Levítico 10

Levítico 10

Maclaren - Nothing has more power to blur the sharpness of moral and religious insight than even a small amount of alcohol. God must be worshipped with clear brain and naturally beating heart. Not the fumes of wine, in which there lurks almost necessarily the tendency to ‘excess,’ but the being ‘filled with the Spirit’ supplies the only legitimate stimulus to devotion. Besides the personal reason for abstinence, there was another,-namely, that only so could the priests teach the people ‘the statutes’ of Jehovah. Lips stained from the wine-cup would not be fit to speak holy words. Words spoken by such would carry no power. God’s servants can never impress on the sluggish conscience of society their solemn messages from God, unless they are conspicuously free from self-indulgence, and show by their example the gulf, wide as between heaven and hell, which parts cleanness from uncleanness. Our lives must witness to the eternal distinction between good and evil, if we are to draw men to ‘abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is good.’ (Leviticus 10 Exposition) Leon Hyatt - Verse 9. You must not drink wine or strong drink, you and your sons with you, when going to The Tent of Meeting, and you will not die. [This is] a statute [for] an age into your generations. You must not drink. This command is not an imperative but an imperfect that should be understood as a subjunctive. It should be translated, “You must not drink.” It was not a command, but it was an obligation. It would bring tragic consequences if they disregarded it. wine or strong drink. The word translated “wine” means fermented wine. The Hebrews had another word for “new wine” or the fresh juice of the grape. To the Hebrews, he word “wine” usually connoted a drink of very light alcoholic content, since they were accustomed to drinking wine diluted with water. Their purpose was as much to make the water safe from causing illness as it was to provide a beverage. On the other hand, the word translated “strong drink” means any drink that intoxicates. It includes strong wines and other intoxicating beverages besides wine. Both words were used in this verse to indicate that all form of alcoholic beverages were forbidden to priests while they were performing their holy duties, from wines with the smallest alcoholic content to beverages with the highest alcohol content. you and your sons with you. Though the message was spoken to Aaron, the prohibition applied to ordinary priests as well as the high priest. when going to The Tent of Meeting. The verb form in this clause is an infinitive and can most literally be translated into English as “in your going.” The preposition following the infinitive strictly means “toward.” It can be understood to mean “when you go into,” but its strictest meaning is “when you go toward.” The literal meaning best describes what Jehovah intended. The priests were forbidden to drink intoxicating beverages, not only after they entered The Tabernacle complex, but also when they prepared to go to The Tabernacle to serve in their official capacity. They were not be under the influence of alcohol at all when serving at The Tabernacle. and you will not die. Obeying this command would assure that they would not die for performing their duties incorrectly, but that assurance definitely implies that they would die if they disobeyed the command. The same stern penalty would result from disobedience to this command as from any other deviation from the instructions of Jehovah to the priests (see comments on Lev. 8:35-note in MESSAGE 10 under the heading And you will not die, and on Lev. 10:2-note in MESSAGE 11; see also Lev. 20:2-note and Introduction to Chap. 20 in MESSAGE 24). Any deliberate deviation was rebellion, deserving of death. [This is] a statute [for] an age into your generations. This prohibition was not only for Aaron and his sons but also for all the priests of the future, as long as the Aaronic priesthood lasted. The words translated “statute [for] an age” are the same words that are found in Lev. 3:17-note (see comments on that verse in MESSAGE 1). (Leviticus 16 - Message 12 - Lev. 10:8-11) Leviticus 10:10 and so as to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean, Lev 11:47 20:25,26 Jer 15:19 Eze 22:26 44:23 Tit 1:15 1Pe 1:14-16 So as to make a distinction between the holy and the profane - This is another way of saying in essence the priests (and us as NT priests) are to be holy as God is holy. Leon Hyatt - Verse 10. Both to make a distinction between the holy and the common and between the unclean and the clean. Both to make a distinction between. Jehovah gave Aaron two reason for the prohibition against drinking intoxicating beverages. The first was to enable the priests to make the spiritual and moral distinctions that are important in the worship of Jehovah. A priest needed his mental faculties at their peak of perfection when he served Jehovah. He could not afford to dull them with even the smallest amount of an intoxicating beverage. Jehovah mentioned two kinds of distinctions that were important to a priest. Those distinctions were between holy and common and between clean and unclean. the holy and the common. The meaning of the word translated “holy” has been discussed in Lev. 2:3-note (see comments on that verse in MESSAGE 1 under the heading [It is] a holiness of holinesses). It means any person or object devoted to God. This statement contains the first occurrence of the word translated “common,” though the verb related to it was used in Genesis 49:4 and in Exodus 20:25; 31:14. The word in this verse is a noun and refers to objects and persons who were not set apart to the Jehovah’s service. The translation “common” or “secular” is nearer to its meaning than “unholy.” “Secular” actions or objects were