Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 10:19
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 today, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD?
19. Aaron in his reply admits that he should have eaten the Sin-Offering, but gives as a reason for not doing so ‘there have befallen me such things as these.’ This is explained as a reference to the death of his sons. Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar were forbidden to mourn for them; but Aaron considered their death as a sign that God was displeased and refrained from eating the Sin-Offering. The whole incident presents difficulties which have not been satisfactorily explained, one of which is that the sacrifice to which Moses refers belongs to that class of which the priests were not to eat. The direction in Lev 6:26, that the priest who offers a Sin-Offering ‘shall eat it’ is there limited in Lev 6:30, by forbidding that this shall be done when any of the blood has been brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement. In accordance with this restriction, the rebuke by Moses in Lev 10:18 is justified, but on the other hand it should be noted that no blood has yet been brought into the Holy place, not even that of the calf for Aaron’s Sin-Offering (Lev 9:8 ff.), and yet no objection against the burning of it was made by Moses.
For one who desired to defend the burning of all the parts the argument would be fairly obvious that the rules for the Sin-Offering of the priest as laid down in Lev 4:3 ff. direct this course. Aaron’s line of defence, however, is wholly different. Dillm. suggests that the section as it now stands has arisen through the expansion of an older and simpler narrative in P, in which was set forth the original disinclination of the priests to partake of the flesh of the Sin-Offering.
The most probable explanation of the passage is that it is an attempt to account for a discrepancy between the earlier and later ritual. That the priests should abstain, in the contemplated case, from eating the victim whose blood had not been brought into the sanctuary, was opposed to the later custom, and thus needed special circumstances to justify it, and the consequent sanction of Moses.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
That is: Behold this very day, in which we have done our part in sacrificing sin-offerings and burnt-offerings to the Lord, this great calamity has befallen me. Could it have been well-pleasing to the Lord if those who have been so humbled as I and my sons have been by the sin of our relations and the divine judgment, had feasted on the most holy flesh of the sin-offering?
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 19. And such things have befallen me, c.] The excuse which Aaron makes for not feasting on the sin-offering according to the law is at once appropriate and dignified as if he had said: “God certainly has commanded me to eat of the sin-offering; but when such things as these have happened unto me, could it be good in the sight of the Lord? Does he not expect that I should feel as a father under such afflicting circumstances?” With this spirited answer Moses was satisfied; and God, who knew his situation, took no notice of the irregularity which had taken place in the solemn service. To human nature God has given the privilege to weep in times of affliction and distress. In his infinite kindness he has ordained that tears, which are only external evidences of our grief, shall be the outlets to our sorrows, and tend to exhaust the cause from which they flow. See on “Le 10:3“.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This day have they offered; they have done the substance of the thing, though they have mistaken this one circumstance. Such things have befallen me; whereby, having been oppressed with grief, and almost bereft of my reason, it is not strange nor unpardonable if I have mistaken.
Should it have been accepted? because it was not to be eaten with sorrow, but with rejoicing and thanksgiving, as appears from Deu 12:7; 26:14; Hos 9:4; and I thought it fitter to burn it, as I did other sacred relics, than to profane it by eating it unworthily.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And Aaron said unto Moses,…. For what Moses had said was said in his presence, though not addressed to him directly, but to his sons; and he was sensible that he was pointed at, and that if there was any blame in this affair, it lay as much or more on him than on his sons; and therefore he takes it upon him to give an answer, and to excuse the fact as well as he could:
behold, this day they have offered their sin [offering] and their burnt offering before the Lord; that is, the people of Israel had brought a kid of the goats for a sin offering, and a calf and a lamb for burnt offering, and he and his sons assisting him, had offered them for them, even on the very day his two eldest sons were removed by death in an awful manner:
and such things have befallen me; at this very time, soon after the above sacrifices were offered, happened the death of his two sons, which occasioned great anguish and distress, grief and sorrow, so that he could not eat of the sin offering; he had no appetite for it, and if he had, he thought in his present circumstances it would not have been right, as follows:
and [if] I had eaten the sin [offering] today, should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord? he being a mourner. The Jews say u, an high priest may offer, being a mourner, but not eat; a common priest may neither offer nor eat; and which they illustrate by this passage, that Aaron offered and did not eat, but his sons did neither.
