الكتاب المقدس

Expositor's Bible Commentary Leviticus 10:1 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. NADAB’S AND ABIHU’S "STRANGE FIRE" Leviticus 10:1-20 The solemn and august ceremonies of the consecration of the priests, and the tabernacle, and the inauguration of the tabernacle service, had a sad and terrible termination. The sacrifices of the inauguration day had been completed, the congregation had received the priestly benediction, the glory of Jehovah had-appeared unto the people, and, in token of His acceptance of all that had been done, consumed the victims on the altar. This manifestation of the glory of the Lord so affected the people-as well it might-that when they saw it, "they shouted, and fell on their faces." It was, probably, under the influence of the excitement of this occasion that ( Leviticus 10:1-2 ), "Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And there came forth fire from before the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord." There has been no little speculation as to what it was, precisely, which they did. Some will have it, that they lighted their incense, not from the altar fire, but elsewhere. As to this, while it is not easy to prove that to light the incense at the altar fire was an invariable requirement, yet it is certain that this was commanded for the great day of atonement; {Lev 16:12} and also, that when Aaron offered incense in connection with the plague which broke out upon the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, Moses commanded him to take the fire for the censer from off the altar; {Num 16:46} so that, perhaps this is not unlikely to have been one element, at least, in their offence. Others, again, have thought that their sin lay in this, that they offered their incense at a time not commanded in the order of worship which God had just prescribed; and this, too, may very probably have been another element in their sin, for it is certain that the divinely-appointed order of worship for the day had been already completed. Yet again, others have supposed that they rashly and without Divine warrant pressed within the veil, into the immediate presence of the Shekinah glory of God, to offer their incense there. For this, too, there is evidence, in the fact that the institution of the great annual day of atonement, and the prohibition of entrance within the veil at any other time, even to the high priest himself, is said to have followed "after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord, and died." {Lev 16:1-2} It is perfectly possible, and even likely, that all these elements were combined in their offence. In any case, the gravamen of their sin is expressed in these words; they offered "fire which the Lord had not commanded them": offered it, either in a way not commanded, or at a time not commanded, or in a place not commanded; or, perhaps, in each and all of these ways, offered "fire which the Lord had not commanded." This was their sin, and one which brought instant and terrible judgment. It is easy enough to believe that yet they meant well in what they did. It probably seemed to them the right thing to do. After such a stupendous display as they had just witnessed, of the flaming glory of Jehovah, why should they not, in token of reverence and adoration, offer incense, even in the most immediate presence of Jehovah? And why should such minor variations from the appointed law, as to manner, or time, or place, matter very much, so the motive was worship? So may they probably have reasoned, if indeed they thought at all. But, nevertheless, this made no difference; all the same, "fire came forth from Jehovah, and devoured them." They had been but so lately consecrated! and-as we learn from Leviticus 10:5 -their priestly robes were on them at the time, in token of their peculiar privilege of special nearness to God! But this, too, made no difference; "there came forth fire from before the Lord and devoured them." Their sin, in the form in which it was committed, can never be repeated; but as regards its inner nature and essence, no sin has been in all ages more common. For the essence of their sin was this, that it was will worship; worship in which they consulted not the revealed will of God regarding the way in which He would be served, but their own fancies and inclinations. The directions for worship had been, as we have seen, exceedingly full and explicit; but they apparently imagined that the fragrance of their incense, and its intrinsic suitableness as a symbol of adoration and prayer, was sufficient to excuse neglect of strict obedience to the revealed will of God touching His own worship. Their sin was not unlike that of Saul in a later day, who thought to excuse disobedience by the offering of enormous sacrifices. But he was sharply reminded that "to obey is better than sacrifice"; {1Sa 15:22} and the priesthood were in like manner on this occasion very terribly taught that obedience is also better than incense, even the incense of the sanctuary. In all ages, men have been prone to commit this sin, and in ours as much as any. It is true that in the present dispensation the Lord has left more in His worship than in earlier days to the sanctified judgment of His people, and has not minutely prescribed details for our direction. It is true, again, that there is, and always will be, room for some difference of judgment among good and loyal servants of the Lord, as to how far the liberty left us extends. But we are certainly all taught as much as this, that wherever we are not clear that we have a Divine warrant for what we do in the worship of God, we need to be exceeding careful, and to act with holy fear, lest possibly, like Nadab and Abihu, we be chargeable with offering "strange fire," which the Lord has not commanded. And when one goes into many a church and chapel, and sees the multitude of remarkable devices by which, as is imagined, the worship and adoration of God is furthered, it must be confessed that it certainly seems as if the generation of Nadab and Abihu was not yet extinct; even although a patient God, in the mystery of His long suffering, flashes not instantly forth His vengeance. This then is the first lesson of this tragic occurrence. We have to do with a God who is very jealous; who will be worshipped as He wills, or not at all. Nor can we complain. If God be such a Being as we are taught in the Holy Scripture, it must be His inalienable right to determine and prescribe how He will be served. And it is a second lesson, scarcely less evident, that with God, intention of good, though it palliate, cannot excuse disobedience where He has once made known His will. No one can imagine that Nadab and Abihu meant wrong; but for all that, for their sin they died. Again, we are herein impressively taught that, with God, high position confers no immunity when a man sins; least of all, high position in the Church. On the contrary, the greater the exaltation in spiritual honour and privilege, the more strictly will a man be held to account for every failure to honour Him who exalted him. We have seen this illustrated already by the law of the sin offering; and this tragic story illustrates the same truth again. But the question naturally arises, How could these men, who had been so exalted in privilege, who had even beheld the glory of the God of Israel in the holy mount, {Exo 24:1; Exo 24:9-10} have ventured upon such a perilous experiment? The answer is probably suggested by the warning which immediately followed their death ( Leviticus 10:8-9 ): "The Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Drink no wine nor strong drink when ye go into the tent of the meeting, that ye die not." It is certainly distinctly hinted by these words, that it was under the excitement of strong drink that these men so fatally sinned. If so, then, although their sin may not be repeated in its exact form among us, yet the fact points a very solemn warning, not only regarding the careless use of strong drink, but, more than that, against all religious worship and activity which is inspired by other stimulus than by the Holy Spirit of God. Of this every age of the Church’s history has furnished sad examples. Sometimes we see it illustrated in "revivals," even in