Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 10:12
And Moses spoke unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it [is] most holy:
The argument is, that as such meals were appointed in honor of Yahweh Himself, they ought to be conducted with due reverence and discretion.
Lev 10:12
Beside the altar – What is called the holy place in Lev 10:13, Lev 10:17 : it should be rather, a holy place, any part of the holy precinct, as distinguished from a merely clean place Lev 10:14, either within or without the court of the tabernacle.
Lev 10:14
Wave breast and heave shoulder – See Lev 7:30 note.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Moses repeateth and re-enforceth the former command, partly lest their great loss and grief should cause them to forget or neglect their meat prescribed them by God, which abstinence would have been both a signification of their sorrow, which God had forbidden them, and a new transgression of a Divine precept; and partly to encourage them to go on in their holy services, and not to be dejected for the late severity, as if God would no more accept them or their sacrifices.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
12-15. Moses spake unto Aaron,&c.This was a timely and considerate rehearsal of the lawsthat regulated the conduct of the priests. Amid the distractions oftheir family bereavement, Aaron and his surviving sons might haveforgotten or overlooked some of their duties.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar, and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left,…. Of the burning, as the Targum of Jonathan; who survived his other two sons that were burnt, who remained alive, not being concerned with them in their sin, and so shared not in their punishment:
take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the Lord made by fire; for all but the handful that was burnt of that kind of offerings belonged to the priests, see Le 6:14 this meat offering, according to Jarchi, was the meat offering of the eighth day, that is, of the consecration, or the day after it was finished, on which the above awful case happened, Le 9:17 and also the meat offering of Nahshon the son of Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah, who offered his offering first at the dedication of the altar, on the day the tabernacle was set up, which he supposes was on this day, see Nu 7:1, now these meat offerings were not as yet eaten, and which may be true of the first of them, wherefore Aaron and his sons, notwithstanding their mourning, are bid to take it:
and eat it without leaven beside the altar: the altar of burnt offering in the court of the tabernacle, as directed
[See comments on Le 6:16]:
for it [is] most holy: and so might be eaten by none but holy persons, such as were devoted to sacred services, and only in the holy place, as follows; within hangings, where the most holy things were eaten, as Jarchi, that is, within the court of the tabernacle, which was made of hangings.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
After the directions occasioned by this judgment of God, Moses reminded Aaron and his sons of the general laws concerning the consumption of the priests’ portions of the sacrifices, and their relation to the existing circumstances: first of all (Lev 10:12, Lev 10:13), of the law relating to the eating of the meat-offering, which belonged to the priests after the azcarah had been lifted off (Lev 2:3; Lev 6:9-11), and then (Lev 10:14, Lev 10:15) of that relating to the wave-breast and heave-leg (Lev 7:32-34). By the minchah in Lev 10:12 we are to understand the meal and oil, which were offered with the burnt-offering of the nation (Lev 9:4 and Lev 9:7); and by the in Lev 10:12 and Lev 10:15, those portions of the burnt-offering, meat-offering, and peace-offering of the nation which were burned upon the altar (Lev 9:13, Lev 9:17, and Lev 9:20). He then looked for “ the he-goat of the sin-offering, ” – i.e., the flesh of the goat which had been brought for a sin-offering (Lev 9:15), and which was to have been eaten by the priests in the holy place along with the sin-offerings, whose blood was not taken into the sanctuary (Lev 6:19, Lev 6:22); – “ and, behold, it was burned ” ( , 3 perf. Pual). Moses was angry at this, and reproved Eleazar and Ithamar, who had attended to the burning: “ Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin-offering in a holy place? ” he said; “ for it is most holy, and He ( Jehovah) hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for it before Jehovah, ” as its blood had not been brought into the holy place ( construed as a passive with an accusative, as in Gen 4:18, etc.). “ To bear the iniquity ” does not signify here, as in Lev 5:1, to bear and atone for the sin in its consequences, but, as in Exo 28:38, to take the sin of another upon one’s self, for the purpose of cancelling it, to make expiation for it. As, according to Exo 28:38, the high priest was to appear before the Lord with the diadem upon his forehead, as the symbol of the holiness of his office, to cancel, as the mediator of the nation and by virtue of his official holiness, the sin which adhered to the holy gifts of the nation (see the note on this passage), so here it is stated with regard to the official eating of the most holy flesh of the sin-offering, which had been enjoined upon the priests, that they were thereby to bear the sin of the congregation, to make atonement for it. This effect or signification could only be ascribed to the eating, by its being regarded as an incorporation of the victim laden with sin, whereby the priests actually took away the sin by virtue of the holiness and sanctifying power belonging to their office, and not merely declared it removed, as Oehler explains the words ( Herzog’s Cycl. x. p. 649). Exo 28:38 is decisive in opposition to the declaratory view, which does not embrace the meaning of the words, and is not applicable to the passage at all. “Incorporabant quasi peccatum populique reatum in se recipiebant” ( Deyling observv. ss. i. 45, 2).