u Misn. Horayot, c. 3. sect. 5. Maimon. & Bartenora in ib.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Aaron excused his sons, however, by saying, “ Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering and their burnt-offering, and this has happened to me, ” i.e., the calamity recorded in Lev 10:1. has befallen me ( = , as in Gen 42:4); “ and if I had eaten the sin-offering to-day, would it have been well-pleasing to Jehovah? ” is a conditional clause, as in Gen 33:13, cf. Ewald, 357. Moses rested satisfied with this answer. Aaron acknowledged that the flesh of the sin-offering ought to have been eaten by the priest in this instance (according to Lev 6:19), and simply adduced, as the reason why this had not been done, the calamity which had befallen his two eldest sons. And this might really be a sufficient reason, as regarded both himself and his remaining sons, why the eating of the sin-offering should be omitted. For the judgment in question was so solemn a warning, as to the sin which still adhered to them even after the presentation of their sin-offering, that they might properly feel “that they had not so strong and overpowering a holiness as was required for eating the general sin-offering” ( M. Baumgarten). This is the correct view, though others find the reason in their grief at the death of their sons or brethren, which rendered it impossible to observe a joyous sacrificial meal. But this is not for a moment to be thought of, simply because the eating of the flesh of the sin-offering was not a joyous meal at all (see at Lev 6:19).
(Note: Upon this mistaken view of the excuse furnished by Aaron, Knobel has founded his assertion, that “this section did not emanate from the Elohist, because he could not have written in this way,” an assertion which falls to the ground when the words are correctly explained.)
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(19) And Aaron said.Though, according to Lev. 10:16, Moses only blamed Eleazar and Ithamar for this transgression of the law, yet there can hardly be any doubt that Aaron was included in this censure, and that the lawgiver abstained from expressing his anger against the pontiff because of the supreme dignity of his office, which he would not lower in the sight of the people. Aaron, however, was fully sensible of this, and hence replies to the charge brought against his sons.
They offered their sin offering.Before proceeding to the transgression with which they are thus charged, Aaron adverts to the fact that all the other sacrificial duties in which he and his sons were engaged on the same day, prior to the great calamity, were performed in strict accordance with the prescribed ritual. His sons assisting him had offered theiri.e., the peoplessin and burnt offerings (see Lev. 9:15-16) thus far in due compliance with the requirements of the law, and hence could never have meant to transgress intentionally.
And such things have befallen me.But whilst he, Eleazar, and Ithamar were thus duly performing the sacrificial rites, Nadab and Abihu, his other two sons, transgressed, and were suddenly struck down dead, thus overwhelming the survivors with sorrow, and rendering them unfit to partake of the sacrifices.
And if I had eaten.Aaron submits that, unfitted as they thus were by mourning and the sense of their own sinfulness, if they had partaken of this solemn meal it would not have been acceptable to the Lord. In consequence of this declaration, the rule obtained during the second Temple, that when an ordinary priest heard of the death of a relative whilst on duty in the sanctuary, he had to cease from service, though he could not leave the precincts of the Temple otherwise he defiled the sacrifice; whilst the high priest, who could continue his sacred ministrations, was not allowed to partake of the sacrificial meal.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19. Such things have befallen me “Aaron here supplies the ‘one touch of nature’ which ‘makes the whole world kin.’ The deeper laws assert themselves against the more superficial statutes and ordinances.” Joseph Parker. Aaron, forbidden to mourn in public, could not restrain his grief. His bursting heart finds relief in this one sentence whispered in the ear of his irate brother as an apology for his own neglect to eat the sin offering. He had been deterred by his sense of unworthiness and by his fear of committing an impropriety which might call down still greater judgments. This soft answer turned away wrath, for when Moses heard he was content. “They were all, in a sense, unclean, even though the anointing oil of the Lord was upon them. They might eat the meat offering which was their due, but could not make atonement for the sins of the people.” Bib. Sac. It is far better to be real in our confession of failure than to put forth pretensions to spiritual power without foundation. This chapter opens with positive sin, and closes with negative failure, the former dishonouring God, and the latter forfeiting his blessing.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Various Statutes