such as may be marked by some evidence of the presence of the Spirit of God; when injudicious speakers seek by various methods to work up what is, after all, merely a physical excitement of a strange, infectious kind, though too often mistaken for the work of the Holy Spirit of God. More subtle and yet more common is the sin of such as in preaching the Word find their chief stimulation in the excitement of a crowded house, or the visible signs of approbation on the part of the hearers; and perhaps sometimes mistake the natural effect of this influence for the quickening power of the Holy Ghost, and go on to offer before the Lord the incense of their religious service and worship, but with "strange fire." Of this all need to beware; and most of all, ministers of the Word. The penalty of sin is often long delayed, but it did not lag in this case. The strange fire in the hands of Nadab and Abihu was met by a flash of flame that instantly withered their life; and, just as they were, their priestly robes upon them unconsumed, their censers in their hands, they dropped dead before the fatal bolt. In reading this account and other similar narratives in Holy Scripture, of the deadly outbreak of God’s wrath, many have felt not a little disquieted in mind because of the terrific severity of the judgment, which to them seems so out of all proportion to the guilt of the offender. And so, in many hearts, and even to many lips, the question has perforce arisen: Is it possible to believe that in this passage, for instance, we have a true representation of the character of God? In answering such a question we ought always to remember, first of all, that, apart from our imperfect knowledge, just because we all are sinners, we are, by that fact, all more or less disqualified and incapacitated for forming a correct and unbiassed judgment regarding the demerit of sin. It is quite certain that every sinful man is naturally inclined to take a lenient view of the guilt of sin, and, by necessary consequence, of its desert in respect of punishment. In approaching this question, here and elsewhere in God’s Word, it is imperative that we keep this fact in mind. Again, it is not unnecessary to remark, that we must be careful and not read into this narrative what, in fact, is not here. For it is often assumed without evidence, that when we read in the Bible of men being suddenly cut off by death for some special sin, we are therefore required to believe that the temporal judgment of physical death must have been followed, in each instance, by the judgment of the eternal fire. But always to infer this in such cases, when, as here, nothing of the kind is hinted in the text, is a great mistake, and introduces a difficulty which is wholly of our own making. That sometimes, at least, the facts are quite the opposite, is expressly certified to us in 1 Corinthians 11:30-32 , where we are told that among the Christians of Corinth, many, because of their irreverent approach to the Holy Supper of the Lord, slept the sleep of death; but that these judgments from the Lord, of bodily death, instead of being necessarily intended for their eternal destruction, were sent that they might not finally perish. For the Apostle’s words are most explicit; for it is with reference to these cases of sickness and death of which he had spoken, that he adds ( 1 Corinthians 11:32 ): "But when we are (thus) judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world." What we have here before us, then, is not the question of the eternal condemnation of Nadab and Abihu for their thoughtless, though perhaps, not so intended, profanation of God’s worship, -a point on which the narrative gives us no information, -but, simply and only, the inflicting on them, for this sin, of the judgment of temporal death. And if this yet seem to some undue severity, as no doubt it will, there remain other considerations which deserve to have great weight here. In the first place, if this reveal God as terribly severe in His judgment, even upon what, compared with other crimes, may seem a small sin, we have to remember that, after all, this God of the Bible, this Jehovah of the Old Testament, is only herein revealed as in this respect like the God whose working we see in nature and in history. Was the God of Nadab and Abihu a severe God? Is not the God of nature a terribly severe God? Who then is it that has so appointed the economy of nature that even for one thoughtless indulgence by a young man, he shall be racked with pain all his life thereafter? It is a law of nature, one says. But what is a law of nature but the ordinary operation of the Divine Being who made nature? So let us not forget that the reasoning which, because of the confessed severity of this judgment on the sons of Aaron, argues God out of the tenth of Leviticus, and refuses to believe that this can be a revelation of His mind and character, by parity of reasoning must go on to argue God out of nature and out of history. But if one be not yet ready for the latter, let him take heed how he too hastily decide on this ground against the verity of the history and the truth of the revelation in the case before us. Then, again, we need to be careful that we pass not judgment before considering all that was involved in this act of sin. We cannot look upon the case as if the act of Nadab and Abihu had been merely a private matter, personal to themselves alone. This it was not, and could not be. They did what they did in their official robes; moreover, it was a peculiarly public act: it took place before the sanctuary, where all the people were assembled. What was the influence of this their act, if it passed unrebuked and unpunished, likely to be? History shows that nothing was more inbred in the nature of the people than just this tendency to will worship. For centuries after this, notwithstanding many like terrible judgments, it mightily prevailed, taking the form of numberless attempted improvements on the arrangements of worship appointed by God, and introducing, under such pretexts of expediency, often the grossest idolatry. And although the Babylonian judgment made an end of the idolatrous form of will worship, the old tendency persisted, and worked on under a new form till, as we learn from our Lord’s words in the Gospel, the people were in His day utterly overwhelmed with "heavy burdens and grievous to be borne," rabbinical additions to the law, attempted improvements on Moses, under pretext of honouring Moses, all begotten of this same inveterate spirit of will worship. Nor are such things of little consequence, as some seem to imagine, whether we find them among Jews or in Christian communions. On the contrary, all will worship, in all its endless variety of forms, tends to confuse conscience, by confounding with the commandments of God the practices and traditions of men; and all history, no less of the Church than of Israel, shows that the tendency of all such will worship is to the subversion alike of morality and religion, occasioning, too often, total misapprehension as to what indeed is the essence of religion well pleasing to God. Was the sin of the priests, Nadab and Abihu, then, committed in such a public manner, such a trifling matter after all? And when we further remember the peculiar circumstances of the occasion, -that the whole ceremonial of the day was designed in a special manner to instruct the people as to the manner in which Jehovah, their King and their God, would be worshipped, -it certainly is not so hard, after all, to see how it was almost imperative that in the very beginning of Israel’s national history, God should give them a lesson on the sanctity of His ordinances and His hatred of will worship, which should be remembered to all time. The solemn lesson of the terrible judgment, Moses, as Prophet and Interpreter of God’s will to the people, declares in these words ( Leviticus 10:3 ): "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." If God separate a people to be specially near unto Him, it is that, admitted to such special nearness to Himself, they shall ever reverently recognise His transcendent exaltation in holiness, and take care that He be ever glorified in them before all men. But if any be careless of this, God will nevertheless