Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 10:16
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,
The Law on the point in question was clear. See Lev 2:3, note; Lev 4:5, note; Lev 4:15 note. But on this occasion, though the sin-offering which had been offered by Aaron was for the people Lev 9:15, its blood was not carried into the tabernacle. The priests might therefore have too readily supposed that their eating the flesh, or burning it, was a matter of indifference. Hence, Moses explains that the appropriation of the flesh by the priests is an essential part of the act of atonement Lev 10:17.
It was burnt – It was consumed by fire in an ordinary way, not; in the fire of the altar. See Lev 1:9.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Lev 10:16-20
Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering?
Consideration for neglected duty
Part of this goat being a sin offering, should have been eaten–I mean the shoulder and breast allotted to the priest–but it was all burned contrary to the law, for which Moses was justly offended, having seen so lately Gods wrath upon the other fault. The answer of Aaron you have in Lev 10:19, in effect and sense as if he should have said, I confess and acknowledge the ordinance of God is to be kept, and we are to eat with joy of the parts allotted unto us of the sacrifice for sin; the blood was not brought into the Tabernacle of the testimony. But how could I eat with joy in so heavy and woful a case of my children? Compelled, therefore, with the greatness of my grief, I did what I did, &c. At which answer, saith our chapter, Moses was content, so bearing with his infirmity, considering his great sorrow, but not leaving an example to forgive them that maliciously transgress the commandment of God. And as Moses is said to have stayed his anger, so you see the Lord Himself did, not punishing again this fault. It layeth open unto us the great kindness of our gracious God, of whom the psalm saith, He is full of compassion and mercy, long suffering and of great goodness. He will not always be chiding, neither keepeth He His anger for ever. He dealeth not with us after our sins, neither rewardeth us according to our wickedness, &c. Secondly, you may see here how these ceremonial laws gave place to necessity, as David also in necessity did eat the shewbread, which was otherwise unlawful for him to do; and Hezekiah admitted to the Passover those that were not cleansed. But for moral laws there is no dispensation for corporal necessity, but a constant course must be held in obeying them. For it is not necessary that I should live; but it is ever necessary that I should live righteously. Lastly, in that Moses admitted a reasonable excuse, we may learn to abhor pride and to do the like; pride, I say, which scorneth to hear what may be said against the conceit we have once harboured. A modest man or woman doth not thus; but even for his servant or his maid holy Job had an ear, and did not despise their judgment, their complaint, or grief, when they thought themselves evil entreated by him. The example of God Himself is instead of a thousand, who both heard and accepted of Abimelech his excuse for taking away Abrahams wife, I know, saith He, that thou didst it even with an upright mind, and therefore I kept thee also that thou shouldest not sin against Me, &c. Shall the Lord be thus sweet, and we so dogged, so churlish, so stern and sour, that no excuse may serve for a thing done amiss if once we have taken notice of it? Beware, beware, and remember your own frailty well. A stubborn frowardness hath hurt many, sweet gentleness and courtesy never any; but though wicked men were unthankful, yet our gracious God was pleased. (Bp. Babington.)
Such things have befallen me.
The afflictions which befall the servants of God
I. That sore afflictions sometimes befall the servants of God.
1. The death of two sons by one stroke.
2. The distressing character of their death.
3. The prohibition of any expression of grief.
II. That under the pressure of sore afflictions the servants of God are required to attend to religious duties.
1. The obligatoriness of such duties is not annulled by trial. Trust in God, and prayer and praise to him, are binding in sickness as in health, in sorrow as m joy. So are all religious duties.
2. The need of the help which attention to such duties affords is not diminished by trial, but rather increased.
III. That under the pressure of sore afflictions the mind and heart of the servants of God often seem unequal to a proper discharge of religious duties. On the day when this calamity befell them, Aaron and his surviving sons did not accurately discharge their sacred duties. It was expressly commanded that the flesh of those sin offerings, the blood of which was not carried into the Tabernacle of the congregation, should be eaten by the officiating priests (Lev 6:24-30). Instead of doing this, Aaron and his sons burnt the flesh of the sinoffering (Lev 10:16-18). The error may be viewed as–
1. An oversight caused by the things which had befallen them. In great griefs the heart seems dead to every feeling but the predominant one, and the mind seems incapable of sustained attention to anything except what is related to its griefs. Meditation upon the holy Scriptures, prayer, spiritual aspirations, communion with God–these seem impossible to the sorrow-stricken soul. Needing them so urgently, yet the soul seems unable properly to attend to them.
