Leviticus 10

Leviticus 10:1

Bede: This is not far from being a sign of our unhappy time, in which some who have attained positions as priests and teachers—merely to mention it is both distressing and sad enough—are consumed by the fire of heavenly vengeance because they prefer the fire of cupidity to the fire of heavenly love. Their eternal damnation was prefigured by the temporal death of Aaron’s sons. — On the Tabernacle 3.2

Cyprian: The sons of Aaron also, who set upon the altar a strange fire not commanded by the Lord, were at once blotted out in the sight of the avenging Lord. These examples, you will see, are being followed wherever the tradition which comes from God is despised by lovers of strange doctrine and replaced by teaching of merely human authority. — Treatise I. On the Unity of the Church 18-19

Cyprian: Nor do we propose this, dearest brother, without the authority of divine Scripture, when we say that all things are arranged by divine direction by a certain law and by special ordinance, and that none can usurp to himself, in opposition to the bishops and priests, anything which is not of his own right and power. For Korah, Dathan, and Abiram endeavoured to usurp, in opposition to Moses and Aaron the priest, the power of sacrificing; and they did not do without punishment what they unlawfully dared. The sons of Aaron also, who placed strange fire upon the altar, were at once consumed in the sight of an angry Lord; which punishment remains to those who introduce strange water by a false baptism, that the divine vengeance may avenge and chastise when heretics do that in opposition to the Church, which the Church alone is allowed to do. — Epistle LXXII.8

Augustine of Hippo: After the sons of Aaron died, devoured by fire from the Lord, for daring to put profane fire in their censers, placing incense to offer it to the Lord -which was forbidden, because all the things that had to be lit in the tabernacle they had to be lit from the fire that had come by divine will to the altar and which was then kept - after the dead, then, Moses said: This is what the Lord has declared, saying: “Among those who come near me I will show my holiness, and before the whole assembly I will manifest my glory.” (Leviticus 10,3) Those who approach the Lord are those who performed the priestly functions in the tabernacle. Showing holiness in them means also applying the punishment, as it happened. But what we do not know is whether he said this so that we would draw the conclusion that if he does not forgive them, how much less does he have to forgive others - and in this sense the Scripture says: If the just will barely be saved, in What will stop the sinner and the impious? (Proverbs 11,31; 1P 4,18) or if he said it rather according to the meaning of that other text: To whom more is given, more is required, and from that other: The servant who did not know the will of his Lord and do things worthy of scourge, will receive few lashes; On the other hand, the servant who knew the will of his lord and does things worthy of scourging, will receive many lashes (Lc 12,48.47), and of that other: For the little one will be granted mercy; on the other hand, the powerful will suffer great torments (Sab 6,7). But in the texts of Scripture prior to this one is not found where the Lord said what Moses says the Lord told him. The same happens here as in the Exodus, when Moses says to the Lord: You have said: “I know you more than all,” (Exodus 33,12) which we know with certainty that the Lord told him, but later. Now, since Moses would never tell a lie about this matter, it is understood that he had also said this before, even if it is not written. The same must be said in the present case. By this example it is shown that everything God has said is not written to those through whom his holy Scripture has been transmitted to us. 32 (Leviticus 10.6). What does Moses say to Aaron and his other brothers, by forbidding them to mourn the death of those two other brothers: You will not remove from your head the cidara, where it clearly appears that the cidaras were objects to cover the head? The explanation is that those who cried, would do what was contrary to the custom of adornment. As according to our customs, the head is usually uncovered and covered because of mourning, so also those who were crying had to discover the head, because those people adorned themselves by covering their heads. And Moses forbids them to mourn those with whose punishment the Lord was honored, that is, their fear was recommended. And he did not forbid it because they were not worthy of weeping-for he allows others to weep-but because they should not mourn then, since they were celebrating the days of his consecration, since the seven days had not yet passed in the who commanded them not to leave the tabernacle. And since they had been consecrated by that oil, it might seem that this was said because they should never cry to anyone. For the text says: But your brothers, the whole house of Israel, will mourn because of the fire with which they were burned by the Lord. And you shall not go out of the entrance of the tabernacle of testimony, lest you die; For the oil of the anointing is on you from the Lord (Leviticus 10,6.7). — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 31 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 10:2