not be defrauded. If they will recognise His august holiness, in the reverence of loyal service, well; God shall thus glorify Himself in them before all. But if otherwise, still God will be glorified in them before all people, though now in their chastisement and in retribution. The principle is that which is announced by Amos: {Amo 3:2} "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities." And when we remember that the sons of Aaron typically represent the whole body of believers in Christ, as a priestly people, it is plain that the warning of this judgment comes directly home to us all. If, as Christians, we have been brought into a relation of special nearness and privilege with God, we have to remember that the place of privilege is, in this case, a place of peculiar danger. If we forget the reverence and honour due to His name, and insist on will worship of any kind, we shall in some way suffer for it. God may wink at the sins of others, but not at ours. He is a God of love, and desires not our death, but that He may be glorified in our life; but if any will not have it so, He will not be robbed of his glory. Hence the warning of the Apostle Peter, who was so filled with these Old Testament conceptions of God and His worship: "It is written, Ye shall be holy, for I am holy. And if ye call on Him as Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to each man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning in fear". {1Pe 1:17} Leviticus 10:3 : "And Aaron held his peace." For rebellion were useless; nay, it had been madness. Even the tenderest natural affection must be silent when God smites for sin; and in this case the sin was so manifest, and the connection therewith of the judgment so evident, that Aaron could say nothing, though his heart must have been breaking. Leviticus 10:4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp. MOURNING IN SILENCE Leviticus 10:4-7 "And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Draw near. carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp. So they drew near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said. And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons. Let not the hair of your heads go loose, neither rend your clothes; that ye die not, and that He be not wroth with. all the congregation: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled. And ye shall not go out from the door of the tent of meeting, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses." Even in ordinary cases, restrictions were placed upon Aaron and his sons as regards the outward signs of mourning; but exceptions were made in the case of the nearest relations, and, in particular, of the death of a son, or a brother. {Lev 21:2} In this case, however, this permission could not be given; and they are warned that by public expressions of grief they would not only bring death from the Lord upon themselves, but also bring His wrath upon the whole congregation which they represented before God. They are not indeed forbidden to mourn in their hearts, but from all the outward and customary signs of mourning they must abstain. And the reason for this is given; "The anointing oil of the Lord is upon you." That is, by the anointing they had been set apart to represent God before Israel. Hence, when God had thus manifested His holy wrath against sin, for them to have exhibited the public signs of mourning for this, even though the stroke of wrath had fallen into their own family, would have been a visible contradiction between their actions and their priestly position. To others, indeed, these outward tokens of mourning are expressly permitted, for they stood in no such special relation to God; their brethren, "the whole house of Israel," might bewail the burning which the Lord had kindled, but they, although nearest of kin to the dead, are not permitted even to follow the slain of the Lord to the grave, and ( Leviticus 10:4-5 ) the sad duty is assigned to their cousins, who bear the dead, in their white priestly robes, just as they had fallen, out of the camp to burial, while Aaron and his sons mourn silently within the tent of meeting. This has seemed hard to many, and has furnished some another illustration of the hardness. and severity of the character of God as held up in the Pentateuch. But we shall do well to remember that in all this we have nothing which in any respect goes beyond the very solemn words of the tender hearted and most compassionate Saviour, who said, for example, "If any man cometh unto Me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters he cannot be My disciple." {Luk 14:26} In language such as this, we cannot but recognise the same character as in this command unto Aaron and his sons; and if such "hard sayings" are to be held: reason for rejecting the revelation of the character of God as given in the Old Testament, the same logic, in the presence of similar words, will require us also to reject the revelation of God’s character as given by Christ in the New Testament. The teaching of both Testaments on this matter is plain. Natural affection is right; it is indeed implanted in our hearts by the God who made us in all our human relations. But none the less, whenever the feelings which belong even to the nearest and tenderest earthly relations come into conflict with absolute fealty and submission to the will of God, and unswerving loyalty to the will of Christ, then, hard though indeed it may be, natural affection must give way, and mourn within the tent in the silence of a holy submission to the Lord. Leviticus 10:8 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying, CAREFULNESS AFTER JUDGMENT Leviticus 10:8-20 "And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations: and that ye may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses. And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meal offering that remaineth of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and eat it without leaven 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 the offerings of the Lord made by fire: for so I am commanded. And the wave breast and the heave thigh shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they are given as thy due, and thy sons’ due, out of the sacrifices of the peace offerings of the children of Israel. The heave thigh and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the Lord: and it shall be thine, and thy sons’ with thee, as a due forever; as the Lord hath commanded. And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar, the sons of Aaron that were left, saying. Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, seeing it is most holy, and He hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within: ye should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded. And Aaron spake unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord; and there have befallen me such things as these: and if I had eaten the sin offering today, would it have been well pleasing in the sight of the Lord? And when Moses heard that, it was well pleasing in his sight." Such a judgment as the foregoing ought to have had a good effect, and it did. This appeared in renewed carefulness to secure the most exact obedience hereafter in all their official duties. To this end, the Lord Himself now laid down a law evidently designed to preclude, as far as possible, every risk of any such fault in the priestly service as might again bring down judgment. It is not only holiness, but considerate and anxious love, which speaks in the next words, addressed to Aaron ( Leviticus 10:8-9 ): "Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations." And for this prohibition the reason is given ( Leviticus 10:10-11 ): "That ye may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses." It was not then that the use of wine was in itself sinful; for this is taught nowhere in the Old or New Testament, and as a doctrine of religion is characteristic, not of Judaism or Christianity, but only of Mohammedanism, of Buddhism and other heathen religions. The ground of this command of abstinence, as of the New Testament counsel, {Rom 14:20-21} is that of expediency. Because, in the use of wine or strong drink, there was involved a certain risk, that