Biblion Bible Commentary
Read the introduction to Leviticus · About this commentary
The Goat That Was Burned
Leviticus 10:12-20
12 Moses spoke to Aaron, and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons who were left, “Take the meal offering that remains of the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, and eat it without yeast beside the altar; for it is most holy; · WEB
Moses accuses the surviving sons of a ritual failure, hears Aaron's answer, and accepts it.
The chapter ends with an argument, and its outcome is unexpected.
Moses first restates the priests' entitlements — the meal offering eaten beside the altar, the breast and thigh eaten in a clean place, you, and your sons, and your daughters with you Leviticus 10:13–14. The daughters are named, which the earlier legislation had not done.
Then he inspects, and finds a fault. Moses diligently inquired about the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burned. He was angry Leviticus 10:16.
The charge is precise and correct. That goat's blood had not been carried into the sanctuary, so by the rule given in chapter 6 the priests should have eaten it Leviticus 6:26 Leviticus 6:30. Moses quotes the reasoning: it was given to them to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them Leviticus 10:17.
That clause is worth holding. Eating the sin offering was not a perquisite; it was part of the atonement, the priest absorbing into himself what the people had brought. Skipping it left the transaction unfinished.
Aaron answers, and his reply is not a defense of the ritual. Today they have offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before Yahweh; and such things as these have happened to me. If I had eaten the sin offering today, would it have been pleasing in Yahweh's sight? Leviticus 10:19.
He does not dispute the rule. He says that on the day two of his sons were carried out of the sanctuary, he could not sit down and eat a most holy meal, and he asks whether God would have wanted him to.
And then: when Moses heard that, it was pleasing in his sight Leviticus 10:20.
The objection is withdrawn. In a book of exhaustive procedure, on the very day two men died for departing from it, a departure is examined and accepted — and the ground of the acceptance is the state of the man performing it.
The two halves of the chapter have to be held together. Nadab and Abihu added something God had not commanded and died. Aaron omitted something God had commanded, in grief, and was not rebuked. What distinguishes them is not the size of the irregularity, and the book offers no formula. It records both, in one chapter, and lets a reader see that the one who judges is not administering a code.
held with reason What this mark means