not necessarily evil. They simply were not “holy” in the sense of being set aside to Jehovah’s service.1 The priests were not to cloud their minds with alcohol, so that they could clearly distinguish between objects and persons who were set apart to Jehovah’s service and those who were not. and between the unclean and the clean. . “Unclean” persons, objects, or conditions were symbols of sins. Contact with them made a person ceremonially unclean (concerning the concept of “cleanness,” see comments on Leviticus 4:12-note in MESSAGE 2 under the heading he shall take out to the outside of the camp to a clean place and on Leviticus 6:11-note in MESSAGE 5; concerning the concept of “uncleanness,” see comments on Leviticus 5:2 in MESSAGE 2 under the heading that it was unclean, on Leviticus 5:3-note in MESSAGE 2, and on Leviticus 7:19-21-note in MESSAGE 7). The purpose of the symbolism of clean and unclean in objects and persons was to teach the Israelites that contact with sinful person or deeds contaminated and damaged a person morally. “Clean” and 1 In this verse, ASV, RSV, and HCSB translate the word as “common”; SGV, NASB, NEB, JB as “profane”; DRV as “unholy”; LB as “ordinary”; and ABV as “common [or] unholy.” “unclean” were symbols of moral concepts, in distinction to “holy” and “common,” which were spiritual concepts themselves. It was important for Israel’s religious leaders to be able to make clear distinctions in both realms if they were to be true servants of Jehovah. Even the smallest amount of alcohol that might dull the ability of a priest to make clear moral and spiritual judgments was dangerous and deadly in the lives of men who led Israel morally and spiritually. It was not only dangerous for their clear understanding of spiritual matters. It was also dangerous for all Israel because the priests taught Israel and set an example before them. If the priests went astray in their understanding of spiritual matters, the whole nation in time would also go astray. (Leviticus 16 - Message 12 - Lev. 10:8-11) In a world still swirling in sin long after its catastrophic collision with evil, God commanded His followers to live holy lives (Leviticus 11:45). Distinguishing between clean and unclean is essential to that task. Such discernment requires more than finely tuned physical senses. The apostle Paul wrote that the “natural man”-that is, a human being in his sinful state-”does not receive the things of the Spirit of God … ; they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). It is the Holy Spirit who provides this wisdom (1Cor 2:13). Just as Maggie finds comfort in old shoes and socks, many people seek comfort in old dirty sins. We must be mindful that our comfort and consolation come from God, who loves us and who establishes us in “every good word and work” (2 Thessalonians 2:16-17). Search me, O God, and know my heart today; Try me, O Savior, know my thoughts, I pray. See if there be some wicked way in me; Cleanse me from every sin and set me free. -Orr © 1966, Singspiration, Inc. There is no true happiness apart from holiness, and no holiness apart from Christ. Leviticus 10:11 and so as to teach the sons of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them through Moses." Dt 24:8 33:10 2Ch 17:9 30:22 Ne 8:2,8 9:13,14 Jer 2:8 18:18 Mal 2:7 Mt 28:20 Ac 20:27 1Th 4:2 Leviticus 10 Resources And so to teach - What were they to teach? Yes, all the statutes, but in context the distinction between holy and unholy (profane), clean and unclean. It was essential that alcohol not hinder the clarity of their minds, since the priests were to teach God’s law to all of Israel. They were the expositors of the Scripture (cf Dt. 33:10; Mal. 2:7), along with the prophets who generally received the Word directly from the Lord. Ezra would become the supreme example of a commendable priest who taught God's "statutes and ordinances in Israel." (Ezra 7:10). Disciple Study Bible - Priests were to make God's will known through the teaching of the laws God had spoken through Moses. Aaron and his sons were told not to drink wine or strong drink when they were to enter the tabernacle to perform their priestly services, in order to be able to discern between the holy and the common, between the clean and the unclean. This also is an obvious word of moral guidance for all who serve God today. Those who serve God always should be at their best. See Ex 28:29-30. Leon Hyatt - Verse 11. And to teach the sons of Israel all the statutes that Jehovah has spoken to them by the hand of Moses. A second purpose for the prohibition against drinking alcoholic beverages was to enable the priests to clearly teach the people the commandments of Jehovah. The word translated “statutes” is the same word used in Leviticus 6:18-note (see comments on that verse in MESSAGE 5 under the heading [It is] a statute [for] and age through your generations concerning Jehovah’s fire- offerings). This verse shows that the priests were to be more than leaders of ceremonies at The Tabernacle. They were to be responsible for teaching the people to understand the ceremonies, but their teaching responsibilities went far beyond teaching the meaning of the ceremonies. They also were responsible for teaching the Israelites the great spiritual and moral truths that Jehovah revealed to the Israelites for all the world. Teaching the pure truths of God is impossible to a mind clouded with alcohol. Since the priests were commanded not to drink intoxicating beverages when going toward The Tabernacle, it follows that this verse contemplates that teaching the people was an activity that would be done in or at The Tabernacle. No doubt, The Tabernacle was an adequate place for teaching under the circumstances of the wilderness. When the Israelites later settled in the Land, the priests spread across the