v. 19. Ye shall keep My statutes, v. 20. And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman that is a bondmaid, v. 21. And he, v. 22. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass-offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done, v. 23. And when ye shall come in to the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, v. 24. But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the Lord withal, v. 25. And in the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof v. 26. Ye shall not eat anything with the blood, v. 27. Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, v. 28. Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, v. 29. Do not prostitute thy daughter, v. 30. Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, v. 31. Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards to be defiled by them; v. 32. Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of the old man, and fear thy God. I am the Lord. v. 33. And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex, v. 34. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, v. 35. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, v. 36. Just balances, v. 37. Therefore shall ye observe all My statutes and all My judgments,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Lev 10:19. And Aaron said unto Moses, &c. Though Moses had addressed Eleazar and Ithamar only; Aaron, convinced that the reproof concerned himself most, offers, in apology both for them and himself, that the misfortunes of the day had prevented him and them from feasting upon the sin-offering, though they had so far performed their duty as to offer it: but, as a cheerful heart ought to accompany festivals, and holy things should not be eaten in mourning, (Deu 26:14.) he thought it best to omit this festival in his present melancholy circumstances. Conformably to this opinion of Aaron, God expresses his abhorrence of the sacrifices of sinners by saying, they shall be unto them as the bread of mourners; all that eat thereof shall be polluted, Hos 9:4; Hosea 1.e. those who partake thereof shall be legally unclean, and unfit for eating of things consecrated to God. This appears to be the plain meaning of Aaron’s apology. The answer satisfied Moses, (Lev 10:20.) for where the heart is right, the law of God will overlook some defects in the externals of religion. God always prefers mercy to sacrifice; see 2Ch 30:18-20. Dr. Shuckford, however, takes the import of Aaron’s apology to be, that the ministrations already performed, had called down upon him the judgments which had been inflicted: that for this reason he feared they had profaned the services of the day, and therefore he did not presume to go on with them; but had burned the goat, instead of reserving it to be eaten according to the orders which he should have observed, if their officiating had been so conducted, as to give him reason to think it would have been accepted in the sight of the Lord.
Note; 1. Holy zeal in God’s cause is laudable: but though we condemn, we should hear what may be alledged in mitigation of the offender. 2. We are not forbidden to feel, though we are forbidden to find fault with God’s dealings. 3. Worldly sorrows are often great interruptions to our holy duties: the bitter remembrance breaks in, and discomposes us. 4. Moses is satisfied: and Jesus, our High-Priest, is a gracious Master, and is tenderly touched with the feeling of our infirmities.
Reflections on the sin of Nadab and Abihu.
The crime of Nadab and Abihu is generally thought to have consisted in their kindling with a fire, different from that which burned continually on the altar of burnt-offerings, the incense which their office of priest obliged them to offer up to God every morning and evening in the holy place. It was necessary that the profanation of so august a ceremony should be punished after so exemplary a manner, as might serve for ever to deter all others from celebrating it unworthily for the future. The crimes of persons in eminent stations, and who are exposed to the sight of all the world, spread their contagion upon as many as are witnesses of them. Severity, in some degree and on some occasions, is the soul of a law; especially when it is notified to those who are obliged to submit to it: and indulgence is usually of dangerous consequence, especially at the first enacting of any statute. One of the heralds of the Gospel began his ministry with a clap of thunder: some of the first rays he shot from his eyes were mortal, and the death of two of his perfidious disciples was the seal of his apostleship.
Besides, Nadab and Abihu, upon whom great favours had been heaped by God, had greater motives than their brothers, strictly to observe the laws which were promulgated on that formidable mount, where they had the privilege of seeing the symbols of the Divine Presence without being consumed. Accordingly they were punished for their profanation, at the very instant they committed it. A vapour, subtile and inflamed, like that of lightning, which penetrates porous bodies, and which does not act but upon those matters which have some sort of solidity, pierced their garments, but left no mark upon them, and yet slew the men who wore them, either by suffocation, or some other way not described by Moses; who only says, Lev 10:2 there went out fire from the Lord, and destroyed them; and they died before the Lord. It should be observed, that the higher the station of these sons of Aaron was, and the more distinguishing the favours they had received, the more provoking was their affront, in attempting to adulterate an ordinance of God’s institution. Common fire, they thought, might serve the purpose of burning incense, as well as that which was held more sacred: at least, in the gaiety or rather haughtiness of their hearts, they were minded to make the experiment, even in opposition to the divine command; and therefore it was just and requisite in God, (especially in the beginning of the priesthood, when one alteration of a divine precept might in process of time be productive of many more,) to inflict an exemplary punishment, that others might hear and fear, and not commit the like abomination.
