Leviticus 10

Chap. X. Ver. 1—20. The crime and death of Nadab and Abihu.—How soon do Death and Misery tread upon the steps of Joy! Whether it were the same day, or the following, it was probably not longer before this unhappy circumstance occurred. The first time, as it should seem, that these sons of Aaron went to offer incense before Jehovah, they committed a crime that cost them their lives. Whether their spirits were elated with wine, (as seems implied in the caution, ver. 9.) and they rushed thoughtlessly into the divine presence; or whether their hearts were tainted with infidelity, and they despised the holy commandment, certain it is, that instead of taking fire from the sacred altar, which had been so recently received from heaven, as took “sparks of their own kindling,”

like those spoken of by Isaiah, (ch. i. 11. who probably alludes to this history,) and they “lied down in sorrow.” It has been objected, that they violated no express law; but this can hardly be admitted: for they were plainly commanded to “offer no strange incense, nor burnt sacrifice,” ((Exodus 30:9).) which naturally enough implied no “strange fire;” but what aggravated their offence was, that the Lord had just sent fire from heaven, to be kept perpetually burning upon the altar; and their conduct either called this fact in question, or treated the favour with contempt. Men may labour to palliate their fault, but He who read their motives in their hearts, considered it as an insult to his divine Majesty, and visited it accordingly; and that sacred fire which, by consuming their incense, would have marked the acceptance of their offering, carried the sentence of death into their bosoms.

‘Then said Moses unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh unto me; and before all the people I will be glorified.” And Aaron held his peace.—Literally, “He was dumb,” or silent; as if struck so by the flash of lightning, or celestial fire, which had killed his sons. It is the natural effect of sudden calamity to stupify the mind and seal up the lips. Seneca has remarked, that “Light sorrows are loquacious, more weighty griefs silent.” Both Aaron and his sons were forbidden to mourn “for the sufferers, lest wrath should come upon all the people.” The high-priest was, indeed, in no case to mourn, even for his father or his mother. ((Leviticus 21)

10—12.) But the people were to mourn; not for the deceased, but to bewail the awful judgment—“the burning” which they had witnessed. This event, it may well be supposed, threw both priests and people into great confusion; and Aaron omitted to eat of the sin-offering, or to sprinkle the blood in the holy place. Moses reproves this neglect; but when Aaron alleges the state of his mind on this occasion, Moses says no more, nor does the Lord visit for the omission. ‘‘Such things have befallen me!” said he; “and if I had eaten the sin-offering to-day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord?” In the first place, his grief left him no disposition to eat: and his perturbation of mind was such, that he was unable to perform the duties of his office.

This melancholy incident has been very properly improved, by way of caution against that “strange fire”—intemperate and unhallowed zeal, which kindles on earth a flame that “the Lord hath commanded not,” to destroy those whom we suppose in error; or calls down fire from heaven in curses and anathemas. To all such it may be said, as to the sanguine disciples of our Lord, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.” ((Luke 9:55).)

Notes on the verses

Chap. X. Ver. 1. Strange fire.—That is, fire that did not come from God’s altar. The prohibition of this was implied by (Leviticus 6:12). (also by (Exodus 30:9).) but the thing became far more criminal, after the fire upon the altar was kindled from the holy place. Ver. 9. Wine nor strong drink.—{Shecher, in Arabic, sakar, or sukr, from skachar, to inebriate, signifies any kind of fermented and inebriating liquor besides wine. So Jerome informs us, that Sicera in Hebrew denotes any inebriating liquor, whether made of corn, the juice of apples, honey, dates, or any other fruit. These different kinds of liquors are described by Pliny, who call them vina factitia. One of the four prohibited drinks among the Mohammedans in India is called sakar, which denotes inebriating liquor in general, but especially date wine.

Similar prohibitions existed among various heathen nations, as Plato informs us; with which Eusebius compares this law. ]—Bagster. _ Ver. 14. In a clean place.—What is, in “a holy place,” as the LXX. express it. Comp. ver. 13 17. Chap. XI. Ver. 3. Parteth the hoof and is cloven-footed.—Both words mean the same thing; but to admit an animal among their clean beasts, it must also chew the cud. Ver. 4, The camel divideth not the hoof.—This has been much disputed; but Professor Michaelis has at length ascertained, that the cleft is not quite through.—Comment on the laws of Moses, translated by Dr. A. Smith. Ver. 5. The coney.—[Shaphan, most probably an animal resembling the rabbit, called by Dr. Shaw, “Israel’s lamb,”

and by Bruce, Ashkoko, which name he imagines is derived from the singularity of those long heracious hairs, which like small thorns grow about his back, and which in Amhara are called ashok.” ‘This curious animal abounds in Judea, Palestine, Arabia, and Ethiopia; and is described as being about seventeen inches when sitting. It has no tail; and at first sight gives the idea of a rat. Its colour is gray, mixed with reddish brown; the belly white: the body covered with strong polished hairs, for the most part about two inches in length; the ears round and not pointed; the feet round, of a soft, pulpy, tender substance; the toes projecting beyond the nails, which are rather broad than sharp; the upper jaw is longer than the other; it lives upon grain, fruit, and roots, and certainly chews the cud; and it does not burrow like the hare and rabbit, but lives in clefts of the rocks.