Land with the people. Teaching was done in all the villages and towns. Under those conditions, priests were to understand not to drink intoxicating beverages when engaged in teaching anywhere. The priests were to totally avoid drinking intoxicating beverages when serving in the duties to which Jehovah had called them. Application - A Christian minister is always on duty. His every action and word is an example that either teaches truth about God or misinterprets God and His truth. Every move that he makes either points people to God or away from God. A minister must be at his spiritual and moral best all the time. Since modern scientific tests have shown that the first effects of alcohol are on the center of judgment in the brain, a minister cannot afford to dull his spiritual and moral judgment with alcohol at any time, even to the smallest extent. When a minister does dull his spiritual and moral insight through imbibing alcohol, he is in great danger of teaching erroneous insights to others. The result is that God’s people are led to darkness and defeat. In addition, abstinence from all alcoholic beverages is a necessity not only for Christian ministers but also for all Christians. All Christians are representatives of Christ every hour of every day. We must be at our spiritual and moral best all of the time. We cannot be at our best with their minds clouded with even the smallest amount of alcohol. Total abstinence is the only acceptable course of action for a Christian who wants to be faithful to his high calling to be a servant of and witness to Jesus the Christ. This principle applies not only to alcoholic beverages but also to mind-changing drugs. (Leviticus 16 - Message 12 - Lev. 10:8-11) Leviticus 10:12 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. Take: Lev 2:1-16 Lev 6:15-18 Lev 7:9 Lev 21:22 Ex 29:2 Nu 18:9,10 Eze 44:29 for it is most holy: Lev 21:22 Leviticus 10 Resources Grain (meat - KJV) offering - (sweet aroma, voluntary, accompanied burnt offerings) Recall that the grain offering was the only Levitical offering which was not a blood sacrifice (except the sin offering for the extremely poor, Lev 5:11-13) and was brought to show thanksgiving to God. The Grain offering normally accompanied the burnt offering, which involved the shedding of blood (Ex. 29:39, 40; Nu 28; 29). Grain offering (04503)(minchah - word study) Criswell - Three types of grain offerings are specified: (1) fine flour mixed with oil and frankincense (Lev 2:1, 2); (2) cakes made of fine flour mixed with oil and baked in an oven (v. 4), on a griddle (v. 5), or in a covered pan (Lev 2:7); and (3) fresh heads of roasted grain mixed with oil and frankincense (Lev 2:14, 15). The fine flour, coupled with the absence of leaven, foreshadowed the perfect humanity of Christ. The oil is emblematic of the ministry of the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 4:18). The frankincense added a special fragrance to the memorial part of the offering burned on the altar (cf. Ex. 30:34-38). (Believer's Study Bible) C I Scofield on Leaven - It was common practice to retain a lump of leavened or fermented dough from a former baking and use it to leaven new dough. Under the Mosaic law, however, yeast was forbidden in bread used in the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Passover (Ex 12:8,15-20; Lev 23:6 - 8), and similar exclusion of yeast applied to offerings placed on the altar (Ex 23:18; 34:25; Lev 2:11; 6:17). The only exceptions were the use of yeast in the two wave loaves offered as firstfruits (Lev 23:17) and some of the cakes of bread offered with the fellowship offerings (Lev 7:13). Yeast, which brings about fermentation, is uniformly regarded in Scripture as typifying the presence of impurity or evil (Ex 12:15,19; 13:7; Lev 2:11; Deut 16:4; Mat 16:6,12; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1; 1 Cor 5:6-9; Gal 5:9). The two wave loaves, representing Israel and the Gentiles as forming the Church, contained yeast in recognition of imperfections in the believers (see Lev 23:17). The use of yeast in the flour seems intended likewise to represent evil within the kingdom of heaven. The teaching that yeast in this parable represents the beneficent influence of the Gospel pervading the world has no Scriptural justification. Nowhere in Scripture does yeast represent good; the idea of a converted world at the end of the age is contradicted by the presence of weeds among the wheat and bad fish among the good in the kingdom itself. Although Biblical truth has a beneficial moral influence on the world, the mingling of yeast is not the method of divine salvation or enlargement of the kingdom. Weeds never become wheat. The parable is, therefore, a warning that true doctrine, represented by the flour, would be corrupted by false doctrine (cp. 1Ti 4:1-3; 2Ti 2:17-18; 4:3 - 4; 2Pet 2:1-3).Summary: (1) Yeast, as a symbolic or typical substance, is always mentioned in the OT in an evil sense (Gen 19:3). (2) The use of the word in the NT explains its symbolic meaning. It is "malice and wickedness" as contrasted with "sincerity and truth" (1Cor 5:6 - 8). It is evil doctrine (Mt 16:12) in its threefold form of Pharisaism, Sadduceeism, and Herodianism (Mt 16:6; Mk 8:15). The yeast of the Pharisees was externalism in religion (Mt 23:14 - 16,23 - 28); of the Sadducees, skepticism as to the supernatural and as to the Scriptures (Mat 22:23,29); of the Herodians, worldliness - a Herod party among the Jews (Mt 22:16 - 21; Mark 3:6). And (3) the use of the word in Mt 13:33 is congruous with its meaning elsewhere in the Scriptures, as denoted in the paragraphs above. Leon Hyatt - THE DEVIATION OF AARON, ELEAZAR, AND ITHAMAR EXCUSED Leviticus 10:12-20 Introduction - The events of these verses occurred when Moses and other family members returned from