The stroke which deprived Nadab and Abihu of their lives was sufficient, one might think, to make their father Aaron die with grief: and yet Moses obliged him to set bounds to his affliction. He prevented the excess of it by a terrible maxim; but such a one as ought to be received with an entire submission by all those, who, like worthy disciples of the laws of GOD, love nothing so much as Him. This maxim was, that order requires that God should be glorified, either by the obedience of those who live under his laws, or by the destruction of those who dare to oppugn them; and is the precise meaning of those words in Lev 10:3 this is that which the Lord spake, saying, I WILL BE SANCTIFIED IN THEM THAT COME NIGH ME.
Moses forbad Aaron to shew any of those tokens of grief, which might cause it to be thought that he had more love for his children, than zeal for the glory of that GOD who had condemned them to perish after so tragical a manner. He would not allow the high-priest himself, nor the two sons that still remained to him, to rend their clothes, as was the custom in cases of extreme sorrow, or to tear their hair, or take off their priestly ornaments from their heads. He forbad them all such kinds of behaviour as might give room for suspicion, that the death even of such near relations could make them forget the service of their God. As, says a Jewish Doctor, it was anciently an indecent thing to appear before kings with any tokens of grief; so it would have been a profanation for any one to come into the presence of God with a concern, which was capable of making him forfeit the privilege of approaching him. And, above all, Moses would suffer neither Aaron, nor the rest of his sons, to go out of the tabernacle, till they had quite discharged those functions which occasioned their going in.
The command given to these holy men on this occasion, became a law for the future in the commonwealth of Israel. It was a maxim of the Jews, that if the high-priest should happen to be informed of the death of any of his relations while he was in the exercise of his office, he was bound to continue in it. One of their canons speaks thus: in case a priest, of a lower rank, being in the sanctuary, shall hear the death of a friend, for whom he ought to mourn; he shall forbear the exercise of his office, because he is in affliction, though he go not out of the tabernacle.But if the high-priest continues the service, even when he mourns, he is not guilty of profanation: only it is not lawful for him to eat of the consecrated food. Natural reason has prescribed some of these laws to the Gentiles, at least it has made them imitate the Hebrews therein, and transfer them from one nation to another.*
* See Maimonid. de introitu in Sacrif. c. ii. sect. 6, &c. Apollodor. Biblioth. lib. iii, c. 14. p. 235. and AElian Hist. var. lib. iii. c. 3. p. 63. See likewise in the following authors several examples of the constancy of fathers, &c. Val. Maxim. lib. v. c. 5. p. 251. and Tit. Liv. lib. ii. c. 8. p. 25.
Moses, after having thus satisfied the laws of religion, resolved likewise to satisfy those of nature, which require the shedding tears for unhappy relations, whatever the crime might be which brought their unhappiness upon them. He therefore allowed those of Aaron’s family, who were not actually employed in the sacerdotal function, to bewail the tragical death of Nadab and Abihu.
Perhaps it may seem to some, that Moses was too severe in straitening the laws of nature; and perhaps too, that constancy with which he endeavoured to inspire the soul of Aaron, may appear more worthy of those who aim at an heroical ferocity in their great actions, than of such whose hearts, from maxims of religion, ought to be more soft and pitiful. Should not a father in such circumstances, be permitted to give some time to the indulgence of a grief, which the fatal end of two of his children occasioned in him? Should faith and religion restrain our tears, when we see those, whom nature has so closely united to us, die in obduracy and impenitence? Was there any comfort which could balance such a reflection as this, My children are dead in their sins; and the day which I gave them, has opened the way to an eternal night of misery! Can that grief be excessive, which is caused by the loss of a soul?
