Bible Translation

QUESTION: Do you think the Revised Bible will ultimately be in common use, taking the place of the King James version?

ANSWER: Yes. The scholarship of the English speaking world will demand it. Americans will adopt that form of the Revision which contains their preferences in translation, in marginal readings, in references, in topics at the top of the pages, and in Americanizing weights, measures and coins. It is an improvement to say "Holy Spirit" instead of "Holy Ghost," since "ghost" has been degraded in meaning in the last two centuries. The American Revisors have, instead of the generic term Lord, restored the personal name Jehovah, which "he set in Israel."

— from Steele's Answers pp. 41, 42. 

A New Principle of Life

Regeneration is the lodgement by the Holy Spirit of the new principle of life. This is love to God, which is the ruling motive of every genuine Christian. There is a radical and an essential difference between those who are born again and the best of those who lay claim to only natural goodness, a beautiful moral character revolving around self as a centre. But the great transition from spiritual death to spiritual life does not make the child of God at once complete in holiness. The Holy Spirit in sanctification does not work magically, nor mechanically like a washing machine, but by the influence of grace, in accordance with the essential constitution of man, and in the way of a vital process, only by degrees completely renewing the soul.

— From: The Gospel of the Comforter Chapter XIV “The Spirit’s Work in Regeneration.”

Leviticus 11:1-8: Beasts

"1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. 3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. 4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. 8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you." — Leviticus 11:1-8 KJV.

PURITY AND IMPURITY IN ANIMALS.

1.) The sacrifices have been instituted, the ritual of the altar has been ordained, the Aaronic priests have been consecrated, and under the supervision of Moses have performed their first official service. The nation, typically purged from sin, must be led along the path of holy living. To attain this end the people, unable through lack of intellectual and moral development to grasp broad principles and apply them to their own conduct, must be put into the school of manifold and minute rules of life. Fleshly ordinances were made, to a great extent, the channels of spiritual instruction, and for bringing perpetually into remembrance the grand distinctions of the law respecting good and evil. It was necessary that this should be spread out into a vast variety of forms, as the Mosaic dispensation admitted so very sparingly of direct instruction. The Israelite in the very food he ate must have something to remind him of the law of his God, and feel himself enclosed on every side with the signs and indications of that righteousness which it was his great duty, as a member of the covenant, to cherish and exemplify. Hence the nation in its childhood must be “under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the Father.” It must be thrust into “bondage to weak and beggarly elements” until the great Emancipator shall proclaim “the royal law of liberty.” As a man’s character is greatly affected by what he puts into his mouth, through the mysterious connexion between body and mind, the divine Lawgiver begins at the foundation and regulates the food of the chosen people. We cannot regard as wholly fanciful the suggestion of Wunderbar, that the animal element may only with great circumspection and discretion be taken up into the life of man, in order to avoid debasing that human life by assimilation to a brutal level, animalizing the affections and disqualifying the soul for drawing near to God. This should be regarded as a limitation to our Saviour’s announcement that “there is nothing from without a man that entering into him call defile him.” For the depression of the moral tone and the darkening of the spiritual intuitions by an improper treatment of the body are of the nature of a defilement.

2.) But the great purpose of Jehovah was to insulate the Hebrews from the surrounding idolatrous nations, that they might be witnesses to the unity of the Godhead and the worship of the one true and living God. Intercourse in ancient times, as now, was an interchange of hospitality. The banquet seals friendship. Hence it was most important that so strong a tie should not bind up into social unity the worshippers of Jehovah and the votaries of bloody and lustful gods. The natural effect of such association is not a matter of mere speculation. In Numbers 25:2, 3, we have an historical account of the moral and religious danger of accepting of the hospitality of idolaters. Nothing can be a more effectual barrier between nations than this legislation respecting the diet of the Israelites. It stood in the way of the unifying purpose of the Gospel of Christ, and it was removed from the heart of Peter only by a miraculous trance. Acts 10:9-18. Dietetic laws hedge about Mohammedanism, and keep the modern Jews, sojourning in all lands, from national absorption and extinction. This chapter treats of the clean and unclean cattle, fishes, fowls, wild beasts, and reptiles. It pronounces unclean the carcasses of all animals which have died a natural death. It enjoins upon Israel the duty of holiness, as the ground of the distinction in food. Hence the following dietary precepts are given without the assignment of any reasons, they being simple and requiring no exercise of the judgment in their application.