2. Intentional because of felt unfitness to eat of the most holy flesh. This seems to receive most support from the words following the text: 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? The bereaved father seems to have been not only sorrowful, but deeply awed and humbled by the things which had befallen him, and to have felt that if he had eaten the most holy flesh in such a frame of mind it would not have been acceptable to God. His case reminds us of some who absent themselves from the sacrament of the Lords supper because of a sincere feeling of unworthiness. But let such persons remember that Aarons sense of unworthiness did not disqualify him for eating the flesh of the sin-offering; he rather erred in not doing so.
IV. That when the mind and heart of the suffering servants of god seem thus unfitted for religious duties, God does not account such unfitness as sin. When Moses heard the apology of Aaron he was content; and we are warranted in regarding his content as an evidence that God also was satisfied with the reason assigned by the high priest for his deviation from the line of duty. Surely the Lord knew the intense anguish which His servant was suffering, and regarded him with deepest, tenderest pity. The Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy. Here is consolation for the sorrow-stricken soul. If in the day of your sore afflictions you seem to have no heart for worship, your efforts to pray end in what seems to you to be utter failure, and religious thought and emotion seem to have entirely departed from you, remember the touching words of Aaron in his great calamity, Such things have befallen me; remember also those other words, And when Moses heard that, he was content. (W. Jones.)
The vicissitudes of life
Observe here again with yourself the strange and admirable change of these worldly matters in the turn, as we say, of a hand. For but yesterday, as it were, Aaron and these sons of his had a famous and glorious consecration into the greatest and highest dignity upon earth, nothing under the sun being more glorious than that priesthood in those days. And how may you think his heart rejoiced to see, not only himself, but his children (which parents often love more than themselves), so blessed and honoured? But, O change! how sudden and fearful! O fickle, fading comfort, that man taketh hold of in this world, whatsoever it be, if worldly! These sons so lately exalted and honoured to their old fathers sweet and great joy, now lie destroyed before his face, to his extreme and twitching torment. And how? Not by any ordinary and accustomed death, but by fire from heaven, a sore and dreadful judgment. For what also? Even for breach of commanded duty by the Lord, all which doubled and trebled the fathers sorrow. As it did in David when his son Absalom died not a usual death, and in rebellion and disobedience against his king and father. You remember his passion then uttered: 0 my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom; would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son my son. He considered the cause wherein he died, and the manner how he died; to a father so kind as David was, both of them full of woe and sorrow. Let never, therefore, any prosperity in this world puff us; for we little know what to-morrow may bring with it. The glass that glittereth most is soonest broken; the rankest corn is soonest laid; and the fullest bough with pleasant fruit is soonest slit, having more eyes upon it, and more stones east at it, than all the other boughs of the tree. Pleasant wine maketh wise men fools, and fools often stark mad. Milos strong arm overthrew him, and Caesar his ambition. The one trusted too much to nature, and the other to fortune. As a spiders web, so is a mans greatness in this world soon wiped away with a little whisk. (Bp. Babington.)
When Moses heard that, he was content.–
A contented law
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. (J. Parker, D. D.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 16. Moses diligently sought the goat] The goat which was offered the same day for the sins of the priests and the people, (see Le 9:15-16), and which, through the confusion that happened on account of the death of Nadab and Abihu, was burnt instead of being eaten. See Le 10:18.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The goat of the sin-offering, to wit, for the people, mentioned Lev 9:15, to know what was done with that part of it which was the priests; which he inquired into more than into the other sacrifices, because a mistake there was easy and probable, because that matter might seem something doubtful, by reason of two laws concerning it seemingly contrary, the one Lev 4:21, where it is to be burned, the other Lev 6:26, where it was to be eaten. But they are thus reconciled: It was to be burnt when the blood of this sacrifice was brought into the holy place, Lev 4:16,17; and when that was not done, which Aaron this first time could not do, for the reason expressed in Lev 10:18, it was to be eaten, and here lay their mistake.