|—Bagster. Ver. 7. The swine.—There is no doubt but the reason of prohibiting the Jews from this food, was in part dietary. Michaelis says, “Whoever is afflicted with any cutaneous disease, if he wishes to be cured, must abstain from swine’s flesh.. |. Now throughout the whole climate under which Palestine is situated, and to a certain extent, both north and south, the leprosy is an endemic disease; and with this disease, which is pre-eminently an Egyptian one, the Israelites left Egypt so terribly over-run, that Moses found it necessary to enact a variety of laws respecting it; and that the contagion might be weakened, and the people tolerably guarded against its influence, it became necessary to prohibit them from eating swine’s flesh altogether.”

The same learned writer adds, that the Arabs hold swine’s flesh to be unclean, and that Mahomet has forbidden it in his Koran. Ver. 13. Among the fowls.—There seems much more uncertainty here than in either of the other classes of natural history; and notwithstanding the great number of travellers since the date of our translation, who have attended to this object, a few only can be ascertained with certainty; the others rest chiefly on etymology, (a very precarious guide,) and on the translation of the LXX. Those in which it appears most probable that our translators were mistaken, and which have since been better ascertained, we shall very briefly notice, with our authorities. f; The eagle.—[Nesher, Chaldee neshar, Syriac neshro, and Arabic nisr, the eagle, one of the largest, strongest, wildest, fiercest,

and most rapacious of the feathered race. His eye is large, dark and piercing; his beak powerful and hooked; his legs strong and feathered; his feet ralees and armed with four very long and terrific claws; his wings very large and powerful; his body compact and robust; his bones hard; his flesh firm; his feathers coarse; his attitude fierce and erect; his motions lively; his flight extremely rapid and towering; and his cry the terror of every wing. }—Bagster. ‘There are probably three species of eagles. The second is called the ossifrage, or bone-breaker, from its habit of breaking the bones of animals, to extract the marrow. ‘‘The osprey is supposed to be the strong black eagle.”’—Dr. Clarke.

Ver. 15. Every raven.—Including the crow, rook, jackdaw, &c.—Dr. Ver. 16. The owl.—Hebrew, “The daughter of vociferation,” which Dr. Shaw interprets of the female ostrich, which in the night makes a terrible noise, sometimes groaning, and at others, roaring like the lion or the bull —— The night hawk.—The same traveller thinks this is the true oriental owl, which is so ravenous, that if not watched it will sometimes fly in at the window, and destroy children. —The cuckoo.—Rather, from its extreme leanness.—Bochart. Ver. 17. The little owl.—“The bittern,” or night-raven.—Bochart.—— The cormorant.—Rather, “the plungeon;” a sea-fowl, which darts down a cubit into the water for its prey.——The great owl.—LXX.

and Vulgate, “The ibis,” (the sacred bird of Egypt,) which fed on serpents; but others, with our translators, take it for a night bird, from its supposed derivation. Ver. 18. The gier-eagle.—According to Bochart, “The vulture;” perhaps the golden vulture. Ver. 19. The lapwing.—Rather, “The upupa,” or hoopoe; a beautiful, but very unclean bird. Ver. 21. Which have legs above their feet.—That is, benders or crouching joints, which enable them to leap, like the grasshopper and locust. Ver. 22. The locust.—Niebuhr remarks, “I do not comprehend how the Arabs can eat locusts with pleasure; and those Arabs, who have no intercourse with Christians, will not believe, in their turn, that the latter reckon oysters, crabs, shrimps, crayfish, &c.

for dainties. These two facts, however, are equally certain.” Fried with salt, according to Dr. Shaw, they taste like river crabs. The bald locust and the beetle.—These are doubtless other species of locust. What we call “the beetle,” says Dr. Clarke, “was perhaps never eaten by man, in any country.” The word (chargol) seems, by its etymology, to mean an animal that shakes the foot.—Parva. From the great difficulty of ascertaining many creatures here mentioned, Dr. Clarke infers the abrogation of the Jewish law, since no person can be secure from defilement, nor have they now purifying eee[rituals].