mourning over Nadab and Abihu. It was the custom in those days to bury deceased people almost immediately after their deaths, because of the rapidity with which bodies began to decay in the warm climate. As soon as Moses returned, he instructed Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu to complete their part of the offerings that had been offered by the people just before Nadab and Abihu sinned. The fat of the offerings had already been placed on the altar for roasting (Lev. 9:19-20), but the priests had not eaten their portions of those offerings. The message came as a response to a deviation that Aaron and his two remaining sons had already committed from the prescribed ceremony of the sin-offering while Moses was away at the funeral. Moses was deeply disturbed by their deviation, because Nadab and Abihu had already suffered so severely for offering an unauthorized offering. However, Aaron’s response to Moses’ concern led both Moses to agree that Jehovah would excuse the deviation because of the circumstances of that day. Jehovah showed His agreement by not killing Eleazar and Ithamar as He had Nadab and Abihu. The difference in the way the two situations were handled shows that certain circumstances could allow for a departure from the strict fulfillment of every detail of the offering ceremonies. The difference between the sin of Nadab and Abihu and the deviation of Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar was the intent of their hearts. Nadab and Abihu were disrespectful and frivolous in their attitude. Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar were respectful and earnest and had a serious reason for their action. The lesson was that the Lord would overlook small departures from the prescribed ceremonies if the heart of the worshiper was right. The reason Jehovah could forgive departures from His instructions if the worshiper’s heart was right was that the purpose of the offerings was to express what was in the heart. They were not performed for their own sakes alone, but to express the heart of the worshiper. Therefore, if the worshiper’s heart was right, a reasonable deviation from the prescribed ceremony could be excused. This message was not given by a voice from The Tabernacle. It came through an interpretation made by Aaron and accepted by Moses. It should be understood, however, as a message from Jehovah, which Jehovah communicated through the discernment of His spokesman. This message as well as MESSAGE 11 and MESSAGE 12 illustrate that God has different ways of revealing His truth at different times. He is not bound by any certain method or routine. He adjusts His methods, but not His message, to the circumstances and the needs. As mentioned in INTRODUCTION TO LEVITICUS under the heading Theme and in Introduction to MESSAGES 10, 11, 12, 13, these messages were all given on the same day (see also comments on Lev. 10:12 below). This message not only completes the messages for that day but also completes the section of the book that deals with message related to the hallowing of the priests and The Tabernacle. The next section (Lev. 11-15) deals with another important aspect of the religious systems of Israel--the concepts of clean and unclean persons, objects, and conditions. This message can be outlined as follows: a. Moses instructed Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar to complete the offerings b. Moses discovered their deviation c. Moses accepted Aaron’s explanation Interpretation - Moses instructed Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar to complete the complete the offerings that had been begun before Nadab and Abihu’s sin (Lev 10:12-16) Verse 12. And Moses said to Aaron and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons who were left, Take the homage-offering that is left from the fire-offerings to Jehovah, and eat it unleavened beside the altar; for it [is] a holiness of holinesses. And Moses said to Aaron and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons who were left, Take the homage-offering that is left from the fire-offerings to Jehovah. When Moses returned from the burial of Nadab and Abihu, he instructed Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar to complete the ceremony of the fire-offerings that had been begun before the tragedy struck. The portion of the offerings that had not been completed was eating the portions of the flesh and of the bread that belonged to the priests. Moses first instructed Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar to eat the portion of the homage-offering of the congregation that was left after Jehovah’s representative portion had been roasted on the altar (see comments on Lev. 9:17-note in MESSAGE 10). This homage-offering was described in Leviticus. 9:4, and its form identified it as one that accompanied a slaughter-offering of thanksgiving (see comments on that verse in MESSAGE 10). Slaughter-offerings of thanksgiving had to be eaten on the day of the offering (see comments on Lev. 7:15-note in MESSAGE 7). Since the homage-offering of thanksgiving had been begun before Nadab and Abihu’s offense and Moses was just back from their burial, these instructions to Aaron and his sons were given on the same day as their offense and their burial. The completion of the ceremonies had to be carried out quickly. That day had begun with the hallowing of the priests (Lev. 8:1-36-note; MESSAGE 10). It continued with the first offerings over which the new priests officiated (Lev. 9:1-21-note; MESSAGE 10), the blessing of the people by the new priests (Lev. 9:22-23a-note; MESSAGE 10), and the appearance of the Glory of Jehovah (Lev. 9:23b-24; MESSAGE 10). Sadly, immediately afterward Nadab and Abihu had committed their great offense, were struck dead, and buried immediately (Lev. 10:1-7-note; MESSAGE 