Leviticus 10 16

Leviticus 10:16 kjv

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,

Leviticus 10:16 nkjv

Then Moses made careful inquiry about the goat of the sin offering, and there it was?burned up. And he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron who were left, saying,

Leviticus 10:16 niv

When Moses inquired about the goat of the sin offering and found that it had been burned up, he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's remaining sons, and asked,

Leviticus 10:16 esv

Now Moses diligently inquired about the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it was burned up! And he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the surviving sons of Aaron, saying,

Leviticus 10:16 nlt

Moses then asked them what had happened to the goat of the sin offering. When he discovered it had been burned up, he became very angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's remaining sons.

Leviticus 10 verses

Leviticus 10 16 Meaning

Leviticus 10:16 describes Moses' diligent search for the goat of the sin offering, only to discover it had been improperly burned rather than consumed by the priests as prescribed. This ritual deviation ignited Moses' righteous anger towards Aaron's surviving sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, who were responsible for its proper handling. The verse highlights a serious transgression against God's established laws concerning holy offerings, particularly as it occurred shortly after the severe judgment on their brothers, Nadab and Abihu, for a different priestly misstep.

Leviticus 10 16 Context

This verse is embedded in the dramatic and pivotal tenth chapter of Leviticus, immediately following the divine judgment and death of Nadab and Abihu, Aaron's elder sons, for offering "unauthorized fire" to the Lord (Lev 10:1-5). God's explicit instructions concerning proper priestly conduct, ritual purity, and the disposition of sacrifices were therefore under intense scrutiny. In verses 8-15, Moses relays specific commands from the Lord to Aaron and his surviving sons regarding alcoholic drink for priests, distinguishing between the holy and the common, and precisely how priestly portions of sacrifices—including sin offerings, fellowship offerings, and grain offerings—were to be consumed by the priests.

Moses' diligent inquiry in verse 16 regarding the sin offering underscores the high stakes of obedience in the immediate aftermath of Nadab and Abihu's fate. The sin offering, or chatta't, was foundational to Israel's atonement system, serving to cleanse defilement from individuals and the sanctuary. Its precise ritual treatment was critical for the offering's efficacy and the maintenance of holiness within the camp. The burning of the sin offering meat, instead of its ritual consumption by the priests, represented a significant breach of the recently reaffirmed divine protocol. This context elevates the error from a mere procedural oversight to a serious challenge to the sanctity of God's worship and the integrity of the priesthood.

Leviticus 10 16 Word analysis

• And Moses diligently inquired (וַיִּדְרֹשׁ מֹשֶׁה, vayyidrosh Mosheh):

  • וַיִּדְרֹשׁ (vayyidrosh): This is from the verb דָּרַשׁ (darash), meaning "to seek," "inquire," "search diligently," or "require." It implies more than a casual question; Moses undertook a serious and thorough investigation or search. It reflects a deep concern for the proper fulfillment of God's commands, especially after the immediate and terrifying judgment on Nadab and Abihu. His earnestness signals the gravity of the ritual system and its integrity.
  • מֹשֶׁה (Mosheh): Moses, as God's mediator and leader of Israel, bore the responsibility for overseeing the correct execution of all divine commands. His active investigation emphasizes his role in maintaining order and adherence to God's holiness.

• for the goat of the sin offering (אֶת־שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת, ʾet-sĕʿir ha-khaṭṭāʾt):

  • שְׂעִיר (sĕʿir): Literally "hairy," but commonly refers to a "goat" or "male goat," specifically used here for the animal of sacrifice. The goat was a common animal for sin offerings.
  • הַחַטָּאת (ha-khaṭṭāʾt): From חַטָּאת (khaṭṭāʾt), which means "sin" but here, in the context of sacrifice, refers specifically to the "sin offering." This particular sacrifice had unique rules for its disposal, depending on whether its blood was brought into the Holy Place. Moses' immediate concern over this specific offering underscores its foundational importance in atoning for the congregation's defilement.

• and, behold, it was burnt up (וְהִנֵּה שׂרָף, wĕhinnēh soraph):

  • וְהִנֵּה (wĕhinnēh): "And behold!" or "And indeed!" This particle adds an element of surprise or alarm, indicating Moses' unexpected and shocking discovery.
  • שׂרָף (soraph): From שָׂרַף (saraph), "to burn," "consume by fire," "incinerate." This is the crucial point of the transgression. For the specific type of sin offering mentioned here (implied by Moses' following question in Lev 10:17, "Why have you not eaten the sin offering...?"), the meat should have been eaten by the priests in the holy place (Lev 6:26). Burning it indicated a failure to follow the explicit divine command for its disposition, thereby negating its ritual purpose.

