Leviticus 10 19

Leviticus 10:19 kjv

And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD?

Leviticus 10:19 nkjv

And Aaron said to Moses, "Look, this day they have offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD, and such things have befallen me! If I had eaten the sin offering today, would it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD?"

Leviticus 10:19 niv

Aaron replied to Moses, "Today they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD, but such things as this have happened to me. Would the LORD have been pleased if I had eaten the sin offering today?"

Leviticus 10:19 esv

And Aaron said to Moses, "Behold, today they have offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD, and yet such things as these have happened to me! If I had eaten the sin offering today, would the LORD have approved?"

Leviticus 10:19 nlt

Then Aaron answered Moses, "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 verses

Leviticus 10 19 Meaning

Leviticus 10:19 presents Aaron's defense to Moses regarding his and his surviving sons' failure to eat the sin offering after the deaths of Nadab and Abihu. Aaron states that despite the sin offering's blood not being brought into the Holy Place (making it permissible for priests to eat according to the law), he felt himself and his sons were not in a fit state—given their deep sorrow and potentially defiled state due to proximity to death—to eat such holy food. This offering was meant for the priests to eat in the sanctuary to "bear the iniquity" of the people, but Aaron implicitly argues that in their grief and compromised state, they were unfit to properly perform this holy act of intercession and ritual participation. Moses accepts Aaron's reasoning.

Leviticus 10 19 Context

Leviticus 10:19 is part of a crucial passage following the shocking deaths of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1-5) for offering "unauthorized fire." Their death highlights the severe consequences of priestly misconduct and God's demand for holiness. Immediately after, Moses prohibits Aaron and his surviving sons from mourning publicly, underscoring the priority of their priestly duties and sacred separation. In Lev 10:16-18, Moses discovers the sin offering goat for the day was burnt entirely, not eaten by the priests as commanded (Lev 6:26; 7:6). Moses, in his zeal for the strict adherence to the law, confronts Eleazar and Ithamar (and by extension, Aaron) about this omission. Leviticus 10:19 is Aaron's direct response to Moses' sharp inquiry. The historical context involves the fledgling priesthood learning the meticulous regulations of Tabernacle service, emphasizing the holiness of God and the need for purity in approaching Him. Culturally, grief often involved specific rituals that could render one temporarily impure, presenting a dilemma for the priests whose duties required perpetual purity.

Leviticus 10 19 Word analysis

• And Moses said (וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, va-yomer Mosheh): Indicates a direct continuation of the dialogue initiated by Moses’ stern rebuke in Lev 10:16.
• "Behold," (הֵן, hen): An interjection, meaning "Look!", "Indeed!", or "Surely!". It calls immediate attention to what follows, emphasizing the weight and certainty of Aaron’s observation and justification. It adds a rhetorical flourish, underscoring the truth of his statement.
• "the blood of it" (דָּמָהּ, damah): Refers to the blood of the sin offering. In Levitical law, blood held profound significance for atonement (Lev 17:11). The handling of the blood determined the fate of the meat.
• "was not brought" (לֹא הוּבָא, lo huva): The Hebrew verb huva is in the Hophal stem (passive causative), meaning "it was not caused to be brought" or "it was not brought." This is key. According to Lev 4:5-7, 16-18, for certain high-level sin offerings (for the anointed priest or the whole congregation), the blood was brought into the Holy Place (specifically towards the veil of the Holy of Holies or sprinkled before the curtain inside the Holy Place), and if so, the meat of that offering was to be completely burned outside the camp, not eaten by priests. For other sin offerings (e.g., for an individual, a leader, or this daily offering for Aaron and his sons, Lev 9:3, 15), the blood was sprinkled on the altar of burnt offering, not brought into the Holy Place. This distinction means the sin offering should have been eaten by priests if its blood was not brought inside. Aaron confirms the preconditions for eating were met by this offering.
• "into the holy place!" (אֶל־הַקֹּדֶשׁ, el ha-qodesh): Refers to the Holy Place of the Tabernacle (the first compartment), not necessarily the Most Holy Place. The precise handling of the blood determined where it was brought and, consequently, whether the meat was eaten or burned.
• "You certainly should have eaten it" (אָכֹל אֲכַלְתֶּם, achol akaltem): An emphatic infinitive absolute construction common in Hebrew, meaning "eating you should have eaten" or "you really should have eaten it." Moses uses this to convey a strong, undeniable command, indicating the eating of the sin offering was mandatory.
• "in the sanctuary," (בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, ba-qodesh): The same word for "holy place" as before, but here referring to the area designated for the priests to eat the "most holy" portions of the sacrifices within the tabernacle court, near the altar (Lev 6:26).
• "as I commanded." (כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוֵּיתִי, ka'asher tsiviti): This phrase connects Moses’ words directly back to the instructions given to the priests, particularly in Lev 6:26 and 7:6. It highlights that the expectation for the priests to eat these portions was not arbitrary but divinely established law.

