A Problem Arises Concerning the Purification for Sin Offering For The People (Leviticus 10:16-20).
This incident is quite remarkable, and is very unlikely to be a later invention, for it depicts Moses' uncertainty in the face of a ritual situation. It confirms that here we are dealing with what actually happened. Presumably in the light of what had happened to Nadab and Abihu Moses was checking on Aaron and his sons to ensure that they had carried through the correct rituals. He was clearly quite satisfied until he came to the question of the disposal of the flesh of the goat offered as a purification for sin offering for the people. When he discovered that it had been burnt on the altar and not eaten by the priests he was angry.
‘And Moses diligently sought the goat of the purification for sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt, and he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar, the sons of Aaron who were left, saying,'
His anger centred on ‘the sons of Aaron who were left', a deliberate reminder of what had happened earlier that day. They surely should have ensured the correct carrying out of the ritual. Were they being rebellious like their brothers?
“Why have you not eaten the purification for sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, seeing it is most holy, and he has given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before Yahweh? Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within. You should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.”
His question was specific. Why had they burnt the flesh of the purification for sin offering offered on behalf of the people, and not eaten it. They should have eaten it ‘in the place of the Sanctuary', that is, within the tabernacle precincts, for that was all a part of bearing the iniquity of the offeror (Leviticus 6:26; Leviticus 6:29; Leviticus 7:6). The purification for sin offering must be mainly burnt on the altar with the flesh eaten by the priests in order to bear the iniquity of the offerer and to make atonement for him. In this case the ‘him' was the people of Israel. This description reveals how the holiness of the priests renders even the ‘sin' content holy. It is neutralised through forgiveness and atonement, through ‘covering'.
The only exception allowed to this was in the cases where the blood was offered before the veil within the Holy Place. And that had not happened with this offering.
But we can understand their confusion as beginners in the priesthood. Usually when a purification for sin offering was made either for a priest or for ‘the whole congregation' its blood was taken within the Holy Place and offered before the veil (Leviticus 4:6; Leviticus 4:17), and the whole carcase apart from the fat and vital parts was burned outside the camp in a clean place. But in the case of the Priest's offering this day that had not been done. Should they then have eaten of the Priest's offering? The answer, even in Moses' eyes was clearly, No. The priests could not eat of the purification for sin offering of one of their own. He was not questioning that.
But in Moses' eyes the question seemed different when it came to the offering on behalf of ‘the people'. Possibly because the elders had brought the offering he did not consider that that offering must also include the two brothers, although they had not strictly been included in Aaron's offering. Moses, however, probably considered that they had (compare Leviticus 8:14). He no doubt saw the priesthood as one. It was a matter of interpretation. Thus because unusually the blood had not been presented in the Holy Place (possibly because it was for the people and not the whole congregation) he considered that it could be eaten by the priests. Probably the two brothers had taken the opposite view, that because the purification for sin offering included themselves they should not eat of it, and had been terrified at the thought of eating the purification for sin offering wrongly. We may assume from what followed that they appealed to their father, whose decision it had probably been.
‘And Aaron spoke to Moses, “Behold, this day have they offered their purification for sin offering and their whole burnt offering before Yahweh, and there have befallen me such things as these, and if I had eaten the purification for sin offering today, would it have been well-pleasing in the sight of Yahweh?”
For Aaron, wiser and older, steps in to deal with the situation. He does not argue one case or the other. He points out that the two young men had this very day offered their purification for sin offering and their whole burnt offerings before Yahweh. They are concerned for their sin and dedication. He does not define which he sees as theirs. That is not the grounds on which he is going to argue.
Then he draws attention to his own invidious position. How does Moses see his case? After his offerings for himself he had endured unbearable events. He was in great grief. His heart was in mourning (compare Deuteronomy 26:14). That in itself made his position difficult. He could carry on his service, but he could not avoid what was in his heart, and the hurt and grief he felt. And Yahweh would be aware of it.
And what was more, it had been his own sons, the sons of his house, who had blasphemed Yahweh and endured His judgment and wrath. Was he then in any position to partake of the purification for sin offering of the people, and were his other sons in any better position. Was not their whole house in some sense guilty on this day? They would carry out their duty, but would the eating of the purification for sin offering by them have been pleasing in the sight of Yahweh when they were in a very real sense identified with those who had been slain? Would it not rather have made his family even more guilty? In that situation how could they profess to bear the sin of the people? Surely it were better on this day that the whole offering be offered by fire directly to Yahweh that He might absorb and neutralise through ‘covering' the sin of the people, while he and his sons purged their sons/brothers' offence?
‘And when Moses heard that, it was well-pleasing in his sight.'
Moses recognised the justice of what Aaron had said. He recognised their dilemma and was satisfied. This had been no rebellion against the will of Yahweh by Aaron and his remaining sons, but a recognition of their own mourning and their own indirect participation in the sin of their son and brothers. The house of Aaron had sinned that day, and were in mourning over the consequences of sin (for in Hebrew thought the sin of one in a family was in some sense the sin of all). How then could Aaron and his sons be seen as partaking of the purification for sin offering of the people, absorbing its holiness and rectifying their sin by ‘covering' (atonement) and forgiveness? Would it not cause doubt in the people's minds? Surely it was better that the holiness be absorbed by the altar, and the sin be covered and atoned for by God?
“It was well-pleasing in his sight.” Moses recognised that all was well. He recognised that this had not been done lightly, but had been done with a full consideration of the factors that had resulted in the decision. But no later writer would have accepted the possibility of Moses having to be taught by Aaron in this way unless it had happened. (Although the ingenuity of some modern scholars in inventing stories which have no evidence to support them in order to explain such things away is quite incredible. It appears to be a case of any story goes as long as we do not accept them to be what they claim to be).