(Note: C. a Lapide has given this correct interpretation of the passage: “ ut scilicet cum hostiis populi pro peccato simul etiam populi peccata in vos quasi recipiatis, ut illa expietis .” There is no foundation for the objection offered by Oehler, that the actual removal of guilt and the atonement itself were effected by the offering of the blood. For it by no means follows from Lev 17:11, that the blood, as the soul of the sacrificial animal, covered or expiated the soul of the sinner, and that the removal and extinction of the sin had already taken place with the covering of the soul before the holy God, which involved the forgiveness of the sin and the reception of the sinner to mercy.)
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Moses Angry with Eleazar and Ithamar. | B. C. 1490. |
12 And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy: 13 And ye shall eat it in the holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons’ due, of the sacrifices of the LORD made by fire: for so I am commanded. 14 And the wave breast and heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they be thy due, and thy sons’ due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel. 15 The heave shoulder and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the LORD; and it shall be thine, and thy sons’ with thee, by a statute for ever; as the LORD hath commanded. 16 And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying, 17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD? 18 Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded. 19 And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD? 20 And when Moses heard that, he was content.
Moses is here directing Aaron to go on with his service after this interruption. Afflictions should rather quicken us to our duty than take us off from it. Observe (v. 12), He spoke unto Aaron and to his sons that were left. The notice taken of their survivorship intimates, 1. That Aaron should take comfort under the loss of two of his sons, from this consideration, that God had graciously spared him the other two, and that he had reason to be thankful for the remnant that was left, and all his sons were not dead, and, in token of his thankfulness to God, to go on cheerfully in his work. 2. That God’s sparing them should be an engagement upon them to proceed in his service, and not to fly off from it. Here were four priests consecrated together, two were taken away, and two left; therefore the two that were left should endeavour to fill up the places of those that were gone, by double care and diligence in the services of the priesthood. Now,
I. Moses repeats the directions he had formerly given them about eating their share of the sacrifices, v. 12-14, 15. The priests must learn not only to put a difference between the holy and the unholy, as they had been taught (v. 10), but also to distinguish between that which was most holy and that which was only holy of the things that were to eat. That part of the meat-offering which remained to the priest was most holy, and therefore must be eaten in the courts of the tabernacle, and by Aaron sons only (Lev 10:12; Lev 10:13); but the breast and shoulder of the peace-offerings might be eaten in any decent place out of the courts of the tabernacle, and by the daughters of their families. The meat-offerings, being annexed to the burnt-offerings, were intended only and wholly for the glory of God; but the peace-offerings were ordained for the furtherance of men’s joy and comfort; the former therefore were the more sacred, and to be had more in veneration. This distinction the priests must carefully observe, and take heed of making any blunders. Moses does not pretend to give any reasons for this difference, but refers to his instructions: For so am I commanded, v. 13. This was reason enough; he had received of the Lord all that he delivered unto them, 1 Cor. xi. 23.