11). While Moses and the Israelites buried Nadab and Abihu, Aaron and his two remaining sons remained at their posts of duty, and Jehovah gave Aaron the message about avoiding drinking alcoholic beverages (Lev. 10:8-11-note; MESSAGE 12). Immediately after returning from the burial, Moses gave Moses and his sons the instructions that are contained in this message. Thus, MESSAGE 10, MESSAGE 11, MESSAGE 12, and 13 were all delivered on the same day. It was an eventful day indeed. Not much time was left for eating the priests’ portions of the fire-offerings that had been offered before the funeral. and eat it unleavened beside the altar. The major portion of homage-offerings belonged to the priests after a representative portion was offered to Jehovah on the altar. Homage-offerings were to be eaten unleavened, and they were to be eaten only by the priests and only near the altar in The Holy Place (see comments on Lev. 6:14-16-note in MESSAGE 5). for it [is] a holiness of holinesses. The portions of the homage-offering that belonged to the priests were considered to be objects of special holiness. They had a holiness above other holy objects. Such an object was called “a holiness of holinesses” (see comments on Lev. 2:3-note in MESSAGE 1 under the heading [It is] a holiness of holinesses and on Lev. 6:17 in MESSAGE 5). The special holiness of the priests’ portion of the homage-offering made the completion of this offering especially urgent.. (Leviticus Message 13 - Lev. 10:12-20) Leviticus 10:13 "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. shall: Nu 18:10 Leviticus 10 Resources It is your due - Lev 2:3 ‘And the remainder of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons: a thing most holy, of the offerings to the LORD by fire. Lev 6:16 ‘And what is left of it Aaron and his sons are to eat. It shall be eaten as unleavened cakes in a holy place; they are to eat it in the court of the tent of meeting. Leon Hyatt - 13 And you shall eat it in The Holy Place, because it is your assigned portion and your sons’ assigned portion from the fire-offerings of Jehovah, for thus I have commanded. And you shall eat it in The Holy Place because it is your prescribed part and your sons’ prescribed part from the fire-offerings of Jehovah. This statement lays additional stress on the place where the homage-offering was to be eaten and who was to eat it. Because of the special holiness of the portions of the homage-offering that belonged to the priests, they were to be eaten only in The Holy Place, which means in the courtyard of The Tabernacle (see comments on Lev. 6:16-note in MESSAGE 5 under the heading The Holy Place; concerning the meaning of “fire-offerings,” see comments on Lev. 1:9-note in MESSAGE 1 under the heading a fire-offering). for thus I have commanded. Moses’ instructions to Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar to eat the homage-offering beside the altar were drawn from revelations Jehovah had already given to him in Leviticus 6:14-16-note (see comments on those verses in MESSAGE 5). Moses was simply instructing them to finish the homage-offering in the manner Jehovah had already commanded. (Leviticus Message 13 - Lev. 10:12-20) Leviticus 10:14 "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. Lev 7:29-34 Lev 9:21 Ex 29:24-28 Nu 18:11 John 4:34 Leviticus 10 Resources Wave offering (08573)(tenupah - word study) NET Note on wave offering - The "wave offering" is tenupah… In Lev 23:15, 17, 20 this seems to be a sacrificial gesture of things that are for the priests – but they present them first to Yahweh and then receive them back from Him. So the waving is not side to side, but forward to Yahweh and then back to the priest. Smith's Dictionary - This rite, together with that of "heaving" or "raising" the offering was an inseparable accompaniment of peace offerings. In such the right shoulder, considered the choicest part of the victim, was to be ("heaved," and viewed as holy to the Lord, only eaten therefore by the priest: the breast was to be "waved," and eaten by the worshipper. The scriptural notices of these rites are to be found in (Exodus 29:24,28; Leviticus 7:30,34; 8:27; 9:21; 10:14,15; 23:10,15,20; Numbers 6:20; 18:11,18,26-29) etc. In conjecturing the meaning of this rite, regard must be had that it was the accompaniment of peace offerings, which were witnesses to a ratified covenant --an established communion between God and man. Easton's Bible Dictionary - parts of peace-offerings were so called, because they were waved by the priests (Ex. 29:24, 26, 27; Lev. 7:20-34; 8:27; 9:21; 10:14, 15, etc.), in token of a solemn special presentation to God. They then became the property of the priests. The first-fruits, a sheaf of barley, offered at the feast of Pentecost (Lev. 23:17-20), and wheat-bread, the first-fruits of the second harvest, offered at the Passover (10-14), were wave-offerings. Leon Hyatt - Verse 14. And you must eat the waved breast and the contributed leg in a clean place, you and your sons and your daughters with you, because [it is] your assigned portion and your son’s assigned portion. They have been given [to you] from the slaughter-offerings of peace-offerings of the sons of Israel. And you must eat the waved breast and the contributed leg. Second, Moses instructed the priests to complete the two slaughter-offerings of peace-offerings that the people had offered (Lev. 9:19-note). From slaughter-offerings, the breasts and the right front quarter were assigned to the priests. The breast was waved over the altar before being delivered to the priests (see comments on Lev. 7:30-note in MESSAGE 9 under the heading Regarding the breast, he must bring the breast to wave it as a wave-offering to Jehovah’s face), and it is here called “the waved breast”. The right front quarter was also