CONCERNING BEASTS, 1-8.

2. These are the beasts which ye shall eat — See Genesis 7:2.

3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof — There is here no limit to the number of divisions, but in Deuteronomy 14:6 we find the words “cleft into two claws.” Thus also the Seventy in this verse. And cheweth the cud — Literally, Causeth what has been chewed to come up. This describes the method of rumination. The ruminant is endowed with four stomachs. The first receives the vegetables coarsely bruised by a first mastication, which pass into the second, where they are moistened and formed into little pellets, which are brought up again to the mouth to be chewed again, then swallowed into the third stomach, from which they pass into the fourth, for final digestion. The qualities required in this verse exclude all carnivorous, but do not include all graminivorous, animals.

4. The camel — Some think that this beast is not to be eaten because of his extraordinary usefulness as “the ship of the desert.” But Jehovah pronounces him unclean, and for this reason commands his people to abstain from his flesh, a food much esteemed by the Arabs. Many attempts have been made to explain the grounds of this interdict of camel flesh, none of which is satisfactory. Divideth not the hoof — He does not fully divide the hoof into two equal parts, the front part only being cleft; he was excluded by the very terms of the definition. Since the number of camels in the East is immense, and their flesh is very palatable — according to Tristram’s taste less savoury than horse flesh — their prohibition was a great privation. The Jews, no doubt, ate camels’ milk, which is excellent. Jacob presented Esau with thirty milch camels. Genesis 32:15.

5. The coney — The שָּׁפָ֗ן (shaphan), erroneously translated coney, is a gregarious, thick-skinned animal, living in caves and clefts of the rocks in Palestine. Its scientific name is hyrax Syriacus. Aside from this verse and its concordant, Deuteronomy 14:7, it is mentioned only in Psalm 104:18 and in Proverbs 30:26. It is scarcely of the size of the cat, timid, yet easily tamed, gray on the back, white on the belly, with long hair, a very short tail, and round ears. It resembles the Alpine marmot, and is not now very common in Palestine, though occasionally seen among the hills. It is singular in its structure and anatomy, being neither a ruminant nor a rodent, but is classed by naturalists between the hippopotamus and the rhinoceros. See Robinson, 3:387. Because he cheweth the cud — From the motion of their jaws both the hyrax and the hare were long supposed to ruminate, even by Linnaeus and other eminent naturalists. It is the opinion of modern scientists that they are only apparent, not real ruminants. The popular view is evidently given here. The mention of rumination is merely incidental, since it was not sufficient to classify them as clean. According to Revelation J.G. Wood the coney and the rabbit are rodents, and have to be working their chisel-like incisive teeth continually, to keep them sharp and from growing too long.

6. The hare — This is probably the species lepus Sinaiticus, seen by modern travellers in the Sinaitic Peninsula and in Mount Lebanon. Hares are hunted in Syria with falcon and greyhound. Only the Arabs eat their flesh.

7. The swine — The Jews are not alone in their abhorrence of swine’s flesh. It was forbidden to the Egyptian priests, disallowed by the Koran, and rejected by the Phenicians, Ethiopians and other Eastern nations. At the present day a hog is scarcely ever seen in Palestine. Native Christians abstain from pork out of a prudential regard for the scruples of their Moslem and Jewish neighbours. Besides being a non-ruminant it is probable that the swine was excluded from the diet of the Hebrew on hygienic grounds, as liable to induce cutaneous diseases, especially the leprosy. The intimate connexion between disorders of the skin and the eating of pork is found in the derivation of the word scrofula, from the Latin scrofa, a breeding-sow.

Sanctified Parents

QUESTION: Why are not the children of entirely sanctified parents born without any bent toward sin?