II. He enquires concerning one deviation from the appointment, which it seems had happened upon this occasion, which was this:–There was a goat to be sacrificed as a sin-offering or the people, ch. ix. 15. Now the law of the sin-offerings was that if the blood of them was brought into the holy place, as that of the sin-offerings for the priest was, then the flesh was to be burnt without the camp; otherwise it was to be eaten by the priest in the holy place, ch. vi. 30. The meaning of this is here explained (v. 17), that the priests did hereby bear the iniquity of the congregation, that is, they were types of him who was to be made sin for us, and on whom God would lay the iniquity of us all. Now the blood of this goat was not brought into the holy place, and yet, it seems, it was burnt without the camp. Now observe here, 1. The gentle reproof Moses gives to Aaron and his sons for this irregularity. Here again Aaron sons are said to be those that were left alive (v. 16), who therefore ought to have taken warning; and Moses was angry with them. Though he was the meekest man in the world, it seems he could be angry; and when he thought God was disobeyed and dishonoured, and the priesthood endangered, he would be angry. Yet observe how very mildly he deals with Aaron and his sons, considering their present affliction. He only tells them they should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, but is willing to hear what they have to say for themselves, being loth to speak to the grief of those whom God had wounded.
2. The plausible excuse which Aaron makes for this mistake. Moses charged the fault upon Eleazar and Ithamar (v. 16), but it is probable that what they did was by Aaron direction, and therefore he apologized for it. He might have pleaded that this was a sin-offering for the congregation, and if it had been a bullock it must have been wholly burnt (ch. iv. 21), and therefore why not now that it was a goat? But it seems it was otherwise ordered at this time, and therefore he makes his affliction his excuse, v. 19. Observe, (1.) How he speaks of affliction: Such things have befallen me, such sad things, which could not but go near his heart, and make it very happy. He was a high priest taken from among men, and could not put off natural affection when he put on the holy garments. He held his peace (v. 3), yet his sorrow was stirred, as David’s, Ps. xxxix. 2. Note, There may be a deep sense of affliction even where there is a sincere resignation to the will of God in the affliction. “Such things as never befel me before, and as I little expected now. My spirits cannot but sink, when I see my family sinking; I must needs be heavy, when God is angry:” thus it is easy to say a great deal to aggravate an affliction, but it is better to say little. (2.) How he makes this an excuse for his varying from the appointment about the sin-offering. He could not have eaten it but in his mourning, and with a sorrowful spirit; and would this have been accepted? He does not plead that his heart was so full of grief that he had no appetite for it, but that he feared it would not be accepted. Note, [1.] Acceptance with God is the great thing we should desire and aim at in all our religious services, particularly in the Lord’s supper, which is our eating of the sin-offering. [2.] The sorrow of the world is a very great hindrance to our acceptable performance of holy duties, both as it is discomposing to ourselves, takes off our chariot-wheels and makes us drive heavily (1Sa 1:7; 1Sa 1:8), and as it is displeasing to God, whose will it is that we should serve him cheerfully, Deut. xii. 7. Mourner’s bread was polluted, Hos. ix. 4. See Mal. iii. 14.
3. The acquiescence of Moses in this excuse: He was content, v. 20. Perhaps he thought it justified what they had done. God had provided that what could not be eaten might be burnt. Our unfitness for duty, when it is natural and not sinful, will have great allowances made for it; and God will have mercy and not sacrifice. At least he thought it did very much extenuate the fault; the spirit indeed was willing, but the flesh was weak. God by Moses showed that he considered his frame. It appeared that Aaron sincerely aimed at God’s acceptance; and those that do so with an upright heart shall find he is not extreme to mark what they do amiss. Nor must we be severe in our animadversions upon every mistake, considering ourselves, lest we also be tempted.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 12-15:
Moses commanded that Eleazar and Ithamar proceed with the ritual of the offerings, in spite of the awful judgment which had just fallen upon their elder brothers. The sacrifices had been made, but the ceremony had not been completed: the priests had not eaten the portion that was their “due,” see Le 7:28-34.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
12. And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar Lest hereafter the priests should transgress through ignorance, Moses admonishes them of their duty; and perhaps he was moved by some immediate reason to give these particular injunctions rather than any others. As yet they were but little practiced in the observance of the rites; and what had happened to their brethren must have rendered them anxious. Now, this consternation at the death of their brethren might have so confounded their senses, that they could not apply themselves with so much composure as they ought to the service of God; and thus the offering would have been improperly made. Lest, therefore, their grief should so disturb them as to prevent the due performance of their office, he commands them to eat what remained of the meat-offering with the burnt-sacrifices. Whence we gather that he endeavored to prevent them from transgressing on that day in consequence of their minds being occupied by their recent grief. And in order to induce them to obedience, he sets before them the authority of God, to which it was fitting that the priesthood should be subject, as being founded upon it.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(12) And Moses spake unto Aaron.This communication, which refers to the sacrifices offered on the eighth day, or the day after the consecration was finished, Moses made to Aaron and his two surviving sons immediately after the calamity that had befallen them. As Aaron lost his two eldest sons in consequence of their having violated the sacrificial regulations, Moses is most anxious to guard him and his two younger sons against transgressing any other part of the ritual connected with the same sacrifices, lest they also should incur a similar punishment.
Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings.The meat offering which was offered by the nation the day after the consecration, when the calamity happened (see Lev. 9:17), and which was not as yet eaten. With the exception of the handful which was burnt on the altar, all belonged to the priests. (See Lev. 2:1-3; Lev. 6:14-18.)
And eat it without leaven beside the altar.That is, in the court of the tent of meeting, where the altar of burnt offering stood. (See Lev. 6:16.)
For it is most holy.Hence it could only be eaten by the male members of the families of the priests within the court of the sanctuary. (See Lev. 6:18.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
EATING THE MOST HOLY THINGS, Lev 10:12-20.
12. Take the meat offering The appalling stroke of Jehovah’s wrath had disconcerted Aaron so that he had forgotten the prescribed order of the sacrifices. Moses reminds him that the meat offering follows the burnt offering consumed by celestial fire. Lev 9:24. See Introduction, (5.)
And eat it The eating by the priest symbolizes the full acceptance of the oblation. See Lev 6:16, note, and Concluding Note (1) of the same chapter.
Beside the altar This was the altar of incense in the priests’ apartment, called the holy place, within the first veil. See chap.
Lev 4:7.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
What The Priests May Partake of Concerning the Holy Things ( Lev 10:12-15 ).
He now moves on to the portions of the Priests from grain offerings and from peace sacrifices and the distinctions concerning the holiness of them. It is again concerned with the question of the holiness of the Sanctuary. What is ‘most holy’ must be eaten before Yahweh. It must not be defiled by being taken from the Sanctuary. But what is merely ‘holy’ can be shared by the priests with their families in any ‘clean place’. For the people themselves are a holy nation.
Lev 10:12-13
‘And Moses spoke to Aaron, and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons who were left, “Take the grain offering that remains of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar, for it is most holy, and you shall eat it in a holy place, because it is your portion, and your sons’ portion, of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, for so I am commanded.”
The grain offering was ‘most holy’. It was an offering to God ‘made by fire’, that is wholly given to God. It was an offering from the people. And as such it must be contained and eaten within the Sanctuary. There it could be eaten by the priests ‘without leaven’ (for it must not be marred in any way) in the place where the altar was situated (thus they were seen as eating it as an offering) for it was given to them by God as a portion for their benefit, and they ate it in His name. Because they were God’s anointed priests this was seen as God receiving it through them.
So may we through coming to Him and believing on Him partake of Him Who is the bread of life (Joh 6:35). But we must recognise that what we partake of is ‘most holy’. That we can come to Him daily through faith, continually receiving His power and His fullness (Eph 3:16-19), and having Christ living in us (Gal 2:20), is something which must never be treated lightly. When we so come we must ensure that there is no ‘leaven’ in our lives, nothing that is corrupting, no influence of the world, and we must recognise that He is ours through the altar, that is, through His offering Himself to death for us on the cross (Heb 13:10). Without that we could not know Him.
Lev 10:14-15
“And the wave breast and the contribution thigh shall you eat in a clean place, you, and your sons, and your daughters with you, for they are given as your portion, and your sons’ portion, out of the sacrifices of the peace offerings of the children of Israel. The contribution thigh and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before Yahweh, and it shall be yours, and your sons’ with you, as a portion for ever; as Yahweh has commanded.”
