless, that Paul’s advice applies, “Be ye angry, and sin not” (Eph. 4:26). Of himself Paul says, “Who is offended, and I burn not?” (2 Cor. 11:29). When Paul saw others mistreated, he was indignant. The word here translated “burn” means “to be set afire.” When Moses broke the tables of stone his “anger waxed hot.” For this Aaron reproached him (Ex. 32:19, 22), feeling there was no occasion for anger. But, as pointed out, the Lord agreed with Moses that there was just cause for anger. His anger was due to zeal for God and His cause, not to personal pride or vindictiveness.

19. Should it have been accepted? Though Moses had addressed Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, and rebuked them, it was the father who answered. Aaron knew that eating the sin offering represented taking the sins of the offerer upon himself, as Moses had said. But with what had happened and his own responsibility, in part, for it, he did not feel that he could bear the sin of others. He had all he could do to bear his own. He could but feel grieved at the death of his sons, and may even have felt a measure of resentment. He apparently felt that in his present state of mind his service as typical sin bearer would be quite unacceptable to God.

20. Content. The word thus translated may also mean “to cause to be joyful,” or “to cause to please.” Moses saw that Aaron had not been negligent nor had he deliberately omitted a known duty, without due reason. Moses accepted Aaron’s explanation, and adjusted his own attitude accordingly.

Ellen G. White comments

1-20PP 359-362

1 CE 91; Ev 210; FE 409, 427; GW 20; PP 359, 399; Te 43, 65, 268; TM 356, 359, 371

1, 2 CH 82; CS 205; Te 187, 280; 3T 295; WM 290

1-37T 153

1-10Te 287

1-11CH 366

2 FE 428; GW 20; PP 359

2, 3 CE 91

3 GW 20; PP 361

6 DA 708

6, 7 PP 361

9-11PP 362; Te 44, 268, 280

17 GC 418; PP 354