Philoxenus of Mabbug: And that He might increase in them this fear, immediately, by the mouth of offence, the rod of His chastisement was revealed, and after the offence the Chastiser gave them no respite, because their servitude was not worthy of His longsuffering. Above their head the rod of justice hung continually, and immediately they committed sin they were chastened, and at the time of their offence they were beaten, and at the entrance of the path of their sins they forthwith received rebuke; for longsuffering teacheth the foolish servant contempt, and in order that that stupid nation, which in the manner of an evil-doing servant, sat in the house of God, might not [learn] contempt, the Chastiser took away longsuffering, especially when they went forth from Egypt. And we must also understand the object of that swift punishment in another way, and that there was not longsuffering as regardeth the correction of their sins; for God the Teacher took the people, like a child, from Egypt their nurse, that He might deliver unto them the doctrine of His knowledge, and might teach them the instruction of His wisdom. But the people, in their ignorance, when instruction had been delivered unto them, forgot it, and they never kept in remembrance the meditation of the commandments of God, and they were frequently punished with severity, so that, if it were only through fear of chastisement, they might lay hold upon the remembrance of instruction. The man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day was stoned by all the congregation; and the earth opened and swallowed up others who were called by Moses, and who scorned him and came not; and fire went forth suddenly, and burnt up the bodies of others who thought lightly of his priestly office, and who sought honour for themselves; and others, who in the guise of paying honour, brought strange fire out of season, were burnt up by a tongue of fire which went forth from the tabernacle, and they perished; and others, because they asked for flesh and rejected the bread of angels, were tortured by the indigestion which came upon them; and others who went astray as concerning the calf, were pierced through by the swords of the Levites; and others, who were the cause of the revolt at the waters of trial were set apart for destruction; and others who murmured against the Lord perished by fiendish snakes; and likewise they all, because they strove against going into the land of promise, came to an end and were destroyed in the wilderness. To these offences, then, these punishments were united, and together with each act of wickedness a punishment straightway sprang up by its side, so that evil deeds might be suppressed by stripes, and sins by vengeance, and so that the people might be like a child who feareth the teacher who giveth him instruction, and that it might tremble before the Judge who would beat them like a wrongdoing slave. — 13 Ascetic Discourses, Discourse 7 – Second Discourse on the Fear of God

Leviticus 10:8

Augustine of Hippo: And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying, “You shall not drink wine or other fermented drink, neither you nor your children, when you enter the tabernacle of the testimony or when you approach the altar, lest you die.” According to this, when could they drink, since they had to enter the tabernacle every day and approach the altar because of the continuous services? And if someone says that they did not offer sacrifices every day, what can you say about the entrance into the tabernacle, which took place every day to put the candlestick and the showbread on the table? And if it is answered that what is now said refers to the tabernacle of the testimony, where the ark of the covenant was, it must be answered that the high priest also had to enter there because of the perpetuation of the incense. For he did not enter once a year, but entered once a year with the blood of purification, and every day for the sake of incense. Or is it necessary to understand that the Lord commanded them never to drink wine? Why then did he not rather command it in a brief way, saying: “You shall not drink wine, but he added: When you enter the tabernacle or when you approach the altar? Is it perhaps that there was no reason to silence the cause of not drinking, especially knowing beforehand that there would be so many, even high priests, at the same time, that is, not by succession, who would officiate in turn? in the tabernacle, and in the sacrifices, and in the incense, and in all that ministry, when those who were officiating did not drink, but the others drank? Or what else does this text mean? Because, after forbidding the priests to drink wine and fermented beverages, the text adds: This is an eternal decree for your descendants (Leviticus 10,9). But it is doubtful whether these words should be linked to the previous sentence, the matter of not drinking wine, or the next, which says: To distinguish between the holy and the profane and between the pure and the impure and to teach the children of Israel all the precepts that the Lord has given them through Moses (Leviticus 10,10.11). This would be the eternal decree for his descendants, Corresponding to the office of the priests. With regard to the eternal word we have already said many times how it should be understood. But the meaning of the phrase is also ambiguous: Distinguish between the holy and the profane and between the pure and the impure. The question is whether the author wanted to say that priests should distinguish between holy things and pure or profane and impure, or between the saints and pure or stained and impure, that is, if it is sacred things, that they would do well or badly or of the men that had to be approved or reprobated, or rather we should refer the text to both, that is, to men and to sacred things. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 33 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 10:9

Jerome: Priests given to wine are both condemned by the apostle and forbidden by the old law. Those who serve the altar, we are told, must drink neither wine nor shechar. Now every intoxicating drink is in Hebrew called shechar, whether it is made of corn or of the juice of apples, whether you distil from the honeycomb a rude kind of mead or make a liquor by squeezing dates or strain a thick syrup from a decoction of corn. Whatever intoxicates and disturbs the balance of the mind avoid as you would wine. — LETTER 52.11

Leviticus 10:14

Augustine of Hippo: Separate chest and reserved leg you will eat in a sacred place. Although each thing is given to each of the priests, however, it is evident that both things could be called separate, because both were separated for the priest and both could be called reserved or removed -word that in Greek Corresponds to? ??????? -, because both are separated and removed from those for whom the sacrifice is made to give them to the priest. We have heard before about the chest of the imposition and the leg that had to be removed, because nothing was put on the altar on the leg; instead, chest fat did get on him (Cf Leviticus 8,29). — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 34 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Augustine of Hippo: What do the words mean: The sacrifices of salvation, when in another place he calls them: The sacrifices of salvation, and even in the singular: The sacrifice of salvation, always referring to the same thing? Is it perhaps that in this place where the author speaks of sacrifices of salvation, should he say more about healing? Because in the psalm that says: Hear us, God of our healings (Ps. 64,6), the Greek has this same word soteríon in this place. Now, this genitive plural in the Greek language is doubtful if it is derived from salute (salvation) or from salutari (saving action), because sotería means salvation and healing, and its genitive plural is ton soteríon. Salutare, on the other hand (saving action), is said in Greek sotéríon and its genitive plural is the same. Therefore, if it can be understood correctly as a sacrifice of salvation what is the sacrifice of the action of saving, because salvation is given by the action of saving and the action of saving is that for which salvation is received, it is not necessary Let us think that here, where the sacrifices of salvation are spoken of, it is about the sacrifices of many saves, if not the sacrifices of many healings, which are received from a single act of saving. The Christian faith knows that it is about the salvation of God, of which it is said: I will take the cup of salvation (Ps.115,4 13), and of which Simeon says in the Gospel: Because my eyes have seen your salvation (Lc 2,30). In short, the sacrifices of salvation can be called perfectly or also called healthy sacrifices. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 35 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)