Word Group Analysis:

• "Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the holy place!": This is Aaron's crucial justification, referring to the law (e.g., Lev 4:1-12, 13-21). It means this sin offering was not of the type that required its meat to be burned outside the camp because its blood was taken into the Holy Place. Therefore, the general rule applied: the priests were supposed to eat it. This clarifies that the reason they didn't eat it wasn't a misunderstanding of this specific rule regarding the blood, but something else. Aaron acknowledges Moses' implicit point that based on blood disposition, the offering should have been eaten.
• "You certainly should have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.": This reflects Moses' persistent demand for ritual adherence. He emphasizes that the act of eating in the proper place was a commanded duty for priests concerning the most holy offerings. The phrase combines the emphasis of Moses' command with the specific location for eating.

Leviticus 10 19 Bonus section

Aaron’s successful justification, accepted by Moses (Lev 10:20), indicates that God understood and perhaps preferred their not partaking in the sacrifice under those specific, traumatic conditions. This acceptance underlines divine mercy and a prioritization of genuine holiness of heart and spirit, even when it seemingly deviates from a literal interpretation of ritual. The priestly role of "bearing iniquity" was not merely a ceremonial function; it involved a spiritual identification with the sin being atoned for. Aaron correctly discerned that their current state of profound, divinely-sanctioned grief made such a spiritual identification unfit. It implicitly speaks to God's desire for not just outward obedience, but internal fitness for holy duties. This passage has led Jewish sages to teach about God valuing "piety born of knowledge" more than rigid adherence if that adherence would lead to greater irreverence due to one's compromised spiritual state.

Leviticus 10 19 Commentary

Leviticus 10:19 records Aaron's explanation for his deviation from ritual law regarding the sin offering, an explanation Moses ultimately accepts. The crux of Aaron's defense hinges on a nuanced understanding of ritual purity and spiritual fitness. He acknowledges the letter of the law: the blood of this particular sin offering was not brought into the inner Holy Place, which, by ordinance, meant the priests should eat it (Lev 6:26, 7:6). This differentiates it from the offerings where blood did enter the Holy Place, which then required the meat to be burned (Lev 4:5-7, 16-18). So, Aaron correctly understands the first precondition.

However, Aaron's subsequent unspoken argument, implicitly understood and accepted by Moses, relates to the purpose of eating the sin offering. The priests were to eat it "to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD" (Lev 10:17). This act was not merely consumption; it was an act of sacred mediation, embodying the carrying of sin. Aaron, along with his surviving sons Eleazar and Ithamar, was in a profound state of grief over the sudden and catastrophic deaths of Nadab and Abihu. While Moses had commanded them not to mourn outwardly in a defiling way (Lev 10:6-7), their inner turmoil and the spiritual defilement potentially associated with proximity to death likely made them feel utterly unworthy and unfit to perform this deeply spiritual and atoning act of "bearing iniquity" by partaking of the most holy sacrifice. To eat it in a state of spiritual disquiet or ritual impurity (however slight or indirect due to the deaths) would, in their view, defile the sacred act and God Himself.

This encounter highlights a tension between the letter of the law and the spirit in which it is observed. Moses' initial demand for strict ritual adherence meets Aaron's deep spiritual insight into their current condition. God's acceptance (communicated through Moses' agreement in Lev 10:20) reveals divine compassion and a valuing of true reverence and the disposition of the heart even above immediate, unbending application of every ritual detail, especially in extreme circumstances. It teaches that even the most prescribed rituals must be engaged with genuine reverence and in a state fitting for interaction with a holy God.

• Practical Usage Example:
  1. Reverence in Worship: Just as Aaron prioritized spiritual fitness over strict adherence to eating the sacrifice, believers today are called to approach worship (e.g., communion) with reverence and self-examination, ensuring their hearts are prepared rather than simply going through motions. (1 Cor 11:27-29).
  2. Contextual Wisdom: The situation demonstrates that rigid legalism might sometimes miss the spirit of a command. There are moments of tragedy or exceptional circumstance where wisdom dictates a deviation based on a deeper understanding of God's character (e.g., valuing mercy over strict sacrifice in Hos 6:6; Matt 12:7).
  3. Priestly Responsibility: Aaron’s action reminds all who minister, whether formally or as believers (1 Pet 2:9), of the grave responsibility to maintain purity and spiritual readiness in their service, ensuring they represent God with true devotion.