However, the wave breast and the contribution thigh of a peace sacrifice are holy but not ‘most holy’. They are the priest’s portion of what may be eaten by all who are clean, the flesh of the sacrifice. They must be waved before Yahweh, but then they can feed the priest’s family, both male and female as long as it is in a clean place (one not affected by defilement from anything unclean). ‘Your daughters’ is an overall reference to all their womenfolk.
In Israel whenever a clean animal, whether ox, or goat or sheep, were to be slain and eaten it had to be done by sacrifice (Lev 17:1-7), and if it were not to be a whole burnt offering, or a purification for sin or guilt offering, then it must be as a peace/wellbeing sacrifice. The offering of the fat by fire to Yahweh meant that it was an offering ‘made by fire’, but the type of offering, a peace sacrifice, ensured that the flesh could be eaten by those appointed by the offeror, with the priests receiving the breast and thigh, the latter for the officiating priest. The breast and thigh was the priests’ portion ‘for ever’ (into the distant future). And it could feed their whole families. The peace sacrifice was the way by which Israel could partake of the meat of clean animals in fellowship with each other and with God, while at the same time suitably expressing their love, penitence and gratitude to God, and contributing by it to the continuing atonement achieved by the priests on behalf of Israel, and it was one way by which the priests received their daily supplies.
These sacrifices would usually occur on special occasions. On the whole, apart from the very wealthy, the Israelites preferred to preserve their valuable livestock and use them to provide milk and clothing. They subsisted more on the milk, and on bread, fruit, honey, berries, and roots, and on what they could hunt, and while in the wilderness on manna and quails. This would be especially so in the wilderness. Note how when they grumbled in the wilderness for lack of food they did not immediately set about eating their livestock.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Priests and Laws
Lev 10:12-20
“And Moses spake unto Aaron,” the people speaking unto the priest! That is the eternal law in the true Church. The priest has no existence apart from the people. The people were represented by Moses; the divine element was represented by Aaron; but Aaron was only a representative living under criticism and judgment, and living only so far as he lived truly for the benefit and culture and elevation of the people. The Bible is the people’s Bible; it is not the Bible of a class, a priest, a man-made and man-ruled Church of a mechanical and formal type, separating itself from the universal instinct, and the universal need of the world. A grand chapter is opened in these words! the people speaking unto the priest: the great-heart speaking to the momentary officer: the instinct of a world sitting, as it were, in judgment and righteous and generous criticism upon ceremonies and mediums and momentary arrangements, even though they were divine in their origin and most beneficent in their purpose. The people are always more than the priests. The people are always more than the princes. Kings are nothing but the blossomings of the social tree. Princes have no existence but for nations. This is a law not to be taught in one lecture, or to be brought home to the human mind in all its fulness and generous intent in violent harangue. Knowledge will secure this end; the spread of wisdom will bring in “the parliament of man.” Meanwhile, no priest must dictate; no prince must rule despotically. The people are the strength and the reality, the pith and the whole core of the nations. Moses must always speak unto Aaron. The pew must always speak to the pulpit, saying what its need is, telling the man how far he is speaking to immediate wants and to present necessities, or how far he is spending eloquent discourse upon people who are not in existence. Aaron must go down if he pray not mightily for the people. We cannot have any man continued amongst us simply because of his office. Office is nothing except it be associated with noble character, generous impulse, and divine vocation, and express the eternal thought of God. But this is an issue not to be hastened. Mechanical operation can do little or nothing here. Men must grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ; and not knowing how the kingdom of the Son of man shall come in the infinite theocracy when no man shall be dragged down but every man shall be lifted up, and without fire or tempest or high wind rending the rocks, there shall be heard a still small voice saying, “He is come whose right it is.” Meanwhile, one sign of progress is that the people shall take an interest in their priests, correcting them, rebuking them, cheering them, responding to them; when their prayers are offered, all the people shall say, Amen; then prayer will be not merely official; then prayer will be unanimous; then prayer will mightily prevail.