by undue indulgence, the judgment might be confused or the memory weakened, so that something might be done amiss; therefore the priests, who were specially commissioned to teach the statutes of the Lord to Israel, and this most of all, by their own carefulness to obey all the least of His commandments, are here warned to abstain whenever about engaging in their official duties. As suggested above, it is at least very natural to infer, from the historical setting of this prohibition, that the fatal offence of Nadab and Abihu was occasioned by such an indulgence in wine or strong drink as made it possible for impulse to get the better of knowledge and judgment. But, however this may be, the lesson for us abides the same; a lesson which each one according to his circumstances must faithfully apply to his own case. For the Christian it is not enough that he shall abstain from what is in its own nature always sinful; it must be the law of our life that we abstain also from whatever may needlessly become occasion of sin. In this we cannot, indeed, lay down a universal code of law. Heathen reformers have done this, and their imitators in the Church, but never Christ or His Apostles. And this with reason. For that which for one carries with it inevitable risk of sin, is not always fraught with the same danger to another person with a different temperament, or even to the same person under different circumstances. In each instance we must judge for ourselves, taking heed not to abuse our liberty to another’s harm; and also, on the other hand, being careful how we judge others in regard to things which in their essential nature are neither right nor wrong. But we shall be wise to recognise the fact that it is just in such things that many Christians do most harm, both to their own souls and to those of others. And in regard to the drinking of wine in particular, one must be blind indeed not to perceive it to be the fact that, whatever the reason may be, the English-speaking peoples seem to be peculiarly susceptible to the danger of undue indulgence in wine and strong drink. On both sides of the Atlantic, drunkenness must be set down as one of the most prevalent national sins. In deciding the question of personal duty in this and like cases, all believers are bound, as the Lord’s priestly people, to, remember that He has appointed them that they should walk before Him as a separated people, who, by their daily walk, above all, are to teach others to "put a difference between holy and common, and unclean and clean, and to observe all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken." In Leviticus 10:12-15 we have a repetition of the commandments previously given, concerning the use to be made of the meal offering and the peace offering. From this it appears that Moses himself, in view of the tragic occurrence of the day, was stirred up to charge Aaron and his sons anew on matters on which he had already commanded them. And with this intensified care on his part is evidently connected the incident recorded in the verses which follow, where we read that, having repeated the directions as to the meal offering and the peace offering ( Leviticus 10:16-17 ), "Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt; and he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar, the sons of Aaron that were left, saying, Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, seeing it is most holy, and He hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord?" It had indeed been commanded, in the case of those sin offerings of which the blood was brought into the holy place, that their flesh should not be eaten; but that the flesh of all others should be eaten, as belonging to the class of things "most holy," by the priests alone within the Holy Place. Hence Moses continued ( Leviticus 10:18 ): "Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within: ye should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded." What had been done, as it appears, had been done with Aaron’s knowledge and sanction; for Aaron then answered in behalf of his sons ( Leviticus 10:19 ): "Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord; and there have befallen me such things as these: and if I had eaten the sin offering today, would it have been well pleasing in the sight of the Lord?" Of which answer, the intention seems to have been this. In this day of special exaltation and privilege, when for the first time they had performed their solemn priestly duties, when most of all there should have been the utmost care to please the Lord in the very smallest things, His holy Name had been profaned by the will worship of his sons, and the wrath of God had broken out against them, and, in them, against their father’s house. Could it be the will of God that a house in which was found the guilt of such a sin, should yet partake of the most holy things of God in the sanctuary? From this it appears that the judgment sent into the house of Aaron had had a most wholesome spiritual effect. They had received such an impression of their own profound sinfulness as they had never had before. And it is very instructive to observe that they assume to themselves a part in the sinfulness which had been shown in the sin of Nadab and Abihu. It did not occur to Aaron or his remaining sons to say, in the spirit of Israel in the day of our Lord, "If we had been in their place, we would not have done so." Rather their consciences had been so awakened to the holiness of God and their own inborn evil, that they coupled themselves with the others as under the displeasure of God. Was it possible, even though they personally had not sinned, that such as they should eat that which was most holy unto God? They had thus in the letter disobeyed the law; but because their offence was begotten of a misapprehension, and only showed how deeply and thoroughly they had taken to heart the lesson of the sore judgment, we read that "when Moses heard" their explanation, "it

Nadab and Abihu... offered strange fire. Leviticus 10:1, 2 The fall of Nadab and Abihu J. A. Seiss, D. D. Nadab and Abihu were no inconsiderable personages. They were the sons of Israel's priest, the nephews of Israel's leader, the head of Israel's princely elders. They had been with Moses and Aaron in the hallowed mount; they had looked upon the glorious vision of God as He appeared on Sinai; they had been chosen and consecrated to the priesthood; they had stood by and assisted Aaron in the first operations of the Hebrew ritual; and in all that camp of God's ransomed ones, Moses and Aaron alone had higher dignity than theirs. But, from the mount of vision they fell into the pit of destruction. They were accepted priests yesterday; they are disgraced victims of God's holy indignation to-day. An event so startling and melancholy, occurring at the very inception of the Mosaic ceremonies, challenges our special attention, and calls for serious thinking. I. Let us inquire, then, into THE NATURE OF THE OFFENCE which called out this startling visitation upon these unfortunate men. The context shows that it was not one isolated and specific act of disobedience. It was of a complex nature, and involved sundry particulars, each of which contributed to make up the general crime for which judgment came upon the guilty ones. The special statute recorded in the ninth verse, of which this occurrence seems to have been the occasion, furnishes ground for the inference, that Nadab and Abihu had indulged too freely in stimulating drinks, and thus incapacitated themselves for that circumspection and sacred reverence which belonged to the priestly functions. And if this inference be correct, we have here another among the many sad exhibitions of the mischiefs wrought by indulging in a too free use of intoxicating liquors. The history of strong drink is the history of ruin, of tears, of blood. It is, perhaps, the greatest curse that has ever scourged the earth. But, although drunkenness was most likely the root of Nadab and Abihu's offending, it was not the body of their came. If these men had not been first "set on fire of hell" by excessive indulgence in drink, they would never perhaps have been driven to the daring impiety which cost them their lives. The head and front