We answer, men should be extremely cautious in judging or determining concerning the eternal state of their neighbour. But, in case we had been assured by a divine revelation, that those, to whom we were united by the most tender ties of nature, should be sacrificed for ever to the justice of heaven, it would behove us, even in that case, to resign them to the will of God. The excess of grief, which we should feel even then, would be the result of a carnal principle, and a heart self-deceived in the motive wherewith it was inspired. Were our sole concern occasioned by the loss of a soul, or by our zeal for the glory of God; or were it not chiefly on account of those ties which bind between a father and a son; in a word, if the motives were purely spiritual, if a pure and refined charity were the cause or the result of our tears, whence comes it that certain particular objects make us shed them, rather than others of equal importance? How happens it that we see every day, with coldness and indifference, a great part even of nations apparently running headlong in the highway of destruction? Is it less contrary to the glory of God, that such numbers of people should be lost by their sins, than one of our friends?than our father or our children?If our zeal were disentangled from carnal bands, would it not diffuse itself far and near? would it not equally extend itself to all who rush forward to their own ruin?The love we have for God, ought always to be the grand principle of that we shew towards men. We are obliged to love them, because, like us, they bear his image; because, like us, they are called to the same glory. When we see a sinner venturing his salvation by a criminal procedure, then should we be affected. Thus it was that our Lord JESUS CHRIST, placing himself in that period in which mercy was still offered to the ungrateful Jerusalem, and in which she had it still in her power to accept of it; groaned at her obduracy, and deplored the abuse she made of that precious time which he still enjoyed. But if a long series of wickedness, if a total perseverance in rebellion, or rather, if an infallible revelation should assure us, that such a man is finally lost, then ought our love to return to its centre, and be swallowed in the bosom of its Creator, from whence it first sprang:Henceforth know we no man after the flesh.If any man love not the Lord JESUS CHRIST, let him be anathema, 2Co 5:16. 1Co 16:22.
Aaron had not received any revelation of this nature. He might therefore hope, that the flesh being destroyed, the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, 1Co 5:5. And, accordingly, severe as were the orders of Moses, Aaron was convinced that they were just. He silently adored the divine hand, which, though armed with thunder, was not the less worthy of his homage. He was dumb, he opened not his mouth, because it was God that did it, Psa 39:9.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Lev 10:19 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?
Ver. 19. Should it have been accepted. ] God loves a cheerful server. Deu 12:7 ; Deu 26:14 Mourners’ bread is polluted bread, Hos 9:4 and those unkind husbands are blamed for causing their wives, when they should have been cheerful in God’s service, to cover the Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping and with crying out, so that he regarded not the offering any more. Mal 2:13 This Aaron knew, and allegeth for himself.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
this day: Lev 9:8, Lev 9:12, Heb 7:27, Heb 9:8
should: Deu 12:7, Deu 26:14, 1Sa 1:7, 1Sa 1:8, Isa 1:11, Isa 1:15, Jer 6:20, Jer 14:12, Hos 9:4, Mal 1:10, Mal 1:13, Mal 2:13, Phi 4:4
Reciprocal: Lev 7:18 – it shall Act 11:18 – they held
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 10:19. Aaron said unto Moses Though Moses expostulates only with Eleazar and Ithamar, yet Aaron, taking the reproof to himself, makes an apology in his own and their behalf, the amount of which is, that he and his sons had performed the substance of their duty, offering the peoples sin- offering and burnt-offering in all respects according to the divine direction; only as to eating their share of the sin-offering, the death of his sons, happening at that juncture, had so overwhelmed him with grief, that he judged himself unfit for feasting at Gods table: Such things, says he, have befallen me; and if I had eaten the sin-offering to-day, should it have been accepted? Would God have been pleased with me if, in such heaviness and dejection, I had eaten the sacrifice? My sorrows unfitted me for that service; it being the voice of nature as well as of religion, that men ought to celebrate feasts upon joyous occasions, and with a cheerful heart, (Deu 12:7,) and not eat holy things in their mourning, Deu 26:14.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
10:19 And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day {g} 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?
(g) That is, Nadab and Abihu.