ANSWER: This bent is derived from fallen Adam. His sin damaged the whole race. The perfected holiness of the parents is not a natural but an acquired quality, which cannot be transmitted any more than any manual dexterity of mental attainment can be transmitted by descent. There are mysteries in heredity. How can black-haired parents have a redhead among their children? How did it come down from some ancestors who lived centuries before? When these questions are answered we will try to answer how a depraved child can be born of holy parents. It is true that the parent may intensify or diminish the evil trend in their child, but they cannot wholly remove it. That is the work of God only.

— From Steele's Answers pp. 13, 14.

The Books Beyond the Gospels

QUESTION: Why should I receive the epistles of Paul, John and other apostles as authorities equal to the words of Jesus Christ?

ANSWER: Because he announced the incompleteness of his teachings and that the Holy Spirit would teach them truths which they could not bear to receive from his lips, such as the atonement, justification by faith, the in-gathering of the Gentiles, the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day, the substitution of baptism for circumcision, the abolition of the whole Levitical law.

— From Steele's Answers p. 13.

What is the Best Book of Illustrations for a Preacher?

QUESTION: What is the best book of illustrations for the pulpit?

ANSWER: The best three are: (1) the Bible, (2) Nature and (3) experience. A thorough study of those will furnish you with abundant illustrations pertinent and instructive. Cultivate the habit of seeing spiritual truths in the natural world and in the events of daily life. As for cyclopedias of illustration, the less you use them the better for your sermons and your self-respect. In my youthful ministry I cumbered my library with them, but I got rid of them so long ago that I have forgotten the names of their compilers. Become your own cyclopedia. Jesus often said, "The kingdom of heaven is like." Keep on the lookout for likes. If you wish to know what attractiveness they give to a sermon when the preacher is the discoverer of the likeness, read a volume of Rev. Louis Albert Banks, as a modern instance.

— Steele's Answers pp. 102, 103.

Leviticus 10:12-20

"12 And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat 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: 13 And ye shall eat it in the holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons’ due, of the sacrifices of the LORD made by fire: for so I am commanded. 14 And the wave breast and heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they be thy due, and thy sons’ due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel. 15 The heave shoulder 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, by a statute for ever; as the LORD hath commanded. 16 And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying, 17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD? 18 Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded. 19 And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD? 20 And when Moses heard that, he was content." —  Leviticus 10:12-20 KJV.

EATING THE MOST HOLY THINGS, 12-20.

12. Take the meat offering — The appalling stroke of Jehovah’s wrath had disconcerted Aaron so that he had forgotten the prescribed order of the sacrifices. Moses reminds him that the meat offering follows the burnt offering consumed by celestial fire. Leviticus 9:24. See The Order of the Levitical Sacrifices. And eat it — The eating by the priest symbolizes the full acceptance of the oblation. See Leviticus 6:16, note, and Concluding Note (1) of the same chapter. Beside the altar — This was the altar of incense in the priests’ apartment, called the holy place, within the first veil. See chap. 4:7.

13. Thy due, and thy sons’ due — In addition to the meat offering there were other sources of revenue to the priests, enumerated in Numbers 5:9. For so I am commanded — “Moses was not the fountain of authority. God has no dead letters in his law book. The law is alive — tingling, throbbing in every letter and at every point. The commandment is exceeding broad; it never slumbers, never passes into obsoleteness, but stands in perpetual claim of right and insistence of decree. It is convenient to forget laws; but God will not allow any one of his laws to be forgotten.” — Joseph Parker.

15. The heave shoulder… wave breast — See Leviticus 7:14, 30, notes. “All the members of the priestly family, daughters, as well as sons — all, whatever the measure of energy or capacity — are to feed upon the breast and the shoulder, the affections and the strength of the true Peace Offering as raised from the dead and presented before God.” — McIntosh.