He was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar: he spares Aaron at this time, as overwhelmed with sorrow, and because the rebuking of him before his sons might have exposed him to some contempt; but he knew that the reproof, though directed to them, would concern him too, as he also apprehended it.
Which were left alive, preserved from death when their brethren were destroyed, which is here mentioned as an aggravation of their sin.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16-20. Moses diligently sought thegoat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burntIn asacrifice presented, as that had been, on behalf of the people, itwas the duty of the priests, as typically representing them andbearing their sins, to have eaten the flesh after the blood had beensprinkled upon the altar. Instead of using it, however, for a sacredfeast, they had burnt it without the camp; and Moses, who discoveredthis departure from the prescribed ritual, probably from a dread ofsome further chastisements, challenged, not Aaron, whose heart wastoo much lacerated to bear a new cause of distress but his twosurviving sons in the priesthood for the great irregularity. Theirfather, however, who heard the charge and by whose directions theerror had been committed, hastened to give the explanation. Theimport of his apology is, that all the duty pertaining to thepresentation of the offering had been duly and sacredly performed,except the festive part of the observance, which privately devolvedupon the priest and his family. And that this had been omitted,either because his heart was too dejected to join in the celebrationof a cheerful feast, or that he supposed, from the appallingjudgments that had been inflicted, that all the services of thatoccasion were so vitiated that he did not complete them. Aaron wasdecidedly in the wrong. By the express command of God, the sinoffering was to be eaten in the holy place; and no fanciful view ofexpediency or propriety ought to have led him to dispense atdiscretion with a positive statute. The law of God was clear and,where that is the case, it is sin to deviate a hair’s breadth fromthe path of duty. But Moses sympathized with his deeply afflictedbrother and, having pointed out the error, said no more.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin [offering],…. The Targum of Jonathan says,
“three goats were offered on that day, the goat of the new moon, of the sin offering for the people, and of the sin offering, which Nahshon the son of Amminadab offered at the dedication of the altar; Aaron and his sons, it adds, went and burnt these three, Moses came and sought, c.”
Jarchi also speaks of three goats offered, but says that only one was burnt, the goat of the new moon and so Ben Gersom, who gives this reason for the diligent search after it, because it was always to be offered up, and was not a temporary affair, as the others were: but it rather seems to be the goat of the sin offering for the people, for it is not certain that the other goats were offered on this day, but this was, see Le 9:15 now according to the law, the flesh of this goat was not to be burnt, but to be eaten by the priests in the holy place, see Le 6:25. Moses now suspecting that Aaron and his sons, through their grief for the death of Nadab and Abihu, had neglected the eating of it, sought diligently after it, and so it proved:
and, behold, it was burnt: as they had no appetite to it themselves, they burnt it, that it might not be eaten by any others, for none but they might eat it, and that it might not corrupt:
and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, [which were] left alive; when their two elder brothers were killed with lightning for doing what was not commanded, which should have made them more observant of the laws of God, to do that which was commanded them: and though they were spared, and survived their brethren, yet they transgressed, in burning the sin offering of the people, when they should have eaten it. Jarchi observes, that he expressed his anger not to Aaron, but to his sons, which he did for the honour of Aaron, laying the blame not on him, who was overwhelmed with grief, but on his sons:
saying; as follows.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Verses 16-20:
Moses became angry with Eleazar and Ithamar The reason: the sin offering had been burnt, but the blood had not been brought within the holy place. The sacrificial regulations provided that when the flesh was burned, the blood was brought into the sanctuary. When the blood was not brought into the holy place the flesh was eaten by the priests and not burnt. Moses demanded an explanation from Aaron’s sons.
Aaron came to their defense. His plea was two fold:
1. The sons had indeed done what the law required of them. It was not their responsibility, but Aaron’s, to bring the blood into the holy place. Any fault was his, not theirs.
2. The distress he felt but was unable to show in the events of the day made him unable to eat the sin offering of the people, as he should have done.
Moses was content with Aaron’s explanation. The letter of the law had indeed been broken, but the spirit of the law was intact. This illustrates Jesus’ meaning on various occasions, see Mr 2:27, 28; Lu 13:10-15; Joh 5:10-18.