of the sin of these men, as I understand it, was the presumptuous substitution of a will-worship of their own, in defiance of what God had appointed. In three points did they offend — first, in the time; second, in the manner; and third, in the matter of the service which they undertook. It was the prerogative of Moses or Aaron to say when their services were needed; but they went precipitately to work, without waiting for instructions, or asking for directions. It was for the high priest alone to go in before the Lord and offer incense at the mercy-seat; but they wickedly encroached upon His functions, and went in themselves. Never more than one priest was to officiate in burning incense at the same time; but they both together entered upon a service which did not belong to either. These things in themselves evince a very high-handed disregard of Divine order. But the great burden of their sin rested in the matter of the service. They "offered strange fire" — common fire — fire wholly foreign to the fire which God had kindled for such purposes. They thus obtruded what was profane into what was holy, desecrated God's ritual, cast contempt upon His institutions, put their own will-worship above His sacred regulations, and thus called down upon themselves a judgment which made all Israel tremble. II. Let us now consider some of THE IMPLICATIONS, SURROUNDINGS, AND FORESHADOWINGS of this sad occurrence. The shadows of the future were linked in with the facts of the past. Scarcely had Christianity been constituted, until we find a foreign and fitful spirit insinuating itself into the operations of those into whose charge its earthly services had been given (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4 ; 1 John 4:3 ). Along with pontifical power, came in great doctrinal and moral corruption. The one was a part of the other. Bishops retired from the pulpits to sit as spiritual lords, superior to all the kings of earth; the Virgin Mary was installed as the world's mediator; earthly priests assumed the work of intercession, and undertook to forgive and license crime for a price; the Church was driven to the wilderness; another Abihu in his drunkenness had entered the Holy Place, and was offering strange fire before the Lord. And the thing that hath been is the thing that is. Philosophy still has its additions to make to the Word of God. Heathenish pomp still moves to lift itself up in our temples. Human reason is still at work to devise ways to worship and please God which He has not commanded. Men are still found who claim authority to perform offices for the souls of others, which belong only to our great High Priest in heaven. Thousands there are who flatter themselves that they are doing great things in their worship, though the spirit that is in them is not at all the Spirit of Christ. But it shall not always be so. There is a price annexed to all these usurpations and irregularities with regard to holy things. God has magnified His Word above all His name; and he that adds to or takes from it, has his reward specified, and his portion reserved for him. Nadab and Abihu were suddenly and miraculously cut off in the midst of their sin; and so shall it be at last with all the confederates in usurpation and wrong, whether secular or ecclesiastical. Fire from the Lord shall slay them. ( J. A. Seiss, D. D. ) Repulsive incense W. H. Jellie. I. THEIR OFFENSIVE OFFERING. 1. What rendered their incense odious to God? "Strange fire." (1) Not kindled by God. (2) Not mingled with blood. 2. What corresponding offensiveness may mar our offerings? The fire is "strange" when our religion or work is the outcome of (1) Mere emotional fervour. (2) Mere intellectual excitement. (3) Mere feverish activity. (4) Mere self-glorifying religious effort. (5) Mere spiritual rhapsody. II. THEIR RASH IMPIETY. 1. Fearless presumption. 2. Wilful disobedience. III. THEIR ALARMING DESTRUCTION. 1. Remember the God with whom we have to do. 2. The rebuke which presumption will receive. ( W. H. Jellie. ) The sin of Aaron's sons F. W. Brown. I. How ELEVATION TO HIGH AND HOLY POSITIONS DOES NOT PLACE MEN BEYOND THE TEMPTATION AND LIABILITY TO COMMIT SIN. II. HOW THE COMMITTAL OF SIN MERITS, AND MAY MEET WITH SUDDEN CORRESPONDING RETRIBUTION. III. HOW SUCH RETRIBUTION, WHILE IT CONDEMNS THE SINNER, VINDICATES THE BROKEN LAW AND GLORIFIES THE LAWGIVER. 1. We may note that the punishment they received — (1) Condemns them here in the eyes of all Israel. (2) Showed the exceeding sinfulness of sin; and (3) The exacting demands and exalted dignity of the law. 2. God thus manifesting Himself as a consuming fire showed —(1) His jealousy, that He could not be openly and grossly insulted.(2) His power, that the fire which glowed in the cloud, which had kindly let them out of Egypt, protected them from their foes, and which consumed the burnt-offering on the day of consecration, had power to destroy, and, unless held in check, would consume all sinners.(3) His mercy, that while sin deserved punishment, and God had the right and power to destroy, He made judgment His strange work, and such retribution — as that which visited Aaron's sons — an exceptional thing. Let us learn that though worship must be voluntary yet it must be according to God's own appointed way. Liberty is not to be perverted into lawlessness. 3. Strange fire is offered upon God's altar when worship is presented with — (1) Unsolicited materials, or from (2) Unsanctified motives. Enthusiasm is holy ardour — literally, God in us — His own fire ascending to Himself. ( F. W. Brown. ) Nadab and Abihu D. C. Hughes, M. A. I. THE POSITION OF THESE TWO MEN. Regularly ordained priests of the Lord ( Exodus 40:12-16 ). They had a right, therefore, to burn incense before the Lord. II. THE CHARGE AGAINST THESE MEN (ver. 1). 1. The letter of the law was violated (chap. Leviticus 16:12, 13). 2. The essence of this sin (ver 3).(1) Emphasis to be placed on "I." "I will be sanctified," &c.(2) This implies that when deviations from Divine and clearly-defined instructions occur, the Lord charges that such deviations do not enhance His glory; neither is He sanctified in those who are guilty of such deviations. III. THE PUNISHMENT INFLICTED ON THESE MEN (ver. 2). The punishment indicates the unspeakable importance with which God regards implicit and strict obedience to the letter of all His ordinances. IV. THE CONDUCT OF AARON, THE FATHER OF THESE TWO MEN. "Held his peace." 1. How great the grace needed for this. 2. How exemplary the use of needed grace in such a trial as this. V. THE ACCUSTOMED MOURNING FOR THE DEAD WAS PROHIBITED IN RESPECT TO THESE MEN (ver. 6). Does not the rebellious element oftentimes enter into our mourning, and thus the grace of God, in bereavement, becomes of no practical value? VI. THE NEW PROHIBITION (vers. 8-11). The connection in which this prohibition stands suggests — 1. That Nadab and Abihu were probably under the influence of some intoxicating liquor when led to offer "strange fire" before the Lord. 2. That such liquors have a tendency to unfit any one for any true spiritual exercise, because of their exciting nature.Lessons: 1. How profound a lesson is here taught in regard to the only acceptable manner of administering the ordinances of God's house — not with the strange fire of willworship, nor by the slightest deviation from the prescribed order. 2. We learn the unfitness of those who minister in holy things, who neglect the proper observance of the ordinances, and teach men so to do. 3. Let us learn to submit to God's judgments, however severe. 4. Let us avoid everything that would. disqualify us for acceptable worship. ( D. C. Hughes, M. A. ) Lessons A. Willet, D. D. 1. No new or strange doctrine to be brought into the Church. 2. God's election free, and of grace, not of any worthiness in man. 3. That God is no accepter of persons. 4. God is to be glorified even in His judgments. 5. Of a double power of the Word, to life or death. 6. The bodies of the dead to be reverently used, and after a seemly manner to be buried. 7. That it is lawful upon just occasion to be angry. ( A. Willet, D. D. ) Moral observations A. Willet, D. D. 1. In prosperity we must think of adversity. 2. Not to present ourselves before God with carnal, vile, and strange affections. 