16. The goat of the sin offering — This was the people’s sin offering which had been slain and offered by Moses, (Leviticus 9:15,) or by the two younger sons of Aaron, to whom this part of the ritual had been intrusted by Moses. And he was angry — No softer word will import into English the strength of the Hebrew יִּקְצֹף (katzaph) — to snort, to storm. Anger is not a sin when it arises not from personal feeling, but purely in the interest of justice, truth, order, and humanity. The soul which cannot be angry at great wrongs Plato compares to an arm with the chief sinew cut asunder. We do not accept that weak defence of the imprecatory Psalms which explains them as simply declaratory of future judgments upon David’s enemies. They are the proper expression of a righteous indignation breathed out in behalf of God and his righteousness. Hence, the sinless Jesus on one occasion looked around with anger upon his foes lurking in ambush for his life. Mark 3:5. It remains for us to inquire whether Moses had sufficient provocation to just anger. We reply that stupidity and gross carelessness in handling interests of vast importance are such a provocation. The sins of the whole Hebrew nation were to be taken away by virtue of their incorporation into the priests by eating the people’s sin offering. Such was the sanctifying power of the priests’ office that by this act they were enabled to bear away the iniquity of the congregation. By the blunder of these young priests the people’s sins were still resting upon them. See chap. 6:26, note. Heedlessness in respect to our own interests is culpable, but in respect to the well-being of others it is criminal.

17. To bear the iniquity — The Hebrew שֵׂאת֙, he bore, with its derivatives, occurs in the Old Testament eight hundred and ninety-five times, or about once to every chapter. In relation to sin it occurs sixty-four times. It may be interpreted by portare peccatum, to bear or suffer the penalty of sin, or by auferre peccata, to remove sins. The predominant signification is that of removal; yet the other, of bearing, is by no means excluded thereby; rather was the bearing in this case a removal. “When the priests ate they incorporated sin, as it were, and the people received forgiveness unto themselves, that it might be prefigured that at some time the priest and the victim would be one person, namely, the Messiah, a prediction exactly fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.” — Deyling. This singular episode between Moses and Aaron sheds much light upon the sacrifices. The goat of the sin offering and whatever touched it were most holy. The priests were to eat it, and thus the sins of the people, having been transferred through the animal to the priests, were representatively borne. See Numbers 9:13, note. Atonement — Leviticus 1:4, and 4:20, notes.

18. Blood… not brought — See Leviticus 6:30, note. In the passage referred to it will be seen that it was a law of the sin offering that it should not be eaten when the blood was brought into the tabernacle, for this is the meaning of the holy place in this place. This verse proves the converse to be true, namely, that every sin sacrifice shall be eaten whose blood was not brought into the holy place. In the first case the sprinkled blood expiated, and in the second, the eaten flesh removed sin.

19. Such things have befallen me — “Aaron here supplies the ‘one touch of nature’ which ‘makes the whole world kin.’ The deeper laws assert themselves against the more superficial statutes and ordinances.” — Joseph Parker. Aaron, forbidden to mourn in public, could not restrain his grief. His bursting heart finds relief in this one sentence whispered in the ear of his irate brother as an apology for his own neglect to eat the sin offering. He had been deterred by his sense of unworthiness and by his fear of committing an impropriety which might call down still greater judgments. This soft answer turned away wrath, for when Moses heard… he was content. “They were all, in a sense, unclean, even though the anointing oil of the Lord was upon them. They might eat the meat offering which was their due, but could not make atonement for the sins of the people.” — Bib. Sac. It is far better to be real in our confession of failure than to put forth pretensions to spiritual power without foundation. This chapter opens with positive sin, and closes with negative failure, the former dishonouring God, and the latter forfeiting his blessing.

Leviticus 10:8-11

 "8 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying, 9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: 10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; 11 And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses." — Leviticus 10:8-11 KJV.

THE PRIESTS FORBIDDEN WINE AND STRONG DRINK, 8-11.