“And Moses spake unto Aaron…. Take the meat offering,” and he adds, “for so I am commanded.” Moses was not the fountain of authority. There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him understanding. This was not a clamorous interference with Aaron, an interference merely for the sake of tumult or the assertion of endangered right; it was the representation of a divine purpose and a holy command. This is an instance which shows how the law was looked after. Men make laws and forget them; they refer to statutes three hundred years old, venerable with the dust of four centuries, and they surprise current opinion by exhumations which show the cleverness and the perseverance of the lawyer. Men are fond of making laws; when they have ignoble leisure, they “improve” it (to use an ironical expression) by adding to the bye-laws, by multiplying mechanical stipulations and regulations, and forgetting the existence of such laws in the very act of their multiplication. God has no dead-letters in his law-book. The law is alive tingling, throbbing in every letter and at every point. The commandment is exceeding broad; it never slumbers, never passes into obsoleteness, but stands in perpetual claim of right and insistance of decree. It is convenient to forget laws; but God will not allow any one of his laws to be forgotten. Every inquiry which Moses put to Israel was justified by a statute; he said, “I do but represent the law; there is nothing hypocritical in my examination; there is nothing super-refined in my judgment; I am simply asking as the representative of law how obedience is keeping up step with the march of judgment?” We need such constables to watch the law and to be jealous for its observance and maintenance. Every age needs a grand constabulary force. The time will come when every man will be his own watch, his own critic and judge, and will require no external appeal; man shall not have occasion to say to man, “Know the Lord,” for every one shall know him from the least to the greatest; universality of knowledge shall report itself in unanimity of obedience. God’s laws are still alive, we have said; they are alive in nature; even could we sponge them out wherever they are written with ink, we cannot obliterate them as they form part of the very life and economy of creation. Fire still stings; the great sea will drown the vastest navy that ever trespassed on its waves if the laws which govern the ocean be not diligently obeyed ay, almost to the point of idolatry; men who can use profane language to an invisible God must be up early and sit up late to watch the way of the sea. Thus, at some altar we are always bent: if not at this particular one, then at that. The profanest man is shamed into occasional reverence bound like a coward at some altar which he would gladly escape. Nature looks after the execution of her own laws; she says to Moses and she says to Aaron and to all the children of men, I am not mocked; you may mock my Creator, but I am not mocked; you cannot shorten one of my days, you cannot lengthen one of my sunsets, you cannot change the wind from the east to the west, you cannot drive on the procession of the seasons, or substitute one position for another in that serene and glorious march; you may mock my Creator; you may profane your speech by a misuse of his name; you may never look upward in pious wonder, not to say affectionate prayer; but I will not be mocked. So then, this boasted liberty, this magnificent freedom, is itself a caged bird, and the bars of the cage are of no flexible wand but of stiff and stubborn iron. We know we can blaspheme God, and we know that we cannot substitute spring for winter; we will be free and not pray, and we who thus spread paper wings fall down in stupid servitude before laws of ploughing, and sowing, and reaping as obedient as the oxen that open the furrow. Every inquiry, therefore, which Moses made was founded upon a statute. The commandment of the Lord is everywhere.
“And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive” ( Lev 10:16 ).