3. Wherein a man sinneth, he shall be punished. 4. To submit ourselves to the will of God. 5. That men should not for the occasion of private grief neglect the public business, especially in God's service. 6. Against the sin of drunkenness, especially in ministers. 7. That our sins are an offence unto Christ, and to all the celestial company. 8. Not to be too rigorous toward those who are in heaviness, and sin in weakness. ( A. Willet, D. D. ) Strange fire Bp. Babington. Their sin was that to burn incense withal, they took not the fire from the altar of that which came down from heaven, and was preserved by the diligence of the priests till the captivity of Babylon, but other fire, which therefore is called strange fire because it was not fire appointed and commanded. Which fault in man's eyes may seem to have excuse, and not to deserve so fearful a punishment. For they were but yet green in their office and so of ignorance might offend, being not yet well acquainted with the nature of their office. Again, of forgetfulness they might offend, not remembering or thinking of the matter as they ought. Thirdly, there was no malice in them, or purpose to do evil, but wholly they aimed at God's service with a true meaning, although in the manner they missed somewhat. But all these, and whatsoever like excuses, were as fig-leaves before God, vain and weak to defend them from guiltiness in the breach of His commandment. 1. First, with what severity the Lord challengeth and defendeth His authority in laying down the way and manner of His worship, not leaving it to any creature to meddle with, but according to prescription and appointment from Him. Content He is that men shall make laws for human matters, concerning their worldly estate in this earth as shall be fittest for the place where they live. Laws against murder, theft, oppression, &c., but for His Divine worship He only will prescribe it Himself, and what He appointeth that must be done and that only, or else Nadab and Abihu their punishment expected, that is, God's wrath expected, in such manner as He shall please. 2. But doth not a good intent and meaning prevail with God, albeit the thing be not expressly warranted? Yourself judge by that which you see here, and in many other Scriptures. Had Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, here any ill-meaning towards God, or did they of malicious purpose offend Him and procure their own destruction? No; you must needs think their intent was good, but because they swervest from the Word, that good intent served not. The words out of Deuteronomy are not, you shall not do ill in your own eyes, "But you shall not do that which seemeth good" — good I say, and I pray you mark it, you shall not do that, but shall keep you to My commandment. Be it never so good, then, in my conceit, that is, be my meaning never so good, it profiteth not, neither shall excuse God's destroying wrath more than it did here these sons of Aaron. "There is a way," saith Solomon, "that seemeth good to a man and right, but the issues thereof are the ways of death." Such assuredly are all will-worships not grounded upon the Word, but upon man's will and good intent. "They shall excommunicate you," saith our Saviour Christ, "yea, the time shall come that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth God good service." What then? Shall his so thinking excuse his bloody murder? Joseph had no ill-meaning when he prayed his Father to change his hand and lay his right hand upon his elder son's head. What ill meant Joshua when he wished Moses to forbid those that prophesied? Micah's mother, when, according to her vow, she made her son two idols? Peter's meaning had no hurt in it when he forbade Christ to wash his feet; with a number like places in Scripture. Yet you know no good intent was accepted in these cases. No more shall it ever be when it is not agreeing to the Word, which only is a Christian man and woman's true and perfect guide. Let, therefore, these things take place within us, and never wrestle we against the Lord, for He is too strong for us, and His will must stand, not ours. Oh, why should it grieve .me to be ruled by His word, seeing it is so sure a way for me to walk in? Or why should any teacher deliver to me that which he never received of God to be delivered to His people? If they crave obedience why should they be angry, that I pray to have it showed out of His Word whom only I must obey? Be hath prescribed a form of serving Him, that form He will accept and bless with eternal peace; all other forms He will abhor and punish. Nadab and Abihu preach so unto us and all flesh. They wish us to take heed by their harm. God is in other things full of patience, but in this He is full of wrath, and His authority to appoint His own worship, He will not endure it to be taken from Him by any man. ( Bp. Babington. ) Nadab and Abihu E. S. Atwood. In this passage we have the law of worship announced, not in the measured statements of a statute, but in words of terror spoken with tongues of flame. What answer does the incident give us to the vital question, How can men worship God acceptably? I. THE CHARACTER OF THE WORSHIPPER IS A FACTOR OF IMPORTANCE. Those who, like the apostle, are "in the Spirit on the Lord's day" — and every day may be a "Lord's day" — are caught up into the realm of spiritual vision, and stand face to face with realities that on lower levels are at best the dreams and hopes of faith. Worship as an offering may be formal, though even for that to be acceptable there midst be some preparedness of heart; but worship, in order to prove a revelation, must be spiritual, and in securing that the attitude of soul is everything. II. THE PURPOSE OF THE WORSHIPPER IS AN ELEMENT OF WHICH GOD MAKES ACCOUNT. Whatever other reasons influenced Nadab and Abihu to offer "strange fire," it is evident that they had some selfish end to serve. God looks down into every pulpit, and into every minister's heart, and judges every prayer, and criticises every sermon, and estimates the worth or worthlessness of the service offered, according as He finds or furls to find a singleness of purpose to honour Him the sovereign motive that originates and regulates it all. As God looks down on our Sabbath assemblies, in how many pews He sees men and women offering "strange fire," instead of bringing the appointed sacrifice. The spirit of devotion that animates real service is omitted. III. THE PREPARATION FOR WORSHIP IS A MATTER TO WHICH GOD ATTACHES GREAT IMPORTANCE. The numerous directions in the Jewish ritual looking to personal purity were all symbolic and significant of the value of character in the office of worship ( Psalm 24:3, 4 ; 1 Timothy 2:8 ; Hebrews 10:22 ). Both the old covenant and the new are imperative in insisting upon right character as essential to right worship. IV. THE MODE OF WORSHIP HAS ITS LIMITS OF IMPORTANCE. The Jewish ritual was complicated, but it was in all its parts significant. A distinguished writer has said that "whoever would write out the spiritual symbolism of the Book of Leviticus, would give the world a fifth Gospel." Nadab and Abihu were punished for departing from the Divinely established order of service. The folly of men is never so apparent as when it sets itself up as being wiser than God. Under the Christian dispensation larger liberty of choice is allowed. Men are free to adopt such methods of worship as are most affluent in ministries to their spiritual life. But the old underlying principle which was sovereign in the Jewish ritual still remains in force. Any method of worship which is anything more than a means to an end, any ceremony which suffers the thought to go no further than itself, is radically defective. ( E. S. Atwood. ) A sad incident William Jones. I. THE GRIEVOUS SIN OF NADAB AND ABIHU. II. THE SEVERE PUNISHMENT OF THEIR SIN. The punishment in its severity seems out of proportion to the sin. But on this question two considerations of great importance should be duly weighed. 1. The time at which the sin was committed. They were now getting the sacred ritual into full operation; and it was of essential importance that a people such as the Israelites were at this time should be taught that all sacred things should be reverently regarded, and all religious services performed in a devout spirit and becoming manner, and with minute attention to Divine directions. 