9. Do not drink wine — This wine is in Hebrew יַ֣יִן (yayin), the most general term for this beverage, especially when it is intoxicating. “Yayin is a mocker.” Proverbs 20:1. In seventy-five out of a hundred and thirty-six passages it is spoken of with condemnation by reason of its disastrous effects. Unfermented, or new wine, called must, is in the Hebrew expressed by תִּירוֹשׁ (tirosh). This is never prohibited or condemned. It occurs thirty-eight times, with no indication of any intoxicating quality. The solitary apparent exception in Hosea 9:11 is explained as the gluttonous use of sweet, nutritious wine as an article of food. The meaning of the passage is, that the three great appetites — the sexual, the bibulous, and the gluttonous — “take away the heart” or understanding. There are several other terms sparingly used, some of which always involve a bad sense, as שׂבַע sobe, signifying soak and soaker, while others are doubtful. Nor strong drink — The Hebrew שֵׁכָר (shecar) is a generic term applied to all fermented liquors except wine. It includes, 1.) Beer, which was largely consumed in Egypt under the name of zythus. It was made of barley and certain herbs, such as lupin and skirrett, as a substitute for hops. 2.) Cider, or apple-wine. 3.) Honey-wine, of which there were two sorts; the first consisting of a mixture of wine, honey, and pepper, the other a decoction of the juice of the grape, termed debash (honey) by the Jews, and dibs by the modern Syrians. 4.) Date-wine, which was the fermentation of dates mashed and mixed with water. 5.) The fermented juices of various other fruits and vegetables, as figs, millet, pomegranates, and carob fruit. According to the latest researches in philology, the English word cider is a modification of shecar, through the Grecized form sikera. See Webster’s Dictionary. When ye go into the tabernacle — The service of God requires the clearest head and the purest heart. It is an intelligent exercise, and not a blind, mechanical opus operatum, or going through with the motions. If the priest even medicinally used fermented wine or strong drink in the smallest quantity, it disqualified him for his office during that day. What a rebuke is this to the usage — still prevalent in some countries — of drinking wine in the vestry before going into the pulpit and reasoning of righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come! The enactment of this law immediately after the slaying of Nadab and Abihu affords strong grounds for the theory that they were drunken when they committed the act of sacrilege. The Targum of Palestine plainly sustains this view. “Drink no wine nor any thing that maketh drunk, as thy sons did, who have died by the burning of fire.” See Numbers 3:4.

11. That ye may teach — The priest was the earliest religious teacher of the Levitical law, “for the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth.” Malachi 2:7. The two sides of the priestly vocation, teaching and offering, are embraced in Deuteronomy 33:10. The Pentateuch knows nothing of a scholastic inculcation of the divine laws; it knows no formal religious instruction at all except the reading of the law before the assembled people, at the feast of tabernacles, in the Sabbatic year. Deuteronomy 31:10-13. All religious teachers should be τελειοι, perfect, having their senses — internal and external — exercised to discern or discriminate both good and evil. Hebrews 5:14. Wine draws a film over the spiritual eye and confounds moral distinctions. If the priests have aught to do with wine in a lawful way, it is only that it may, in the holy place,” be poured unto the Lord for a drink offering.” Numbers 28:7. Wine symbolizes joy. The joy of all believers is not the joy of earth but of heaven — of the sanctuary. “The joy of the Lord is your strength.”

Leviticus 10:1-7 - Strange Fire

" 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. 2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. 3 Then Moses said unto Aaron, 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. And Aaron held his peace. 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. 5 So they went near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said. 6 And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled. 7 And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses." — Leviticus 10:1-7 KJV.

This chapter details the sad effects of sin intruding as a marplot into the holiest scenes on earth, and casting down from the highest earthly station the anointed priests of Jehovah, and plucking a more than kingly diadem from their heads, (1-7.) It also contains a statute enforcing priestly abstinence from wine, apparently suggested by the drunken recklessness of Nadab and Abihu, (8-11,) the two eldest sons of Aaron and Elisheba, and a supplementary law respecting the eating of the most holy sacrifices, (12-15,) and records the blunder of the priests in burning the sin offering, which should have been eaten, and also Aaron’s apology for the mistake, (16-20.) Of the four sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu only were selected to accompany Moses, Aaron, and the seventy elders up Mount Sinai, where they “saw the God of Israel.” Exodus 24:9, 10. They had just been invested with their priestly robes, and they were passing through their first service as novitiates, when, by a rash act, they made a sad failure, signalized by the marked displeasure of Jehovah.