• and he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar (וַיִּקְצֹף עַל־אֶלְעָזָר וְעַל־אִיתָמָר, vayyiqṣof ʿal-ʾelʿazar wĕʿal-ʾitamār):

  • וַיִּקְצֹף (vayyiqṣof): From the verb קָצַף (qatzaf), "to be angry," "to be wroth," "to rage." Moses' anger is righteous indignation, stemming from zeal for God's holiness and concern for proper obedience. It reflects the gravity of the violation. It is not personal spite but a divine-focused displeasure at the desecration of holy protocol.
  • אֶלְעָזָר וְעַל־אִיתָמָר (ʾelʿazar wĕʿal-itamār): Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's only surviving sons after Nadab and Abihu's demise, were the priests responsible for carrying out the rituals correctly. Their failure here highlights the profound challenges of their newly inherited and solemn duties.

• the sons of Aaron, who were left, saying (בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַנּוֹתָרִים לֵאמֹר, bĕnê ʾahărōn hannôtārîm lēʾmor):

  • הַנּוֹתָרִים (hannôtārîm): "The ones remaining," "the survivors." This poignant phrase reminds both the reader and Moses of the recent, terrifying deaths of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1-2). It underscores the fresh burden and heightened expectations upon the remaining sons, emphasizing that despite the stark warning, another serious error had occurred. This reinforces the principle of ultimate accountability for divine instructions.

Words-group Analysis:

• "Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt up": This phrase encapsulates the central conflict: the diligent search by the leader leads to the shocking discovery of a grave ritual error. It implies a departure from established procedures (Lev 6:26), not mere confusion, on the part of the priests handling the offering. The term "burnt up" (שׂרָף, saraph) emphasizes the finality and totality of the destruction, sealing the priests' procedural error and requiring immediate investigation.
• "and he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, who were left": This group highlights the target of Moses' anger and the unique context. Moses' righteous anger is directed specifically at Aaron's two surviving sons, indicating their responsibility for the transgression. The mention "who were left" serves as a severe, implied rebuke; despite witnessing the swift and terrifying divine judgment on their brothers for a ritual offense, they too have fallen short in upholding God's precise commands regarding sacred things. This shows the immediate learning lesson was not fully grasped or adhered to.

Leviticus 10 16 Bonus section

The nature of the "sin offering" (chatta't) in the Old Testament is multifaceted, but for this specific context, the core issue is the prescribed ritual action for the meat. Eating the sin offering meat (Lev 6:26, 10:17) was a symbolic act of "bearing" or "carrying" away the iniquity of the people. It connected the priests, as mediators, to the atonement process, making them instrumental in the removal of the congregation's defilement. This goes beyond a simple administrative error; it touches the very heart of the atoning purpose of the sacrifice. By burning the meat that was meant to be eaten, the priests essentially abrogated their role in this aspect of bearing the people's sin and undermined the divine design for how reconciliation was to be mediated through the sacrificial system.

This episode also highlights a contrast in divine response. Nadab and Abihu faced immediate death for their direct, audacious disregard of divine command concerning fire. Eleazar and Ithamar, in burning the sin offering, commit an error that also breaches a direct command, yet they receive a sharp rebuke and further instruction from Moses. The difference in judgment might stem from the nature of the specific command violated or perhaps the perceived intent (though this is not stated). However, both instances emphatically underscore that God requires precise and obedient worship from His appointed servants, because it concerns the maintenance of His holy presence among His people. Any departure from God's instruction, whether by commission or omission, carries significant consequences within the covenant community.

Leviticus 10 16 Commentary

Leviticus 10:16 exposes a profound breach of divine law regarding the proper disposition of a sin offering. Unlike sin offerings whose blood was brought into the most holy place and whose bodies were burnt outside the camp (Lev 4:1-12, 16:27), the sin offering in question here (as clarified by Moses' subsequent words in Lev 10:17) was specifically designated for consumption by the priests within the holy precinct. This consumption was not merely for sustenance but a vital priestly act, described as "bearing the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them." By burning it, Eleazar and Ithamar prevented this crucial act of priestly intercession, effectively hindering the atoning purpose of the sacrifice and undermining their assigned role in God's covenant.

Moses' "diligent inquiry" and subsequent "anger" underline the gravity of the error. It reflects a non-negotiable standard of obedience and highlights that God's covenant with Israel and the sanctity of His worship were utterly dependent on the precise adherence to His revealed will, not human improvisation or fear. The recent deaths of Nadab and Abihu for their "unauthorized fire" (Lev 10:1-2) further magnified the impact of this new transgression. The remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, were to be exemplars of priestly precision and holiness, and their failure, though less immediately fatal, was still a serious dereliction of duty in maintaining the order and purity required for the Lord's presence among His people. This event serves as a stark reminder throughout scripture that intentional or even negligent disregard for divine instructions regarding worship is unacceptable and can incur severe divine displeasure.