waved over the altar, and it was considered to be a contribution to the priests. Here it is here called “the contributed leg.” (see comments on Lev. 7:32-note in MESSAGE 9). in a clean place. Moses summarized the instructions that had been given him concerning these offerings (see comments on Leviticus 7:28-36-note in MESSAGE 9). He also interpreted those instructions by describing more specifically than had been stated previously the place where the priests’ portions of those offerings were to be eaten and the persons who were permitted to eat them. He described the place as “a clean place,” which means a place that was ceremonially clean (see comments on Lev. 4:12-note and on Lev. 5:2,3-note in MESSAGE 2, on Lev. 6:11-note; in MESSAGE 5, on Lev. 7:19-21 in MESSAGE 7, on Lev. 10:10-note in 12; see also the whole section of the book on clean and unclean found in Lev. 11:1-15:32). These offerings did not have to be eaten in The Holy Place but could be eaten in any place that was ceremonially clean, including the homes of the priests. you and your sons and your daughters with you. He specified that those who could eat of these portions of the offerings were not only the priests but also their sons and daughters. This instruction means that, in contrast to the most holy offerings, which had to be eaten by the priests only, these offerings were simply holy and could be eaten by any member of a priest’s household (see comments on Lev. 22:10-13-note in MESSAGE 27). because [it is] your assigned portion and your son’s assigned portion. They have been given [to you] from the slaughter-offerings of peace-offerings of the sons of Israel. Moses left no doubt that the waved-breast and the contributed leg were the portions of the slaughter-offering of peace-offerings that were assigned to the priests (concerning the name and significance of slaughter-offerings of peace-offerings, see comments on Lev. 3:1-note in MESSAGE 1 under the heading a slaughter-offering of peace-offerings). (Leviticus Message 13 - Lev. 10:12-20) Leviticus 10:15 "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." The thigh - Lev 7:29,30,34) thing perpetually due you: Lev 7:34 Ge 13:15 17:8,13,17 1 Co 9:13,14 Leviticus 10 Resources Leon Hyatt - They must bring the contributed leg and the waved breast that is waved over the fat portions of the fire-offerings to wave for a wave-offering at Jehovah’s face, and it shall be yours and your sons with you as your assigned portion, just as Jehovah has commanded. They must bring the contributed leg and the waved breast. The people represented by their elders were to present the portions of the fire offerings that belonged to the priests. Lev. 7:29-30-note had specified that those portions of a slaughter offering were to be personally presented to the priests by the hands of the worshiper (see comments on those verses in MESSAGE 9). that is waved over the fat portions of the fire offerings to be waved as a wave-offering at Jehovah’s face.. All English versions known to this writer, by one wording or another make this statement say that the worshiper was to bring the fat with the waved breast and the contributed leg and that all three were to be waved together over the altar and then given to the priests. If that statement were correct, it would contradict the instructions that had been given in Leviticus 7:30-31, which specify that the fat of slaughter-offerings was to be handled just as it was in all other offerings by roasting it on the altar to Jehovah. Fortunately, that understanding of these words is not correct. The wave-breast was not to be waved with the fat but over the fat. The fat was placed on the altar, and then the worshiper was to present to the priests the wave-breast with his own hands to be waved over the fat that was already roasting on the altar. The fat of these offerings had been placed on the altar before the sin of Nadab and Abihu, and it was still roasting there (see comments on Lev. 9:19-20-note in MESSAGE 10). and it shall be your and your sons’ with you as your assigned portion. The wave breast and the contributed leg were the portions assigned to the priests and their families, not the fat. The fat was to be roasted on the altar to Jehovah. just as Jehovah has commanded. Moses specified that these directions were to be carried out just as Jehovah had commanded. He would not have given instructions that contradicted the commands concerning these offerings that were given in Leviticus 7:30-32, so this statement confirms the conclusion already stated that the fat was roasted on the altar and the wave-breast and the contributed leg were to be waved over the altar, as a sign that they were given to God, who in turn assigned them to the priests..(Leviticus Message 13 - Lev. 10:12-20) Leviticus 10:16 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, the goat: Lev 6:26,30 9:3,15 angry: Ex 32:19-22 Nu 12:3 Mt 5:22 Mk 3:5 10:14 Eph 4:26 Leviticus 10 Resources Criswell - Other than the fatty portions, which were to be consecrated to God (Lev 4:31; cf. Lev 3:3-4, note), the flesh of the regular sin offering was to be eaten by the priests in the court of the tabernacle (Lev 6:24-29). Aaron's sons, however, had burned the entirety of the goat instead. Aaron assumed responsibility for the mistake and offered a satisfactory explanation to Moses. Searched (01875) (darash) means to seek with care, to inquire, to pursue or to search. The Septuagint translates darash here with the verb ekzeteo which would picture Moses as diligently investigating in an attempt to find the goat. Darash is used to describe Ezra studying (diligently seeking) the Law in Ezra 7:10 (see commentary). Related Resource: Why was it bad that Aaron and his sons burned the sin offering in Leviticus 10:16–20? Why was the fire in the altar to burn continuously (Leviticus 6:13)? Leon Hyatt - Moses discovered their deviation (Lev 10:16-18) Verse 16. Then inquiring, Moses inquired about the goat of the sin-offering. And behold, it had been incinerated. And he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons who were left, saying, Then inquiring, Moses inquired about the goat of the sin-offering. It seems that Moses had given the priests instructions concerning eating the homage-offering and the slaughter-offering because he saw the portions of those offerings set out to be eaten. However, he did not see the portions of the sin-offering that also were to be eaten. He became disturbed, wondering if Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar also had brought wrath on themselves by mishandling the sin-offering. He earnestly inquired of them what had been done with the meat of the sin-offering. and, behold, it had been incinerated. Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar told him that they had incinerated the sin-offering. The usual sin-offering for the congregation was a bull, (see comments on Lev. 4:14-note in MESSAGE 2 under the heading then the congregation shall offer a son of the herd for a sin-offering, and they shall bring it to the face of The Tent of Meeting) and the proper procedure for a bull sin-offering was for the meat to be incinerated outside the camp in a clean place (see comments on Lev. 4:21-note in MESSAGE 2 under the heading And he shall carry forth the bull outside the camp, and he shall incinerate it as he incinerated the first bull). However, on this occasion they had been instructed to offer a buck of the goats instead of a bull because they were also offering a calf and a lamb for a re-dedication-offering and a bull and a ram for a slaughter-offering (see comments on Lev. 9:3-note in MESSAGE 10 under the heading “Take a buck of the goats for a sin-offering). Apparently, when a goat was substituted for a bull, the procedure was changed to correspond to the procedure for a sin-offering of a ruler, whose proper offering was a buck of the goats (see comments on Lev. 4:22-23-note in MESSAGE 2 under the heading he shall bring his offering, [which shall consist of] a buck of the goats, a pristine male). In the case of a ruler’s sin-offering, which was a male goat, the blood was not splattered before the veil and smeared on the horns of the altar of incense; and the meat was not incinerated without the camp, as it was in a bull sin-offering of the congregation (see comments on Lev. 4:17-18,21 in MESSAGE 2). Instead the blood was smeared on the horns of the altar of rededication-offering (see comments Lev. 4:25-note in MESSAGE 2) and the meat was eaten by the priests (see comments on Lev. 6:26-note in MESSAGE 7 under the heading will eat it in The Holy Place. It must be eaten in the court of The Tent of Meeting). The symbolism was the same in either case, which was that the forgiven person was accepted back into Jehovah’s fellowship and service (see comments on Lev. 4:11-12,25-note in MESSAGE 2). Since on this occasion the congregation had offered a buck of the goats for their sin-offering, the blood was not taken into The Tabernacle. In that case, the meat should have been eaten by the priests. Instead, Eleazar and Ithamar, with Aaron’s approval, incinerated it in a clean place outside the camp (see comments on Lev. 4:11-12-note in MESSAGE 2). Leaving The Tabernacle to go to a clean place outside the camp was not an offense in itself, because that procedure was a part of the ceremony of the offering of a bull sin-offering. However, in this case it was an offense, because the offering was a male goat and the meat should have been eaten instead of being incinerated outside the camp. and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons the sons of Aaron who were left, saying. Moses was angry that Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar had not followed the proper procedure for a goat sin-offering. Probably the reason his anger was directed especially toward the two sons was that they were the ones who actually had carried the meat outside the camp and incinerated it. However, obviously Aaron knew of their action and had approved it. (Leviticus Message 13 - Lev. 10:12-20) Question: Why was it bad that Aaron and his sons burned the sin offering in Leviticus 10:16–20? Answer: Due to the disobedience of Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu, the Lord caused those two men to die. Later that day, Aaron and his remaining sons allowed the sin offering to burn up. Moses was angry with Aaron’s other two sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, as a result. This situation is hard to understand until we take a closer look at the context and the Law in general. For one thing, Moses had just commanded Aaron and his remaining sons to eat the offering (Leviticus 10:12–14). When he discovered they had let it burn up, he was understandably upset. Also, the chapter opens with the death of two of Aaron’s sons: “Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord” (Leviticus 10:1–2). Likely due to their grief over the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar chose to let the sacrifice burn up rather than to eat it. Moses was upset because this was breaking the command God had given the priest to use this offering in part as their food. Another reason Moses was upset was probably that he feared a fate similar to that of Nadab and Abihu would befall Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar. He confronted Aaron, saying, “Why didn’t you eat the sin offering in the sanctuary area? . . . You should have eaten the goat in the sanctuary area, as I commanded” (Leviticus 10:17–18). Aaron’s response to Moses is full of pathos: “Today my sons presented both their sin offering and their burnt offering to the