Leviticus 10:12-20
12 Then Moses spoke to Aaron, and to his surviving sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, “Take the grain offering that is left over from the Lord’s offerings by fire and eat it unleavened beside the altar, for it is most holy. 13 You shall eat it, moreover, in a holy place, because it is your due and your sons’ due out of the Lord’s offerings by fire; for thus I have been commanded. 14 The breast of the wave offering, however, and the thigh of the offering you may eat in a clean place, you and your sons and your daughters with you; for they have been given as your due and your sons’ due out of the sacrifices of the peace offerings of the sons of Israel. 15 The thigh offered by lifting up and the breast offered by waving they shall bring along with the offerings by fire of the portions of fat, to present as a wave offering before the Lord; so it shall be a thing perpetually due you and your sons with you, just as the Lord has commanded.”
16 But Moses searched carefully for the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it had been burned up!So, he was angry with Aaron’s surviving sons Eleazar and Ithamar, saying, 17 “Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place? For it is most holy, andHe gave it to you to bear away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord. 18 Behold, since its blood had not been brought inside, into the sanctuary, you should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, just as I commanded.” 19 But Aaron spoke to Moses, “Behold, this very day they presented their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord. When things like these happened to me, if I had eaten a sin offering today, would it have been good in the sight of the Lord?” 20 When Moses heard that, it seemed good in his sight.
Thoughts on the Passage
This passage is dubbed “The Sin of Eleazar and Ithamar” by commentators. It relates the account of these two surviving sons of Aaron given specific instructions by Moses. It had to do with where various remains of the offerings had to be eaten by the priests. They didn’t follow the instructions and Moses gets angry and calls them out on it.
But father Aaron interferes and defends them to the point where Moses agrees and lets it go. But what is the lesson this passage provides?
Robert Jamieson suggests that these two sons in their grief of having just lost two brothers, may have easily made a mistake – they “may have forgotten or overlooked some of their duties”. He goes on to suggest that it was likely Aaron who gave the wrong instructions to his sons. He suggests that they only overlooked “the festive part of the observance” and that is understandable given what they just went through as a family. This part was overlooked “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 [to his other two sons just prior]that all the services of that occasion were so vitiated [spoiled or impaired the validity of]that he did not complete them.”
Still Jamieson argues, “Aaron was decidedly in the wrong.” He had disobeyed the express command of God and they did not eat the sin offering in the holy place. Nothing erased that disobedience. Sin was committed. Yet Jamieson goes on, “But Moses sympathized with his deeply afflicted brother and, having pointed out the error, said no more.”
David Guzik refers to this whole incident as “Confusion in the Priesthood”. Perhaps.
Matthew Henry takes a slightly different approach. Moses, he says, instructs Aaron and his surviving sons to continue on in their priestly duties, even though two siblings had just died. Henry writes, “Afflictions should rather quicken us to our duty than take us off from it.” Henry takes a very stoic approach to how thankful Aaron should be that he only lost two sons and that he was spared the others. And that this should encourage them to continue with their responsibilities rather than shirk from them. The two remaining sons now had to do joyfully do double duty.
What Matthew Henry does point out that we may have otherwise missed is that Aaron “does not plead that his heart was so full of grief that he had no appetite [for eating], but that he feared [doing so]would not be accepted [by God].” He then goes on to say, “Note, Acceptance with God is the great thing we should desire and aim at in all our religious services, particularly in the Lord’s supper, which is [the modern-day equivalent of]our eating of the sin-offering.”
He continues, “The sorrow of the world is a very great hindrance to our acceptable performance of holy duties.” He suggests it is displeasing to God, “whose will it is that we should serve him cheerfully.”
Henry then turns to Moses’ reaction. “Perhaps he thought it justified what they had done. God had provided that what could not be eaten might be burnt” which is what they did. Henry continues, “Our unfitness for duty, when it is natural and not sinful, will have great allowances made for it; and God will have mercy. . .. At least [Moses]thought it did very much extenuate the fault; the spirit indeed was willing, but the flesh was weak. God by Moses showed that He considered his frame. It appeared that Aaron sincerely aimed at God's acceptance; and those that do so with an upright heart shall find he is not extreme to mark what they do amiss. Nor must we be severe in our[criticism or censure]upon every mistake, considering ourselves, lest we also be tempted.”
So, there you have it – it is fine to challenge others – but check their heart and consider their why they may have taken the position they did or behaved in a certain way. Make your point and leave the rest to God.
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment.