Vera. 16-20.-Moses and .Aarcm an allegory. Moses may be taken as the im- personation of the Law which was given by his hand (see Luke xvi. 29; Acts xv. 21). Hence the "body of Moses," about which Michael disputed with Satan, is by some supposed. to denote the substance of the Law (Jude 9). In this view he appeared upon the mount of transfiguration, surrendering to Christ, who, in like manner, impersonated hie gospel (Matt. xvii. 3-5). So the vail over Moses' face represented the shadows in which the Law invested the glory of the Lord until the death of Christ, when the dark- ness passed away and the true light shined forth. Hence, when the vail, that is to say, the flesh of Christ, was torn in death, the vail of the temple was rent from the top throughout (Matt. xxvii. 50, 51; 2 Cor. iii. 7; Heb. ix. 3, 8; x. 19, 20). Aaron's function was to bring out the spiritual meaning of the Law; and so he was a type of Christ, who came not to destroy but to fulfil it. Dearing these things in mind, light may be let in upon the remarkable passage before us. We have here-- I. THE ANGER OF MosEs. 1. Look at the history in the letter. (1) Moses had given instructions to Aaron and his sons respecting the goat which was to be offered for the sin of the people (see eh. ix. 15, 16). (2) These instructions were not fully carried out. The goat was killed and its fat burnt upon the altar; but the flesh was not eaten in the holy place. (3) Moses made search, and behold the goat was burnt, pro- bably without the camp (eh. iv. 12; vi. 11). This angered him, and led him to question the "sons of Aaron who wer~ left," or ha~ e~cape_d the fire that consumed their brethren, as to why they had deviated from his directions. 2. Now look at the moral. (1) It should have been eaten in the holy place, because it was "most holy,'' that is to say, the" bread of God" (eh. vi. 16, 17; xxi. 22); that which wrath was to feed npon. This significantly pointed to Christ. After declaring himself to be the "bread of God which cometh down from heaven," he explains, " the bread that I will ,give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" ~John vi. 51). How remarkably the mysteries of the bread offering and the "flesh ' of the siu offering, associated on the Levitical altar, are again associated in this gospel explanation I (2) By the fire of God feeding upon the sin offering, it bore "the iniquity of the congrega- tion, to make atonement for them before the Lord" (ver. 17). But this is said of the ,eating of the flesh by Aaron and his sons. By eating the flesh of the sin offering, then, Aaron was to appear as in the place of it (comp. 1 Cor. x. 7). This significantly indicated that the true sin offering was not to be an animal, but a man. (3) The rule is laid down that if the blood was not brought in within the holy place, the flesh 6hould be eaten in the holy place (ver. 18). 'l'hat rule showed that the Law priests were typically to bear the iniquity of the people, until that High Priest should come who would carry his own blood into the holy place not made with hands. In that event their functions were destined to cease. II. THE EXPLANATION OF AARON. 1. The anger of Mosea was with the son, of .Aa1·on. (1) We are not told that he felt any anger towards Aaron. We see a pro- priety in this when we consider that Aaron wns a type of Christ. Moses directed .Aaron all through the ceremonials of his consecration, and so Christ in this world, iu which he was consecrated to his priesthood, was "mado under the Law." Ilut the Law could have no anger against Christ, "who fulfilled all its righteousness," nnd iu every way "magnified and made it honourable." (2) But against the sons of Jesus, -who are far from being as lJerfect as their Head, the Law may have occasion for anger. 2. But .Aarcm speaks in his own person for his sons. (1) (Seever. 19.) So Jesus takes the faults of his children upon himself (see Matt. viii. 16, 17; 1 Pet. ii. 24). (2) And speaking for them thus, Aaron was able to appease Moses. Not only wns Moses "satisfied," as in the text, but what Aaron urged was "well pleasing in hill -eyes," as in the Hebrew. So triumphantly is Jesus able to deliver us from the an~er of the Law (Rom. v. 9, 20, 21). 3. But what is the import of Aaron's word, (ver. HJ)? ,(1) Here he concedes that-the sin offering had been offered, and that, under usual con- ditions, to have complied with all the directions of Moses would have been proper. But he explains," such things have befallen me," referring to his parental sorrow in the loss of his sons under moat distressing circumstances. Ho was, therefore, o. mourner, not outwardly (see vers. 4--7), but in spirit, so, had he eaten the sin offering, woultl it have been accepted by the Lord, viz. who looketh upon the heart P Moses had .nothing to reply to thio (comp. Deut, xii. 7; 1 Sam. i. 7, 8; Hos. ii., 4). (2) Du\ 166 1'HE BOOK OF LEVITICUS. [ CH, X. 8-20.
was there not a prophetic meaning in these words of Aaron? As Caiapbas II spake not; of himself, but bein~ high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation" (John x. 50, 51~, does not Aaron as truly in the spirit of J,?rophef}y here say that the death of the priest sets aside the type (see Col. ii. 14)? (3) The consent of Moses shows how the Law bears testimony to Christ, and is itself to vanish as a 11badow when t~e substance takes its place. (4) It also shows that it is proper to break the Law in the letter, when to do so is necessary to its observance in the spirit. The spirit of the Law is the gospel.-J. A. M.