LORD. And yet this tragedy has happened to me. If I had eaten the people’s sin offering on such a tragic day as this, would the LORD have been pleased?” (Leviticus 10:19NLT). These words satisfied Moses that Aaron was living in fear and obedience to God (verse 20). Interestingly, this passage of Leviticus concludes the section in which Aaron and his sons are inducted as priests before the Lord (chapters 8—10). Occurring over an eight-day period, these events help delineate the important, sanctified role belonging to the Levitical priests. (Gotquestions.org) Leviticus 10:17 "Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to bear away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD. Lev 6:26,29 7:6,7) bear: Lev 16:22 22:16 Ex 28:38,43 Nu 18:1 Isa 53:6-11 Eze 4:4-6 Eze 18:19,20 John 1:29 2Co 5:21 Heb 9:28 1Pe 2:24 Leviticus 10 Resources Earlier we learn the sin offering is to be eaten Lev 6:26-note 'The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. It shall be eaten in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting. Bear away the guilt - This clearly foreshadows Jesus' bearing our sins on the cross… John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! Heb 9:28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. 1Pet 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. Make atonement (03722)(kapar - word study) means to cover not just to conceal but suggests the imposing of something to change its appearance or nature. Baker - Kaphar is "employed to signify the cancellation or “writing over” of a contract (Isa. 28:18); the appeasing of anger (Gen. 32:20[21]; Pr. 16:14); and the overlaying of wood with pitch so as to make it waterproof (Gen. 6:14). The word also communicates God’s covering of sin. Persons made reconciliation with God for their sins by imposing something that would appease the offended party (in this case the Lord) and cover the sinners with righteousness (Ex. 32:30; Ezek. 45:17; cf. Dan. 9:24). In the Old Testament, the blood of sacrifices was most notably imposed (Ex. 30:10)." Leon Hyatt - Verse 17. Why have you not eaten the sin-offering in The Place of Holiness, since it is a holiness of holinesses, and He gave it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to cover over them at Jehovah’s face? Why have ye not eaten the sin offering in The Place of Holiness. Moses questioned Eleazar and Ithamar sternly as to why they had not eaten the sin-offering in The Place of Holiness. The name “The Place of Holiness” is a new term, appearing here for the first time in the law. It has exactly the same meaning as the term “The Holy Place,” which is explained in comments on Leviticus 6:16-note (see comments on that verse in MESSAGE 5 under the heading The Holy Place). Thus, it was a designation for the courtyard. Moses was concerned not only that the sin-offering had not been eaten, but also that it had not been eaten in the courtyard as it should have been. since it is a holiness of holinesses. The reason the sin-offering should have been eaten in courtyard was that it was one of the objects that was considered to have a special holiness. Those objects were to be eaten only by the priests and only in the courtyard of The Tabernacle (see comments on Lev. 2:3-note in MESSAGE 1 under the heading [It is] a holiness of holiness and on Lev. 6:16-17-note in MESSAGE 5). and He gave it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation. In Leviticus 5:1,17; Lev 7:18, Jehovah had spoken of a sinner’s bearing his own iniquity. However, this verse is the first reference in the Book of Leviticus that speaks of the priests’ bearing the iniquity of others. Interpreters have struggled long and hard with these words. Generally, they have offered two interpretations. One is that sin was transferred to the priest, so that he bore it for the sinner in much the same way that Jesus took on Himself the sins of men. This view assigns an impossible task to the priests. The priests did nothing to even resemble paying for the sins of sinners, as Jesus did. It would have been foolish for them to try. Surely Jehovah had no such misleading intention. The other interpretation is that these words simply declare that the sins of the worshiper were taken away without meaning that the priests bore those sins. But, the words actually say that by eating the sin-offering the priests bore the sins of the congregation. The proper understanding of these words lies in the fact that the offerings of Israel were symbols and that the priests were part of the symbolism. When a priest officiated at the altar, he symbolized Jehovah. When He ate the sin-offering, he symbolized Jehovah’s bearing away the sins of the sinner so that the sinner could be restored to Jehovah’s service (see comments on Lev. 6:26-note in MESSAGE 7 under the heading will eat it in The Holy Place. It must be eaten in the court of The Tent of Meeting). Only in the terms of symbolism can these words be meaningful and consistent with the whole of Scripture. to cover over them at Jehovah’s face. Eating the sin-offering also symbolized covering the congregation from the damage and loss of fellowship that their sins brought on them (see comments on Lev. 1:4-note in MESSAGE 1 under the heading to cover over him). (Leviticus Message 13 - Lev. 10:12-20) Leviticus 10:18 "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." blood: Lev 6:30 as I commanded: Lev 6:26,30 Leviticus 10 Resources Lev 6:26 ‘The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. It shall be eaten in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting. Lev 6:30 ‘But no sin offering of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place shall be eaten; it shall be burned with fire. Behold - This interjection is always given to arrest our attention! "Listen up" the Spirit is saying. John