NADAB AND ABIHU SLAIN BY JEHOVAH, 1-7.

1. Offered strange fire — “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. They ventured to put incense thereon, when only the pontiff of Israel was allowed to use such incense.” — Joseph Parker. The fire is called “strange” in distinction from that of celestial origin which “came out from before Jehovah and consumed the burnt offering.” Leviticus 9:24. The great difficulty in this matter is found in the absence of any previously recorded regulation touching the proper use of sacrificial fire. This regulation is found in Leviticus 16:12. The presumption is very strong that it was instituted before the events narrated in chapters 9 and 10, since the statute respecting the preservation of the altar-fire was given in Leviticus 6:9, 13.  Their sin consisted in the performance of the Lord’s service in a manner which he commanded them not. They departed in some way from the plain words of Jehovah, deeming their own reason a better guide in religious matters. Very much of that which passes among men for the worship of God is but strange fire.

2. Fire from the Lord — The sacred fire which these priests had slighted had “come out from before the Lord.” Leviticus 9:24. “Fire had just consumed the burnt-offering and the fat upon the altar in token of divine complacency and sacred nearness, and the acceptance of human worship, and that same fire went out from the Lord and devoured the audacious priests — the sacerdotal blasphemers — ate them up as if they had been common bones! The Lord has never been negligent of his own altar.” — Joseph Parker. By a species of poetical justice, fire from the same source is the instrument of their punishment. “Our God is a consuming fire.” This fearful exhibition of wrath and power indicates his real presence where his name is. “A saint, when asked, ‘What is the most dangerous doctrine?’ replied, ‘God’s own truth held carnally, and to exalt self.’ For his light may blind, his ark destroy, his sanctuary smite, his table be damnation. And a truth perverted may be the firmest chain to hold and bind and blind us for ever.” — Jukes. Devoured them — Literally, ate them up. But this strong word is used metaphorically for slew, since neither their bodies nor even their garments were consumed. The stroke was like a deadly flash of lightning issuing from the most holy place, the abode of the invisible Jehovah. Here we find another parallel between the opening of the dispensation of shadows and the beginning of the official work of the Holy Ghost. Two persons are struck dead at the inauguration of each dispensation, amid the displays of omnipotent power, and the rejoicings of the people at the tokens of Jehovah’s presence and favor. See Acts 5:1-11. In both these passages we have the double action of the same fire, which consumes the burnt offering and baptizes the believer with fire in token of acceptance, and smites the sinning priest and the lying Ananias in token of judgment. “God is love.” “God is a consuming fire.” His anger against sin burns most intensely around his own altars. “Poetical justice might have closed the book of Leviticus with chap. 9. It would have been a glorious close — Aaron moved to feeling; Moses giving way to emotion; the Lord’s fire consuming the offering upon the altar; the people singing, shouting, and falling down in adoration! Why did not the history close there? That would have been Canaan enough for any nation, paradise enough for any people. But there is another chapter.”

3. I will be sanctified — I will be regarded as high and glorious. There must be a correspondence between my majesty and the obedience and veneration of those who minister at my altars and are conspicuous examples to the whole people. In them that come nigh me — There is no verb in the Hebrew. The literal is in those near to me; that is, in the pious. Disobedience in the holy place is almost equal to the Miltonic story of a rebellion in heaven. Before all the people I will be glorified — This is a key to the apparent severity of this judgment, which fell upon the priesthood like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky. Infidelity at the altar will inevitably beget irreligion in the tents. An impious priesthood cannot train up a pious people for the heritage of God. This awful outflashing of his wrath gives a perpetual emphasis to the admonition, “Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord.” And Aaron held his peace — The father stood dumb over the corpses of his sons. Through divine grace he was enabled to repress the grief of his heart, which sought its natural outlet in wailings and tears. He recognised the hand which had smitten him, and heard the voice of Jehovah within his heart, “Be still, and know that I am God.” The situation of the high priest was critical indeed. As the representative of Jehovah he should calmly approve his judgments; as a father, he loves his sons and is prompted by nature to yield to that perturbation of sorrow which would disqualify him for his official duties. Charles Wesley thus versifies Aaron’s mute sorrow:

“Why should a living man complain
That sinners are struck dead?
Reprieved myself, I still remain,
If punished in my seed.