Verse 17 implies that the eating of the sacrifice symbolized the forgiveness of the iniquity of the congregation.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
16. And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin-offering Moses had not omitted to tell them what was to be done with the goat; and the sacrifice which he had himself performed, was a visible instruction to them. He had set before them what they should imitate, and this would have been enough even for children. But, as I have said, in such serious matters Moses had not spared labor and care, whereas the sons of Aaron, as if they had neither heard nor seen anything of the sort, pervert the whole order of them, although they had been just before reminded that they had been appointed to keep the charge of God. Perhaps they were impelled to this error by the trouble arising from their grief; but we gather from hence that however exquisite may be the ability of masters and teachers, it may be often fruitless unless they have obedient scholars with retentive memories. And hence also we learn that when God often inculcates the same thing, His labor is not superfluous, because we do not understand what we seem to understand; or what has been clearly shewn to us soon afterwards escapes.
Further from the anger of Moses, which is mentioned in his praise, we may infer that the transgression was no light one, although it was not so severely punished as the presumption of Nadab and Abihu. The excuse which some make for them, or allege in extenuation of their crime, that they thought they were deprived of the right before accorded to them, and therefore abstained through modesty, is refuted by the answer of Aaron himself. It was, therefore, grief alone which impelled them to this error. But the reason why God was more merciful to them than to their brethren, is only known to Himself. Conjectures may, indeed, be advanced; but at last we must come to this, that because God’s judgments are hidden, they are not therefore unjust; but that we must humbly adore their depth into which the minds of men cannot penetrate.
19. And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day Aaron replies that it arose from pious fear that they had not feasted before God, because they would in a manner have defiled the sanctuary by their tears and melancholy, as if he had said, Part indeed of the sin-offering was reserved for our food, but we could not properly partake of it except in cheerfulness and with thanksgiving. The grief arising from his sudden bereavement did not allow of this; but it was not a just defense; for he ought rather to have striven against the feelings of the flesh, so that his domestic calamity should not withhold him from the service of God. But, inasmuch as in his perplexity his fear was deserving of pity, Moses forgives him; and it is said that he was appeased, because he finds less of evil than he supposed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(16) And Moses diligently sought the goat.That is, the flesh of the goat of the sin offering which was offered by the nation on the eighth day. (See Lev. 9:15.)
And, behold, it was burnt.Being overwhelmed with grief at the loss of their brothers, Eleazar and Ithamar could not eat, and as none but priests were allowed to partake of the flesh of the sin offering, they burnt it on the altar, to prevent its corruption. They did this all the more readily since the flesh of Aarons sin offering was just before burnt without the camp. (See Lev. 9:11.)
And he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar.As it was Aarons duty quite as much as his two sons to eat of the flesh, Moses probably omitted to mention his name, because he wished to spare the honour of the pontiff in the sight of the people.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
16. The goat of the sin offering This was the people’s sin offering which had been slain and offered by Moses, (Lev 9:15,) or by the two younger sons of Aaron, to whom this part of the ritual had been intrusted by Moses.
And he was angry No softer word will import into English the strength of the Hebrew katzaph to snort, to storm. Anger is not a sin when it arises not from personal feeling, but purely in the interest of justice, truth, order, and humanity. The soul which cannot be angry at great wrongs Plato compares to an arm with the chief sinew cut asunder. We do not accept that weak defence of the imprecatory Psalms which explains them as simply declaratory of future judgments upon David’s enemies. They are the proper expression of a righteous indignation breathed out in behalf of God and his righteousness. Hence, the sinless Jesus on one occasion looked around with anger upon his foes lurking in ambush for his life. Mar 3:5. It remains for us to inquire whether Moses had sufficient provocation to just anger. We reply that stupidity and gross carelessness in handling interests of vast importance are such a provocation. The sins of the whole Hebrew nation were to be taken away by virtue of their incorporation into the priests by eating the people’s sin offering. Such was the sanctifying power of the priests’ office that by this act they were enabled to bear away the iniquity of the congregation. By the blunder of these young priests the people’s sins were still resting upon them. See chap. Lev 6:26, note. Heedlessness in respect to our own interests is culpable, but in respect to the well-being of others it is criminal.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
A Problem Arises Concerning the Purification for Sin Offering For The People ( Lev 10:16-20 ).