Leviticus 10:15

Augustine of Hippo: And it will be for you and your children and your daughters your portion legitimizes forever. The addition: for your daughters, it is not useless, because some things related to the food of the priests, the Scripture forbids women, who can not take them, and, on the other hand, men can. When Moses asked about the kid sacrificed for the sins of the people and did not find it, because he had already been burned, he was angry because the Lord had commanded that those things that had to be offered by the people as a sacrifice for sin had to be eaten by the priests , removing fats and kidneys. Moses was enraged, not against his brother, but against his children (Cf 10,16-9). And I think he did it because it corresponded to his ministry to admonish them. Aaron answered him, saying: If today they offered their sacrifices for sin and their burnt offerings before the Lord and such things happened to me, and I will eat today the victim for sin, will this please the Lord? Moses heard it and liked it (Leviticus 10,19.20). It seems that Aaron says that, on the same day that the children of Israel had first offered the sacrifice for their sin, this sacrifice should not have been eaten by the Israelites, but burned in its entirety, without making this a rule. for the other sacrifices, because later the priests ate sacrifices for sins. But, since this was offered for the first time on the first day, it is necessary to think that the priest Aaron said this by divine inspiration, so that later the priests could observe what the Lord had commanded Moses; and what Aaron said, as inspired by God, Moses approved. What happened, then, with the other sacrifices of that day, that is, with the ram and with the bull, which, as we said, should also be considered as offered by sin? Or is it that there is no problem about the bull, since the sacrifice had to be made in such a way that part of his blood was introduced, as ordered, to touch with it the horns of the altar of incense, and it was natural that will the whole animal burn? (Cf Leviticus 4,17-20) And what was to be done with the ram? As Moses asked first for the kid, should we also apply to the ram what was said to him about the kid, about which he had to ask, as he had been commanded, if the priest’s answer had not satisfied him? About the bull, what would he ask, since the sacrifice had been made according to the law, which God had commanded concerning the bull sacrificed for the sin of the whole assembly, just as it had been commanded concerning the bull sacrificed for sin of the priest, that is to say, that he had to be burned completely outside the camp? (Cf Leviticus 4,12-21) For these are the words that Moses said, angered against his brother’s sons, because he had not found the kid offered for sin, which he had sought; I had not found it, because I had been burned completely. He says to them: Why have you not eaten in a holy place the victim of the sacrifice for sin? Since they are very holy things, this gave you to eat so that you would remove the sin of the assembly and make atonement for it before the Lord. Because his blood had not been introduced into the sanctuary, you will eat the victim in a sacred place, as the Lord ordered me to do. When he says: Because his blood had not been introduced into the sanctuary in his presence, he distinguishes, undoubtedly, what is done for the sin of the priest or for the sin of the whole assembly, not the kid, who should not have burned himself He had not sent his blood to touch the horns of the altar of incense, but to be consumed by the priests. Aaron tells Moses why this was done, that is, why the kid was totally burned, and Moses was satisfied. Certainly, the Scripture commanded the elders of the people to offer themselves six animals for the people. Of those six animals mentioned first four, the kid, the ram, the steer and the one-year-old lamb of one year. -The kid, naturally, as a sacrifice for sin; and the lamb of one year, of one year, evidently, too, as a holocaust. As for the two animals in the middle, that is, the ram and the bull, we have seen that they are mentioned in a somewhat ambiguous way, because we do not know if they belonged to the sacrifice for sin and we would have to add them to the kid, or more. well to the lamb of one year, to offer them as a holocaust - on this issue I have already exposed what I think instead. But then, to complete the list of the six animals, the Scripture mentions the bull and the ram, as a sacrifice of salvation; and then, when they immolate themselves and mention themselves in the same way, the same animals, the ram and the bull, which had previously been placed between the goat and the lamb of one year, are not mentioned, but only that bull and that ram that is they had sent to offer as a sacrifice of salvation. In this way we no longer have to think that it was six animals, but only four. We may think that those two who had first placed themselves between the goat and the lamb of one year, were mentioned again and there is no other bull or other ram as a sacrifice of salvation, so that by saying that the kid was like a sacrifice for sin and by not saying what the ram and the bull were for, that is, for what sacrifice they served, and by saying that the one-year-old lamb was like a holocaust, then he would have wanted to say what was to be done with the bull and with the ram, which had not been commanded to offer as a sacrifice for sin, as the kid, nor as a burnt offering, as the lamb of one year, but as a sacrifice of salvation. If we understand the text in this way, it remains the question of why a kid was offered for the sin of the assembly, when, speaking from the beginning of the sacrifices that had to be offered for sins, the Lord commanded that it be offered a bull for the sin of the assembly. And because of the sin of the priest, he commanded that he offer himself, not a goat, but a young bull. Near this bull, he also ordered that his blood be introduced inside, as well as the blood of the victim for the priest’s sin, to touch with it. the horns of the altar of incense (Cf Leviticus 4,3). We can ask what reason there could be for Aaron’s sin, not only Moses to offer a bullock (Cf Leviticus 8,14), but Aaron himself to offer another bullock (Cf Leviticus 9,8), as had to be offered for the sin of the priest, according to God’s precept. And on the other hand, because of the sin of the people, a bull was not offered, as it was commanded, but rather a kid. In considering this problem, it seemed to us, as we said before, that not only was a goat offered for the sin of the people, but also a ram and a bull. In this way, these three sacrifices must be understood as sacrifices for sin, since the chiefs are part of the people, and they had to offer a kid for them. And besides, each person could have their own sins, and for them a ram was offered. And finally, they all had some sin, and for them they offered themselves a bull. For the sin of the whole assembly a bull was to be offered, as commanded from the beginning. Therefore, once they have sacrificed themselves, only the kid is mentioned, but also tacitly understanding the others, as when part is taken for the whole, because all those sacrifices were for sins. — QUESTIONS ON LEVITICUS, Q. 36 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)