I think the biggest difference is that the third goat is for sin offering, where as the goat offered for atonement is different. Different time, different reason, different purpose and not for the same prophetic event.
It was at a time when the Levite priestly ministry had barely begun and those entrusted with it seriously failed to do as God requires. First there was the wrong censers incense which was not as the Lord had commanded and it offered in fire before the Lord. Notice that it is not said the Lord commanded that they should not do what they did, but He had not commanded them to do it. This is most serious where worship of the Lord is concerned. Only what He has indicated is acceptable to Him. If we add any humanly conceived notions to this, God will consider it "strange fire". In some areas of life we may have no explicit directions from the Lord, and where this is true we must not dare to lay down our own regulations, but it is wise always to seek the Lord's guidance in the scriptures, for this is the one safe preservative for us.
God's displeasure with Nadab and Abihu was immediately and strongly expressed in His sending out fire to consume them. He had before sent fire to consume the burnt offering.
, It was evidence of His acceptance of it; but this fire did not consume the offering, but the offerers, indicating God's refusal of their offering. I believe that though He may not bring the same swift judgment today, any man-devised pretensions of worship are just as abominable to Him as this strange fire of Nadab and Abihu.
Moses discerned just what was involved in this, and told Aaron that God was indicating He must be regarded as holy, that is, as set apart from all that is merely men's conception, and glorified above and before all the people. This was especially important with regard to any worship of Himself. Aaron at the time was wise enough to say nothing.
The cousins of Nadab and Abihu were called upon to carry the bodies of the offenders outside the camp to bury them. Moses instructed Aaron and his two remaining sons not to even uncover their heads and not to tear their clothes, which is a sign of mourning. It was not consistent with priestly character to show signs of mourning, for the priest is one who draws near to God, in whose presence mourning has no place. A priest was never to tear his garments, though Caiaphas did this when interrogating Yeshua.
A priest might not go into the sanctuary, nor perform any part of service with his clothes rent. The judgment/ law is that those who rend their garment, and of those that uncover the head, is one and the same thing
And indeed no man, whether a priest or an Israelite, might go into the temple with his clothes rent; and a priest might not rend his sacerdotal garments, on any account; yet such were not these that Caiaphas now had on; but in case of hearing blasphemy, everyone, be he what he would, was obliged to rend his garments.
So when witnesses expressed the blasphemy of such they testified against, the judges were obliged to rise up and rend their garments following the rule.
From all which it appears, that Caiaphas did what was the custom of the nation to do in such a case. The observation, that some learned men have made, that the high priest's rending his garments, was, though without his intention, an emblem and presage, of the rending of the priesthood from him, and his brethren, and the entire change of it; as the abolition of the whole ceremonial law, was signified by the rending of the vail of the temple in twain; and as the removing of the kingdom from Saul, was represented by Samuel's rending his mantle; and the revolt of the ten tribes to Jeroboam, by Abijah's rending his garment into twelve pieces, and giving ten to him; would have had a much better foundation to be built on, were these clothes that Caiaphas rent, his priestly ones: but such they were not; for both the high priest, and the other priests, only wore their sacerdotal garments in the temple; nor was it lawful for them to go out in them elsewhere and on and on are examples of changes because of the unfitness for duty to our Lord.
In the temple, there were chests on purpose for the garments of the priests (r); from whence they took them, and where they laid them up when they had performed their service: of these there were ninety six in number; for as there were twenty four courses, there were four chests for every course; in which the garments were put by themselves, the breeches by themselves, the girdles by themselves, the bonnets by themselves, and the coats by themselves; sealed up with an inscription on them, showing what was in them: and when the men that belonged to such a course, came to perform their service in turn, they opened these chests, and clothed themselves: and when they went out of their service, they put them up in them again, and sealed them; and as for
continued...
A trespass for which the law demanded the death penalty. For above all, the High Priest is to be representing our Messiah Yeshua who is performing services on our behalf in the heavenly sanctuary. Will His garments of priestly dignity every be torn? Absolutely not! For this would indicate some failure or fault in His priestly work. Thank God this is impossible. He remains faithful and true forever!
The rest of Israel could mourn for Nadab and Abihu, but the priests were told to remain in the tabernacle at this time because the anointing oil of the Lord was upon them. The oil is typical of the Holy Spirit whose power is such as to lift the soul above every circumstance of sorrow. Thus we may learn today that in the Lord's presence (the holy place), where the Spirit of God pervades the atmosphere, we may rise above the sorrows of earth, in holy confidence and peace.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