This incident is quite remarkable, and is very unlikely to be a later invention, for it depicts Moses’ uncertainty in the face of a ritual situation. It confirms that here we are dealing with what actually happened. Presumably in the light of what had happened to Nadab and Abihu Moses was checking on Aaron and his sons to ensure that they had carried through the correct rituals. He was clearly quite satisfied until he came to the question of the disposal of the flesh of the goat offered as a purification for sin offering for the people. When he discovered that it had been burnt on the altar and not eaten by the priests he was angry.
Lev 10:16
‘And Moses diligently sought the goat of the purification for sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt, and he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar, the sons of Aaron who were left, saying,’
His anger centred on ‘the sons of Aaron who were left’, a deliberate reminder of what had happened earlier that day. They surely should have ensured the correct carrying out of the ritual. Were they being rebellious like their brothers?
Lev 10:17-18
“Why have you not eaten the purification for sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, seeing it is most holy, and he has given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before Yahweh? Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within. You should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.”
His question was specific. Why had they burnt the flesh of the purification for sin offering offered on behalf of the people, and not eaten it. They should have eaten it ‘in the place of the Sanctuary’, that is, within the tabernacle precincts, for that was all a part of bearing the iniquity of the offeror (Lev 6:26; Lev 6:29; Lev 7:6). The purification for sin offering must be mainly burnt on the altar with the flesh eaten by the priests in order to bear the iniquity of the offerer and to make atonement for him. In this case the ‘him’ was the people of Israel. This description reveals how the holiness of the priests renders even the ‘sin’ content holy. It is neutralised through forgiveness and atonement, through ‘covering’.
The only exception allowed to this was in the cases where the blood was offered before the veil within the Holy Place. And that had not happened with this offering.
But we can understand their confusion as beginners in the priesthood. Usually when a purification for sin offering was made either for a priest or for ‘the whole congregation’ its blood was taken within the Holy Place and offered before the veil (Lev 4:6; Lev 4:17), and the whole carcase apart from the fat and vital parts was burned outside the camp in a clean place. But in the case of the Priest’s offering this day that had not been done. Should they then have eaten of the Priest’s offering? The answer, even in Moses’ eyes was clearly, No. The priests could not eat of the purification for sin offering of one of their own. He was not questioning that.
But in Moses’ eyes the question seemed different when it came to the offering on behalf of ‘the people’. Possibly because the elders had brought the offering he did not consider that that offering must also include the two brothers, although they had not strictly been included in Aaron’s offering. Moses, however, probably considered that they had (compare Lev 8:14). He no doubt saw the priesthood as one. It was a matter of interpretation. Thus because unusually the blood had not been presented in the Holy Place (possibly because it was for the people and not the whole congregation) he considered that it could be eaten by the priests. Probably the two brothers had taken the opposite view, that because the purification for sin offering included themselves they should not eat of it, and had been terrified at the thought of eating the purification for sin offering wrongly. We may assume from what followed that they appealed to their father, whose decision it had probably been.
Lev 10:19
‘And Aaron spoke to Moses, “Behold, this day have they offered their purification for sin offering and their whole burnt offering before Yahweh, and there have befallen me such things as these, and if I had eaten the purification for sin offering today, would it have been well-pleasing in the sight of Yahweh?”
For Aaron, wiser and older, steps in to deal with the situation. He does not argue one case or the other. He points out that the two young men had this very day offered their purification for sin offering and their whole burnt offerings before Yahweh. They are concerned for their sin and dedication. He does not define which he sees as theirs. That is not the grounds on which he is going to argue.
Then he draws attention to his own invidious position. How does Moses see his case? After his offerings for himself he had endured unbearable events. He was in great grief. His heart was in mourning (compare Deu 26:14). That in itself made his position difficult. He could carry on his service, but he could not avoid what was in his heart, and the hurt and grief he felt. And Yahweh would be aware of it.