But the flesh ought to have been eaten; a ceremonial law ought to have been observed. The two elder sons of the pontiff had been burnt, and the flesh of the goat of the sin offering had not been eaten, and Moses was angry. He does not name Aaron: there is a gentle considerateness even in the “meek man’s” anger; he will not have the pontiff abased in the sight of the people; he will blame the juniors. But there is an indirect blame that comes back with tremendous recoil upon men nameless who are involved in the responsibility. “And Aaron said unto Moses ” The younger men said nothing; they did not like the fire that burned in the face of Moses, a face soon made radiant either by communion divine, or by indignation because of violated law. So Aaron, recognising his own responsibility, made speech unto Moses. What is the answer to this ceremonial sin? A grand one! A perpetual one! Said Aaron, “Behold, this day have they offered their [the people’s] sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord; and such things have befallen me”: and there he sobbed. His two sons had been taken from him by fire: having the anointing oil of the Lord upon him, he was not permitted to go with the dead bodies, to see them buried outside the camp: he remained at his post; but his old heart was sore. We know the experience: still ploughing in the field, whilst a keener plough is ripping up the field of the heart! “… and such things have befallen me,” I will not complain of the judgment: the young men were wrong: God was right: God’s holy will be done! But I am a man; we could not eat the flesh to-day, our hearts were sore; if we had eaten the flesh, “should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord?” The Lord knoweth our frame: he remembereth that we are dust; we know the law, the flesh would under ordinary circumstances have been eaten; but “such things have befallen me,” my heart has been torn, my life has been emptied, a great judgment has stretched its black wings over my house-roof, and therefore the law has not been obeyed in the letter. It was a sublime answer; it was a father’s explanation; it was a plea of instinct; it was old nature rising against temporary law, a larger law subordinating and for the moment suspending a smaller one. This is God’s permission. This is the government under which we live. Instinct has its place in human education as well as ceremonial law, mechanical appointment, and transient stipulations. Aaron here supplies the “one touch of nature” which “makes the whole world kin.” His plea holds good to-day. It holds good even in matters purely bodily. The sufferer “ought” to eat; “But,” he says, “such things have befallen me. I ought to partake of food, you are quite right in reminding me of the law; but such things have befallen me: I have just buried my dearest one; I have looked into the grave where my only child lies.” Another says, excusing himself, “My child is twice dead he is gone away, I know not where; I ought to eat and drink and sleep; but such things have befallen me.” Thus one law modifies another. The deeper laws assert themselves against the more superficial statutes and ordinances. This plea operates in all social relations. Why was the wedding put off? “such things have befallen me.” Why was the feast postponed? “such things have befallen me.” The hands of the men were upon the bell-ropes, and in a moment more the metal in the belfry would have clashed out in song that would have made the city glad. Why was the belfry dumb? “such things have befallen me.” There are events in life which suspend the feast, which forbid the clash of the joy-bells, hung high in the air, almost eager to swing that they may speak their metallic music to the wondering town. We recall the card of invitation, and substitute it by a card black-edged, eloquent of grief, and in the presence of that dark margin explanation is unnecessary. God is not unpitiful: God is tender; he knows our frame; he says, “They are but children of the dust; their life is but as a vapour, which cometh for a little time and then vanisheth away; and their days are as a post: they fly quicker than a weaver’s shuttle; their breath is in their nostrils.” “His mercy endureth for ever.” If our very prayer is choked in the throat by ungovernable sorrow, it may in its very off-breaking in its very interruption be a mightier prayer than if its eloquence had been rounded in the most resonant periods. We live under a merciful heaven. The sceptre is not of iron, and the hand that holds it is a gentle hand.
There is more in the twentieth verse than the mere letter: “And when Moses heard that, he was content.” Some explanations carry their own conviction. We know the voice of honesty when we hear it; there is a frankness about it that can hardly be mistaken. But the meaning lies deeper: there can be no contentment in the presence of violated law. Where a law is violated wantonly, nature can have no rest; she says, “I cannot sleep to-night.” Thank God she cannot! When she can forget her Maker, the end will have come in darkness, and there will in very deed, in spirit and effect, be no more any God. Law must be satisfied in one of two ways. Law can rest upon the ashes of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying, “Judgment has been inflicted, righteousness has been vindicated, and the seal of condemnation has been attached to the testimony of evil”; and mighty, imperial, inexorable law sits on the desolated cities “content.” That is not the way in which the Lord would bring about his own contentment; still, there is the law: fall upon this stone and be broken, or the stone will fall upon you and you will be ground to powder. The Gospel is a savour of life unto life, or of death unto death. God would have law obeyed: all his ordinances carried out in simple obedience, every statute turned into conduct, every appointment represented in obedience and praise. Then the universe, faithful to her Creator, the stars never disloyal to their Creator-King, the whole creation, will say, CONTENT.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Lev 10:12 And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it [is] most holy:
Ver. 12. Take the meat offerlng, ] q.d., Think not that God hath cashiered you because he hath corrected you; neither refuse your meat out of a sullen sourness; but fall to your meat offering, and take better heed another time. Only “eat before the Lord.” Deu 12:18
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
offerings. Hebrew, plural of korban. App-43.