2. The persons by whom the sin was committed. They were the elder sons of the high priest, and were consecrated to the holy office of the priesthood, "the very persons whose official charge it was to maintain" the sacredness of religious institutions. A severe punishment was necessary for the welfare of the nation. III. THE EXEMPLARY SUBMISSION OF AARON. IV. THE BURIAL OF THE BODIES OF THE OFFENDERS. What a sight that was passing through part of the camp — the dead bodies of two men recently so distinguished in relationship and office, now so distinguished as examples of the awful judgments of God, and in their priestly vestments too! How fitted to impress even the most frivolous with the sacredness of Divine institutions and the dread peril of violating Divine directions! V. THE MOURNING BECAUSE OF THE JUDGMENT UPON THE OFFENDERS. VI. THE LEGISLATION TO WHICH THESE THINGS GAVE RISE (vers. 8-11). 1. The law. That the priests should abstain from every kind of intoxicating drink during their sacred ministrations ( cf. Ezekiel 44:21 ). 2. The reasons by which the law was enforced.(1) That their perceptions might be clear, and their judgment true in the duties of their holy office (ver. 10).(2) That they might teach the people all God's statutes (ver. 11).(3) The law was further enforced by a stern penalty for its violation, "Lest ye die." VII. THE SUBJECT SUGGESTS LESSONS: 1. On worship. We should worship God in the way which He has appointed — with humility, with reverence, &c. 2. On sin and its punishment. Every sin, unless repented and forgiven, must be punished. But presumptuous sins, such as that of Nadab and Abihu seems to have been, are specially heinous and ruinous ( cf. Numbers 15:30, 31 ; Psalm 19:13 ). 3. On submission to the will of God. Imitate Aaron in this. 4. On fitness for the service of God. Aaron and his sons might not touch or even approach the dead, &c. The servants of God must keep themselves from everything that might defile them. "Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord." 5. On temperance. The wise man wilt be temperate in all things and at all times. When about to enter upon sacred services it is specially advisable to abstain entirely from everything intoxicating. The inspiration for such services should not be spirituous, but spiritual. ( William Jones. ) Strange fire J. C. Gray. I. WHO OFFERED IT. Nadab and Abihu. The last one would have expected to be guilty of such a sin. They were not ignorant, but over-zealous people, who only imperfectly knew the law. But they were the sons of Aurora Could hardly be ignorant of the sin they were committing. The best that can be said of them is that they were not sufficiently thoughtful. Ignorance and thoughtlessness are sinful in those with whom knowledge is possible, and who have many incentives to consideration. We should strive to know that we may more perfectly do the will of God. The great probability is that their sin was not merely sin of ignorance, but presumption. Preferred their choice to God's. II. WHAT THEY OFFERED. From chap. Leviticus 16., Numbers 16:18, 46 , it is clear that they should have taken a coal from off the altar. Every act of worship was strictly prescribed. Intention to beget in the minds of the people a profound reverence for the will of God. In everything to consider His will first. To find their happiness in obedience. Instead of acting in accordance with the will of God they obeyed the impulse of their own proud and selfish hearts. It is likely that the time of offering was also wrong. III. How THEY WERE RECEIVED. They draw near and swing their censers. And suddenly "there went out fire," &c. (ver. 2). Their strange fire had been replied to with a fire more strange to them. They were struck dead as by a lightning-flash, h sudden and emphatic protest against their presumption. Learn — 1. To study earnestly that we may more perfectly obey the will of God. 2. To avoid trifling with holy things and ordinances. 3. The instruments of sin may become instruments of punishment. With fire they sinned, by fire they were overthrown. 4. The very gospel, if abused, may become an instrument of condemnation. ( J. C. Gray. ) "Strange fire" Lady Beaujolois Dent. Ere that "eighth day" had closed (chap. Leviticus 10:19), when Jehovah had sent fire from heaven to consume with delight the offerings laid upon His altar, in token of .acceptance — yea, that very day Satan was again at work, this time with the sons of Aaron, leading them to offer — I. "STRANGE FIRE," in direct violation of God's command ( Leviticus 10:1 ). His fire was to be ever burning upon His altar ( Leviticus 6:12, 13 ), continually fed by what ascended as "a sweet savour" to the Lord; and "strange fire," like strange incense ( Exodus 30:9 ), was an abomination to Him. But man is ever prone to think his way, his fire, his incense as good or better than God's. And where God's Fire —i.e. , the Holy Spirit — has been manifestly working, there surely does Satan begin to work by his emissaries, as in the case of Jannes and Jambres ( 2 Timothy 3:5-9 ; Exodus 7:11, 22 ; Exodus 8:18 ); and again with the "vagabond Jews, exorcists" ( Acts 19:6-17 ), in the days of St. Paul. Satan inspires "false teachers," "seducing spirits" ( 1 Timothy 4:1 ; 2 Peter 2:1 ), who, like Nadab and Abihu, shall "bring upon themselves swift destruction." II. THE SONS OF AARON had been specially privileged. The sons of Aaron represent — as we know — the Church, whose members are also partakers of many privileges ( Hebrews 6:4 ). But — as "they are not all Israel which are of Israel" ( Romans 9:6 ), so all called Christians are not "Christ's "; and it is just in the professing Church that we may expect to hear of "strange fire," and false worship, inaugurated by "false teachers," who shall bring in destructive heresies" ( 2 Peter 2:1 , R.V.); and "many shall follow their pernicious ways" (ver 2, A.V.). Especially will this be the case as we approach the end of the age — "the last days" — when "perilous times shall come" ( 2 Timothy 3:1 ). III. "FIRE FROM THE LORD," sent forth in judgment, as in the case of Nadab and Abihu. That fire is used of the Lord for judgment we learn from many passages in Scripture. See, as to the past — 1. "The cities of the plain" ( Genesis 19:24-29 ), "making them an ensample," &c. ( 2 Peter 2:6 ; Jude 1:7 ). 2. At Taberah, because of the complaining of the children of Israel ( Numbers 11:1 ; Psalm 78:21 ). 3. "The two hundred and fifty men that offered" "incense" ( Numbers 16:2, 35 ; Psalm 106:18 ). 4. The captains and their fifties ( 2 Kings 1:10, 12 ). Then as to the future, we read — "Our God shall come:... a fire shall devour before Him," &c. ( Psalm 50:3 ; see also Psalms 97:3). "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed... in flaming fire," &c ( 2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8 ); and "that wicked" — or lawless one referred to — shall be consumed ( 2 Thessalonians 2:8 ). "A fire... from God out of heaven" shall devour those gathered against the saints and the "beloved city" ( Revelation 20:8, 9 ). And "the devil, that deceiveth them," shall be "cast into the lake of fire and brimstone" (ver. Revelation 20:10). He who had energised many with "strange fire" will be consigned to the "everlasting fire prepared," &c. ( Matthew 25:41 ). Appalling indeed to think of these judgments to come; and while we speak of such things let us give good heed lest we should seem to have aught of the spirit of James and John, which called forth our Lord's rebuke ( Luke 9:51-56 ). Let us rather first test ourselves, and then in love warn others. He is ready to give the Holy Spirit — His purifying, guiding Fire to all who ask ( Luke 11:13 ). Lastly, observe — IV. AARON'S ATTITUDE of silent submission to the swift and appalling judgment with which his sons were visited. "Aaron held his peace." Think of the agony of the father's grief, yet not a word l He knew his sons' great sin, and Jehovah's perfect justice. The silence of Aaron may also teach that our "Great High Priest" could not intercede for any guilty of the sin He declared should "not