And what was more, it had been his own sons, the sons of his house, who had blasphemed Yahweh and endured His judgment and wrath. Was he then in any position to partake of the purification for sin offering of the people, and were his other sons in any better position. Was not their whole house in some sense guilty on this day? They would carry out their duty, but would the eating of the purification for sin offering by them have been pleasing in the sight of Yahweh when they were in a very real sense identified with those who had been slain? Would it not rather have made his family even more guilty? In that situation how could they profess to bear the sin of the people? Surely it were better on this day that the whole offering be offered by fire directly to Yahweh that He might absorb and neutralise through ‘covering’ the sin of the people, while he and his sons purged their sons/brothers’ offence?
Lev 10:20
‘And when Moses heard that, it was well-pleasing in his sight.’
Moses recognised the justice of what Aaron had said. He recognised their dilemma and was satisfied. This had been no rebellion against the will of Yahweh by Aaron and his remaining sons, but a recognition of their own mourning and their own indirect participation in the sin of their son and brothers. The house of Aaron had sinned that day, and were in mourning over the consequences of sin (for in Hebrew thought the sin of one in a family was in some sense the sin of all). How then could Aaron and his sons be seen as partaking of the purification for sin offering of the people, absorbing its holiness and rectifying their sin by ‘covering’ (atonement) and forgiveness? Would it not cause doubt in the people’s minds? Surely it was better that the holiness be absorbed by the altar, and the sin be covered and atoned for by God?
“It was well-pleasing in his sight.” Moses recognised that all was well. He recognised that this had not been done lightly, but had been done with a full consideration of the factors that had resulted in the decision. But no later writer would have accepted the possibility of Moses having to be taught by Aaron in this way unless it had happened. (Although the ingenuity of some modern scholars in inventing stories which have no evidence to support them in order to explain such things away is quite incredible. It appears to be a case of any story goes as long as we do not accept them to be what they claim to be).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Lev 10:16. Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin-offering Though the time of Nadab and Abihu’s death is not mentioned, yet, from the confusion which happened respecting the sin-offering, which was burnt instead of being eaten, as it should have been, by the priests, (ch. Lev 6:26.) one would be apt to conclude, that this fatal event happened at or a little before the time of offering the sin-offering.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
The goat was the sin-offering for the people. Lev 9:15 . And by the priest eating of it within the holy place, the instruction intended to be conveyed was, that the priest, as a type of the ever-blessed JESUS, did thereby bear the iniquity of the congregation. Reader! do not overlook thy High Priest here. 2Co 5:21 . Aaron’s grief made him fear, that if he had eaten the sin-offering as usual, he should have hindered the acceptance. Observe how sparingly and humbly he speaks of his trials. Such things have befallen me. The prophet Hosea in after ages was taught to say, that the bread of mourners should be polluted, and not suffered to be brought into the house of the LORD. Hos 9:4 . It should seem from the acquiescence of Moses in the reasoning of Aaron, that his excuse was admitted. Psa 103:13-14 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lev 10:16 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,
Ver. 16. And, behold, it was burnt. ] Passion for their dead friends had so transported the priests, that they knew not well what they did. We use to say, Res est ingeniosa dolor: but then it must not be excessive as here, and as 2Sa 18:33 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
burnt. Hebrew. saraph. App-43.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
the goat: Lev 6:26, Lev 6:30, Lev 9:3, Lev 9:15
angry: Exo 32:19-22, Num 12:3, Mat 5:22, Mar 3:5, Mar 10:14, Eph 4:26
Reciprocal: Exo 29:34 – burn Lev 3:12 – a goat Lev 7:17 – burnt Num 31:14 – wroth 2Ki 13:19 – was wroth 1Ch 6:3 – Nadab 1Ch 6:50 – Eleazar Ezr 7:5 – Eleazar
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 10:16. Behold, it was burnt This justified Mosess suspicion that some mistake might be committed in the holy things; for upon inquiry he found that the priests had burned upon the altar those parts of the peoples sin-offering which they ought to have eaten, Lev 6:26; Lev 6:29. He was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar Moses, not willing to aggravate the sorrows of his brother Aaron, says nothing to him, but expostulates with his sons for their neglect. He knew, however, that the reproof, though directed to them, would concern him too.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
10:16 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] {f} left [alive], saying,
(f) And not consumed as Nadab and Abihu.