made by fire. Hebrew. ishsheh. App-43.
without leaven. See App-38.
beside the altar: in the outer court, Compare Lev 10:2 with Lev 6:20.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Take: Lev 2:1-16, Lev 6:15-18, Lev 7:9, Lev 21:22, Exo 29:2, Num 18:9, Num 18:10, Eze 44:29
for it is most: Lev 21:22
Reciprocal: Exo 28:1 – Nadab Exo 29:32 – Aaron Lev 2:3 – the remnant Lev 2:4 – the oven Lev 6:16 – shall it 1Ch 6:3 – Nadab 1Ch 24:2 – Eleazar 2Ch 31:14 – the most Ezr 7:5 – Eleazar
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 10:12-14. Moses spake unto Aaron Moses, being apprehensive that Aaron, in the confusion of his grief for the loss of his two sons, might forget or omit some part of his duty, here puts him in mind of it, repeating to him the order about eating the remains of the meat or meal-offering, (Lev 6:16-17,) and about the shoulder and breast, Lev 7:31. The former of which the priests alone might eat, and that only in the holy place, or court of the tabernacle. The other might be eaten in any clean place, that is, in any of their dwellings, or in any place in the camp which was decent, and kept clean from all ceremonial defilement; and where the women as well as the men might come; for the daughters of the priests might eat these as well as their sons, if they were maids, or widows, or divorced, Lev 2:11-13.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Moses’ commands to Aaron and Aaron’s response 10:12-20
Following the judgment on Nadab and Abihu, Moses instructed Aaron and his other sons to finish eating the rest of their portion of the sacrifices that they had offered for the nation.
"When the P [Priestly] code prescribed that every hatta’t [sin offering] except that brought for severe sins should be eaten by the priests . . . it took a giant step towards eviscerating the magical and demonic elements from Israelite ritual. For it must be assumed, in keeping with the evidence from the ancient Near East, that ritual detergents were always destroyed after they were used lest their potent remains be exploited for purposes of black magic. By requiring that the hatta’t be eaten, Israel gave birth to a new and radical idea: the sanctuary is purged not by any inherent power of the ritual but only by the will of God." [Note: Jacob Milgrom, "Two Kinds of Hatta’t," Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976):337.]
Aaron did not finish eating his portion of the sin offering, however, because of God’s judgment of his eldest sons. Perhaps the holiness of God so impressed Aaron that he felt unworthy to eat what he had offered as a sin offering. He probably concluded that mourners should not take part in sacrificial meals (cf. Deu 26:14). [Note: Sailhamer, p. 332.] This explanation is preferable to one that suggests Aaron refused to eat simply because he was grief-stricken by the death of his sons. This motivation probably would not have been as acceptable to Moses as the former. Moses gave Aaron permission to leave the rest of the sin offering uneaten. God is more gracious with those who fear Him and make mistakes than He is with those who do not fear Him as they should.
"In the case of purification [sin] offerings priests did not have an automatic right to the meat. It depended on what was done with the blood of the sacrifice. If the blood was smeared inside the tent of meeting, the animal’s carcass was burned outside the camp (Lev 4:1-21). If, however, the blood was smeared on the altar of burnt offering outside the tent of meeting, the priests were entitled to eat the meat (Lev 6:11 ff. [Eng. 25ff.]). Ch. 9 mentions two purification offerings, one for Aaron (Lev 9:8 ff.) and one for the people, namely, a goat (Lev 9:15). Moses’ anger is aroused because they have not followed the rules with the second offering. They have burned the meat instead of eating it themselves as they were entitled to (Lev 10:16-18). Since the blood was not brought into the holy place, i.e., the outer part of the tent of meeting, you ought to have eaten it." [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., pp. 159-60.]
This concludes the narrative of the induction of Aaron and his sons into the priestly office (chs. 8-10). The events of these eight days in Israel’s history made an indelible impression on the people and pointed out the necessity of worshipping their holy God as He specified.