be forgiven" ( Matthew 12:31, 32 ; Mark 3:28-30 ): "Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost," to which the "strange fire" seems to point. ( Lady Beaujolois Dent. ) Clerical apostasy and usurpation J. A. Seiss, D. D. Many a pious heart has been saddened, and sickened almost unto death, over the calamities that have befallen the camp of the Lord in the shape of apostasies, false doctrine, unholy living, and reckless usurpation. Who among us that could not tell the story of many a heart-rending fall in the Church of God! More than once have I seen the man in affluent prosperity a great patron of the Church, prompt in his place in all the services of the sanctuary, and esteemed as one of Israel's elders; but when reverses and bankruptcy came I have seen him turn aside to walk in the ways of the ungodly, the forger, the counterfeiter, the robber, and even the ribald blasphemer. Many a time have I seen the poor man in his daily toil, seemingly walking humbly with his God, and attentive to the things that relate to heavenly treasures; but when the tide of fortune came and gave him riches, or advanced him to places of influence and distinction, he forgot his Church and pious associations, and drifted away into pride like Lucifer's, or into covetousness as niggardly as Shylock's. I have seen men of the loudest professions; yea, men ordained to stand as watchmen on Zion's walls, secretly dallying with the demon of vicious appetite, until they became the reeling sport of boys upon the street, the shame of their denomination, and the tenants of ignoble graves. And history tells again and again of men whose heads reached unto the clouds, who in an unguarded hour came down, like some tall pine of the forest which makes the wilderness howl in its fall; of impious hands touching the holy vessels of God's sanctuary; of false incense burned in the holy place, until the very lamps and stars were hid, and the very house of salvation made a den of robbery and death. ( J. A. Seiss, D. D. ) The sin of Nadab and Abihu J. Parker, D. D. These men were not at liberty to take each his own censer; there was a utensil provided for that action, and for any man to bring his own ironmongery to serve in such a cause was to insult the Spirit of the universe. This is how we stand to-day: every man bringing his censer — his own censer — which means the prostitution of personality, the loss of the commonwealth-spirit and of the recognition of the unity and completeness of the Church. There are men who spend their time in amending Providence: Nadab and Abihu represent two such men to-day. There are men who are always trying to naturalise the supernatural: this is what Nadab and Abihu did. They said in effect, "This evil fire will do quite as well; build your life on reason; order all the ministry of your life by coherent and cumulative argument; drop the ancient words, and choose and set new words of your own; there is no supernatural: let us banish superstition and inaugurate the reign of reason." Nadab and Abihu had a kind of church, but a church without the true God — an uninhabited shell, a mockery, a base irony — the baser because it was in a sense religious. There are men who substitute invention for commandment. This is what Nadab and Abihu did: they invented a new use of the common censer; they brought into new service common fire; they ventured to put incense thereon when only the pontiff of Israel was allowed to use such incense; they invented new Bibles, new laws, new churches, new methods; they were cursed with the spirit of extra independence and individuality, with the audacity of self-trust — not with its religious worship and adoration. This all occurs every day, and it occurs quite as rudely and violently in the current and flow of our own history. All this invention and all this deposition of God and of law comes just as swiftly after our conscious realisations of the Divine presence as this instance came swiftly upon the conscious benediction of God. "There is but a step between me and death." It would seem as if a universe might intervene between true prayer and the spirit of distrust and cursing yet not a hair's-breadth intervenes. A man on his knees is next to the worst self, namely, a man with clenched fists defying the heavens. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) A solemn judgment J. Cumming, D. D. This judgment that fell upon the two sons of Aaron seems very severe. But notice that the high and dignified position they occupied made sin, in their case, far more grievous and calculated to do much more extensive mischief among Israel, than if it had been perpetrated by some one occupying a less conspicuous position in the state. Though sin is in itself always the same, yet, committed in the high places of the land by those who occupy in Church or in State lofty and responsible positions, it has an aggravation and an enormity that it has not when committed by those who occupy lowlier and obscurer spheres in the land. Not that the sin differs in its absolute and personal guilt, but that it differs in the influence it spreads around it. Evil in high places is very contagious — is seen by many, and imitated by more. And, in the next place, this was the commencement of a new economy. The commander of an army, or the commander of a flexor, must insist upon rigid discipline at the commencement of the military expedition, or of the sailing of the fleet; if he do not, the issue is disastrous to the soldiers and the sailors, as it will be injurious to great interests and painful to him. Therefore, at the commencement of a new economy, it was requisite that it should be seen th

10:1,2 Next to Moses and Aaron, none were more likely to be honourable in Israel than Nadab and Abihu. There is reason to think that they were puffed up with pride, and that they were heated with wine. While the people were prostrate before the Lord, adoring his presence and glory, they rushed into the tabernacle to burn incense, though not at the appointed time; both together, instead of one alone, and with fire not taken from the altar. If it had been done through ignorance, they had been allowed to bring a sin-offering. But the soul that doeth presumptuously, and in contempt of God's majesty and justice, that soul shall be cut off. The wages of sin is death. They died in the very act of their sin. The sin and punishment of these priests showed the imperfection of that priesthood from the very beginning, and that it could not shelter any from the fire of God's wrath, otherwise than as it was typical of Christ's priesthood. 10:3-7 The most quieting considerations under affliction are fetched from the word of God. What was it that God spake? Though Aaron's heart must have been filled with anguish and dismay, yet with silent submission he revered the justice of the stroke. When God corrects us or ours for sin, it is our duty to accept the punishment, and say, It is the Lord, let him do what seemeth him good. Whenever we worship God, we come nigh unto him, as spiritual priests. This ought to make us very serious in all acts of devotion. It concerns us all, when we come nigh to God, to do every religious exercise, as those who believe that the God with whom we have to do, is a holy God. He will take vengeance on those that profane his sacred name by trifling with him. 10:8-11 Do not drink wine or strong drink. During the time they ministered, the priests were forbidden it. It is required of gospel ministers, that they be not given to wine, 1Ti 3:3. It is, Lest ye die; die when ye are in drink. The danger of death, to which we are continually exposed, should engage all to be sober. 10:12-20 Afflictions should rather quicken us to our duty, than take us from it. But our unfitness for duty, when it is natural and not sinful, will have great allowances made for it; God will have mercy, and not sacrifice. Let us profit by the solemn warning this history conveys. When professing worshippers come with zeal without knowledge, carnal affections, earthly, light, vain, trifling thoughts, the devices of will-worship, instead of the offering of soul and spirit; then the incense is kindled by a flame which never came down from heaven, which the Spirit of a holy God never sent within their hearts.