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,

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(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 Leviticus 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 Aaron’s sin offering was just before burnt without the camp. (See Leviticus 9:11.)

And he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar.—As it was Aaron’s 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.

Benson Commentary

Leviticus 10:16. Behold, it was burnt — This justified Moses’s 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 people’s sin-offering which they ought to have eaten, Leviticus 6:26; Leviticus 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.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

10:12-20 Afflictions should rather quicken us to our duty, than take us from it. But our unfitness for duty, when it is natural and not sinful, will have great allowances made for it; God will have mercy, and not sacrifice. Let us profit by the solemn warning this history conveys. When professing worshippers come with zeal without knowledge, carnal affections, earthly, light, vain, trifling thoughts, the devices of will-worship, instead of the offering of soul and spirit; then the incense is kindled by a flame which never came down from heaven, which the Spirit of a holy God never sent within their hearts.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

The Law on the point in question was clear. See Leviticus 2:3, note; Leviticus 4:5, note; Leviticus 4:15 note. But on this occasion, though the sin-offering which had been offered by Aaron was for the people Leviticus 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 Leviticus 10:17.

It was burnt - It was consumed by fire in an ordinary way, not; in the fire of the altar. See Leviticus 1:9.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

16-20. Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt—In a sacrifice presented, as that had been, on behalf of the people, it was the duty of the priests, as typically representing them and bearing their sins, to have eaten the flesh after the blood had been sprinkled upon the altar. Instead of using it, however, for a sacred feast, they had burnt it without the camp; and Moses, who discovered this departure from the prescribed ritual, probably from a dread of some further chastisements, challenged, not Aaron, whose heart was too much lacerated to bear a new cause of distress but his two surviving sons in the priesthood for the great irregularity. Their father, however, who heard the charge and by whose directions the error had been committed, hastened to give the explanation. The import of his apology is, that all the duty pertaining to the presentation of the offering had been duly and sacredly performed, except the festive part of the observance, which privately devolved upon the priest and his family. And that this had been omitted, either because his heart was too dejected to join in the celebration of a cheerful feast, or that he supposed, from the appalling judgments that had been inflicted, that all the services of that occasion were so vitiated that he did not complete them. Aaron was decidedly in the wrong. By the express command of God, the sin offering was to be eaten in the holy place; and no fanciful view of expediency or propriety ought to have led him to dispense at discretion 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 from the path of duty. But Moses sympathized with his deeply afflicted brother and, having pointed out the error, said no more.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

The goat of the sin-offering, to wit, for the people, mentioned Leviticus 9:15, to know what was done with that part of it which was the priest’s; 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 Leviticus 4:21, where it is to be burned, the other Leviticus 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, Leviticus 4:16,17; and when that was not done, which Aaron this first time could not do, for the reason expressed in Leviticus 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.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire 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 Leviticus 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 Leviticus 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.

Geneva Study Bible

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.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Leviticus 10:16

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

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 (Leviticus 10:12, Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 2:3; Leviticus 6:9-11), and then (Leviticus 10:14, Leviticus 10:15) of that relating to the wave-breast and heave-leg (Leviticus 7:32-34). By the minchah in Leviticus 10:12 we are to understand the meal and oil, which were offered with the burnt-offering of the nation (Leviticus 9:4 and Leviticus 9:7); and by the אשּׁים in Leviticus 10:12 and Leviticus 10:15, those portions of the burnt-offering, meat-offering, and peace-offering of the nation which were burned upon the altar (Leviticus 9:13, Leviticus 9:17, and Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 6:19, Leviticus 6:22); - "and, behold, it was burned" (שׂרף, 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 (הוּבא construed as a passive with an accusative, as in Genesis 4:18, etc.). "To bear the iniquity" does not signify here, as in Leviticus 5:1, to bear and atone for the sin in its consequences, but, as in Exodus 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 Exodus 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). Exodus 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 Leviticus 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.)