Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 10:18
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.
The holy place, as it is called in our version, within the tabernacle (see Exo 26:33; Exo 28:29, etc.) into which the blood was carried, is regularly called in Hebrew, simply, the holy (as the innermost chamber is called the holy of holies), the adjective being used substantively; while the precinct in which the flesh of the sin-offering was eaten is generally called in full the holy place, the substantive being expressed Lev 10:13.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
The blood of it was not brought in within the holy place; the reason whereof was, because Aaron was not yet admitted into the holy place, whither that blood should have been brought, till he had prepared the way by the sacrifices which were to be offered in the court.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place,…. When that was the case, indeed, the flesh of the sin offering was not to be eaten, but burnt, see Le 6:30 but this was not the case now, and therefore its flesh should have been eaten, and not burnt:
ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy [place], as I commanded, Le 6:26.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(18) Behold, the blood of it.According to the sacrificial law, the flesh of the sin offerings (the blood of which was not carried into the sanctuary) had to be eaten by the priests alone, in a holy place, as a part of the expiatory rites. (See Lev. 6:25-26; Lev. 10:17.) It was the flesh of those sin offerings, the blood of which was carried into the sanctuary, which had to be burnt. (See Lev. 4:5; Lev. 4:16; Lev. 6:23; Lev. 6:30.) Now the blood of the peoples sin-offering which was offered on this occasion was not carried into the sanctuary. (See Lev. 9:9.)
Ye should indeed have eaten it.Hence its flesh should have been eaten by Aaron and his two sons in the court-yard of the sanctuary, as Moses commanded in Lev. 6:26.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
18. Blood not brought See Lev 6:30, note. In the passage referred to it will be seen that it was a law of the sin offering that it should not be eaten when the blood was brought into the tabernacle, for this is the meaning of the holy place in this place. This verse proves the converse to be true, namely, that every sin sacrifice shall be eaten whose blood was not brought into the holy place. In the first case the sprinkled blood expiated, and in the second, the eaten flesh removed, sin.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 10:18 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.
Ver. 18. Ye should indeed have eaten it. ] Thus, by misreckoning a point, ye have missed the haven, and hazarded yourselves to the rocks of the divine displeasure, against which your brethren so lately split. God is usually most angry when he is about a reformation; as here against Nadab and Abihu: so afterwards against Uzzah, Ananias and Sapphira, &c.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Behold. Figure of speech Asterismos (App-6), to emphasize the distinction laid down in Ch. Lev 6:26, Lev 6:30; Lev 10:17. Compare Lev 4:5, Lev 4:16; Lev 6:23, Lev 6:30.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
the blood: Lev 6:30
as I commanded: Lev 6:26, Lev 6:30
Reciprocal: Lev 5:15 – in the 1Ch 23:13 – sanctify Ezr 2:63 – should not Neh 7:65 – that they should
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 10:18. Behold the blood was not brought within the holy place And consequently it was not one of those sacrifices ordered to be burned, (Lev 6:30,) but should have been eaten in the court of the tabernacle, Lev 6:26.