Howe’er thou deal’st with mine or me,
O stop the murmuring groan,
Or let my only answer be,
Father, thy will be done!”

4. Moses called — He who had amid the quakings of Horeb and the thunderings and lightnings drawn near and entered into the cloud where God was not the man to be disconcerted by this awful catastrophe. Sons of Uzziel — The third son, Zithri, (Exodus 6:22,) was not summoned to this painful task. Being Kohathites, soon to be charged with the transportation of the sacred furniture, it was fitting that they should be employed to remove the bodies of these sacred persons. Elizaphan was chief of the Kohathites. Numbers 3:30, 31. Carry your brethren — They were kindred of the fifth degree, and loosely termed brethren. Before the sanctuary — As they fell between the great altar and the tabernacle with smoking censers in their hands, it is evident that they were going toward the holy place to burn incense at the golden altar unbidden, and possibly against a positive prohibition.

5. In their coats — Their apparel, being defiled by contact with dead bodies, could not be retained for the use of their brothers or successors in office. Aaron was not permitted to die in his pontifical robes, in order that they might be worn by Eleazar. Numbers 20:26.

6. Uncover not your heads — “It was the law that the priest should never leave the altar to go to burials, or interrupt his sacred ministry by shedding tears. He represented God as well as represented the people, and he must abide at his duty whoever died. It was military religion in its mechanical arrangement; it was spiritual obedience in the acceptation of its intention.” — Joseph Parker. They were forbidden to remove their hats, to unbind their head-bands, and dishevel their hair in token of grief. This was an act derogatory to priestly dignity. This command was generalized in the case of the high priest, who was forever prohibited to attend a funeral or to give any indication of mourning for the dead. Neither Judaism nor Christianity ignores the ties of human kindred except when they stand in the way of duty. All affections must yield to the paramount claims of God. Luke 14:26. Those who are brought nigh to God by the anointing of the Holy Spirit must move in a sphere beyond the range of nature’s influences. Priestly nearness to God gives the soul such an insight into all his ways as right and good that one is enabled joyfully to worship in his presence, even though the stroke of his hand has removed from us the object of tender affection. Neither rend… clothes — This act was an oriental symbol of grief, despair, or indignation. Lest wrath come upon all the people — Personal gratification must be subordinate to the public weal. “For even Christ,” our high priest, “pleased not himself.” Thus vicarious suffering by the priest is early foreshadowed as a requisite of the coming great High Priest. Nevertheless the erring priests are not to die unwept. The whole house of Israel are commanded to bewail the stroke of vengeance, and to soothe the wounded family of Aaron.

7. Ye shall not go out — Primarily this relates to going forth to funerals. See Leviticus 21:10-12, notes. This prohibition must not be considered as absolute. They were not to come in contact with secular affairs by abandoning the service of the tabernacle. Lest ye die — By some supernatural interposition. Many a Christian minister has suffered spiritual death by voluntarily going forth from the tabernacle to enter upon secular matters with the anointing oil of the Lord upon him. See Leviticus 8:10, 30, notes.

The Holiness of Adam

QUESTION: What is the difference between Adam's holiness before he fell and after he was entirely sanctified?

ANSWER: The difference between the natural and the moral, or between the negative and the positive. A natural holiness is con-created and without voluntary choice, and because it lacks volition, is natural rather than moral. It is negative, because it simply denotes the absence of impurity. When Adam chose holiness it was positive. What this positive element is, theologians have found difficult to state. I would modestly suggest that it is a chosen conformity to the nature of God, called perfect love, by St. John of Ephesus and St. John of Epworth.

— From Steele's Answers pp. 12, 13.