Calmet's Dictionary of the Holy Bible / by the late Mr. Charles Taylor, with the fragments incorporated. The whole condensed and arranged in alphabetical order; with numerous additions.

  • Antoine Augustin Calmet
Date:
1833
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Calmet's Dictionary of the Holy Bible / by the late Mr. Charles Taylor, with the fragments incorporated. The whole condensed and arranged in alphabetical order; with numerous additions. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    16/996 page 2
    AARON AARON [ wards became penitent, humbled himself, and w as par- doned. The tabernacle having been completed, and the offerings prepared, Aaron and his sons were conse- crated with the holy oil, and invested with the sacred garments, Exod. xl. Lev. viii. Scarcely, however, were the ceremonies connected with this solemn ser- vice completed, when his two eldest sons, Nadab and Abihu, were destroyed by fire from heaven, for pre- suming to burn incense in the tabernacle with strange fire, Lev. x. Subsequently to this affecting occurrence, there was little in the life of Aaron that demands particular notice. During the forty years that lie discharged the priestly office, his duties were attended to with the utmost as- siduity, and his general conduct, excepting the case of his joining Miriam in murmuring against Moses, and distrusting the divine power at Kadesh, was blameless, Numb. xii.; xx. 8—11. About twelve months before the Hebrews entered the promised land, and while they were encamped at Mosera, Aaron, by the divine command, ascended mount Hor. Here Closes divested him of his pontifical robes, which w'crc placed upon his son Eleazar ; “ and Aaron died on the top of the mount, and the congrega- tion mourned for him thirty days,” Numb. xx. 23—29. There is an apparent discrepancy in the scripture account of the place of Aaron’s death. In the passage above referred to, it is said that it occurred in mount Hor; hut in Deut. x. 6. it is stated to have been at Mosera. To reconcile these accounts, some critics have proposed to correct the Hebrew text in Deuter- onomy by the Samaritan Pentateuch, which reads ex- actly the same as the passage in Numbers. There is no necessity, however, to resort to this emendation of the text, since Burckhardt states that mount Hor stands upon the western side of a valley called Wady Mousa, which is, no doubt, a corruption of the Hebrew Mosera. Josephus, Eusebius, and Jerome, all agree in placing the sepulchre of Aaron upon the summit of mount Hor, where it is still preserved and venerated by the Arabs. When the supposed tomb was visited by Mr. Legh, it was attended by a crippled Arab her- mit, about eighty years of age, who conducted the travellers into a small white building, crowned by a cupola. The monument itself is about three feet high, and is patched together out of fragments of stone and marble. See Hor. 1. In reviewing the life of Aaron, we can scarcely fail to remark the manner of his introduction into the history. He at once appears as a kind of assistant, and so far an inferior, to his brother Moses; yet he had some advantages which seem to have entitled him to prior consideration. He was the elder brother, an eloquent speaker, and also favoured by divine inspira- tion. We have no cause assigned why he wras not preferred to Moses, in respect of authority; and there- fore no other cause can now be assigned than the Di- vine good pleasure. 2. Among the most confirming signs given bv God to Moses, must be placed the interview with his bro- ther Aaron at mount Horeb. This being predicted by God, and directly taking place, was very convincing to Moses. [See something similar in the case of Jere- miah, chap, xxxii. 8.] It should seem also, that Aaron would not have undertaken a journey of two months, from Egypt to mount Sinai, atgreathazard and expense, unless he had been well assured of the authority w hich sent him ; neither could he have expected to find Moses where he did find him, unless by divine direction, since the place, afterwards called the Mount of God, was then ] undistinguished and unfrequented. Aaron, therefore, was a sign to Moses, as Moses was a sign to Aaron. 3. It seems probable that Aaron was in circumstances above those of the lower class of people in Egypt. Had he been among those who were kept to their daily bondage, lie could ill have spared time and cost for a journey to Horeb. Although the brothers, then, had no pretension to sovereign authority by descent, yet they were of consideration among the Israelites, either by property, or office, or some other circumstance. Aaron was certainly under the authority of Pharaoh’s officers, yet he might be a chief of his own people; it being customary in the East for societies and trades to have a head, who is responsible to the government; and Niebuhr informs us, that even the black slaves at Tripoli appoint a chief, w ho is acknow ledged by the regency, and is a means by which the revolt of die slaves is often prevented. If this were the case, it accounts for our not reading of any intrusion of Aaron into office, or any election by the people, or any charge of assuming undue powers brought against him. Both Moses and Aaron seem to be acknow ledged by Pha- raoh, and by many of his servants, as persons of con- sideration, and as the proper agents for transacting business between the Israelites and the king. Aaron performed the miracles before Pharaoh, too, w ithout any wonder being expressed by him, how a person, kept to his daily labour, should acquire such skill and eloquence. Had Moses and Aaron been private tier- sons, Pharaoh would, no doubt, have punished their intrusion and impertinence. 4. It is not intended to palliate the sin of which Aaron was guilty, when left in charge of Israel, in conjunction with Hur, while Moses was in the mount receiving the law. His authority should have been exerted to restrain the people’s infatuation, instead of forwarding their design. (See Calf.) As to his personal concern in the affair, we may remark, that if his own faith or patience was exhausted, or if he sup- posed Moses to be dead, then there could be no collu- sion between them. Nor durst he to have done as he did, had he expected the immediate return of Moses. His activity in building the altar to the calf, renders his subsequent submission to Moses utterly inexplica- ble, had not a divine conviction been employed on the occasion. It is to be remarked, that nothing is said of the interference of Hur, the coadjutor of Aaron in the government of the people. Perhaps he thought it was not his business; but Aaron should have engaged his and also the elders’ authority in a decided refusal of the people’s request. He seems to have shrunk with unholy timidity from his duty of resistance to the pro- ceedings of the people, fearing their disposition, as “ set on mischief, which he pleads in excuse, Exod. xxxii. 22—24. C>. The sedition of Aaron and Miriam against Moses, (Numb. xii. 1.) affords another argument against the supposition of collusion between the brothers. Aaron assumes, at first, a high tone, and pretends to no less gifts than his brother; but he afterwards acknowledges his folly, and, with Miriam, submits. Aaron was not visited with the leprosy, but he could well judge of its reality on his sister: it was his proper office to exclude her from the camp for seven days ; and by his expression of “ flesh half consumed,” it should seem that it was a very inveterate kind of the disease, and therefore the more signal. Aaron’s affection, interest, and passion, all concurred to harden him against any thing less than full conviction of a divine interposition. But he well knew that it was not in the power of Moses
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3