Why was it bad that Aaron and his sons burned the sin offering in Leviticus 10:16-20?

Now we come to another important matter which deals with failure among the people of God: the goat of the sin offering should have been eaten by the sons of Aaron that were left, but instead it had been burnt. This had to do with "the iniquity of the assembly," and it was a great and solemn matter in the eyes of Moses. It is easier to burn the sin offering than to eat it, since the eating requires a moral state not always possessed. We may have righteous indignation against evil, and deal with it in a harsh and judicial way; but God would have us deal with it as if it were our own.

In the attitude of Moses to Aaron we have another remarkable touch of grace. Conscious of being under the discipline of God in relation to what had happened to his sons, Aaron was not free to take up before God the sins of Israel. It was not indifference, but the burden of the failure of his own house, and Aaron owned his weakness and inability, pleading also what was appropriate in the sight of God in the circumstances. In the solemn pleading of Aaron there was spiritual judgment as to what was acceptable to Jehovah in a time of failure. On hearing these things, "Moses was content."

However, in verse 16 we are told that when Moses inquired about the goat of the sin offering, he found that it had all been burned. Therefore he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, questioning why they had not eaten this sin offering in the holy place, since its blood had not been taken into the sanctuary (v. 15). This offering was for the people, and the priests' eating it symbolized the fact of the priests entering into and feeling the guilt of the people as though it had been their own. This is what the Lord Jesus did in the fullest way, even taking that guilt upon His own shoulders in going to the cross. Every believer should have this same attitude. It will make us true intercessors rather than critics.

In this case, however, Aaron explained to Moses that, since his two sons had died that day, it would be too hard for him to rise above the level of his own distresses, therefore he would not be in a fitting state of soul to rightly feel the failure of others. He asks then, would his eating of the sin offering outwardly be accepted in the sight of the Lord? In other words, he would be going through the form without any real heart in it. Moses recognized the force of this, and was content.

However, in verse 16 we are told that when Moses inquired about the goat of the sin offering, he found that it had all been burned. Therefore he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, questioning why they had not eaten this sin offering in the holy place, since its blood had not been taken into the sanctuary (v. 15). This offering was for the people, and the priests' eating it symbolized the fact of the priests entering into and feeling the guilt of the people as though it had been their own. This is what the Lord Jesus did in the fullest way, even taking that guilt upon His own shoulders in going to the cross. Every believer should have this same attitude. It will make us true intercessors rather than critics.

In this case, however, Aaron explained to Moses that, since his two sons had died that day, it would be too hard for him to rise above the level of his own distresses, therefore he would not be in a fitting state of soul to rightly feel the failure of others. He asks then, would his eating of the sin offering outwardly be accepted in the sight of the Lord? In other words, he would be going through the form without any real heart in it. Moses recognized the force of this, and was content.

65 Again: there is, in a certain sense, a priestly way in which we have to bear the sins and sorrows of our brethren; not, of course, as to atonement (that was Christ's alone; the blood carried inside was Christ's alone), but still there is a true sense in which we have to bear them. And in this, I believe above everything else, we fail. It is not only that Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire: Eleazar and Ithamar were not like them, and yet their failure is recorded. "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, Wherefore have ye not eaten of the sin-offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God has given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before Jehovah? Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place, ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded," v. 16-18. The rule as to the sin-offering was this: if the blood was carried inside, to be sprinkled before Jehovah, the body was carried without the camp to be burnt; but in the sin-offering for offences, the priest was to eat it and in this the "sons of Aaron" had a share.

When Moses “diligently sought the goat of the sin offering,” he found that it was burnt (Lev. 10:16). This made Moses angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, for they should normally have eaten it in a holy place “to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord” (verse 7). When the blood of a victim was brought into the holy place, or into the holiest, it was in relation to the standing of the people before God, and the priests did not eat the sin offering, its body was burned outside the camp; but in the ordinary sin offering, the priests ate thereof, as entering into the sin of the people before God, confessing before God sin that was not their own.

Aaron, with divinely given wisdom, answered the anger of Moses, saying, “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 today, should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord?” (Lev. 10:19). The judgment and feelings of Aaron were right. How could he confess the sins of Israel as his own, bearing them in his own spirit before God, when such serious failure in his own house filled his heart with grief? It is the same with ourselves. We need to be very near to the Lord, free in our own spirits from anything dishonouring to the Lord in ourselves, or in our own house, before we can eat the sin offering of others, taking their failure on our hearts in the presence of God, confessing it as if it were our own.

As taught of God, Aaron truly asked Moses, if indifference to the failure of his own house would have been right in the sight of God. Having heard the words of Aaron, “Moses…was content” (Lev. 10:20). The godly exercises of Aaron and Moses are full of valuable instruction for us, for both were occupied with what was suitable to God in a time of trouble, and each was content with recognising that the other only sought the will of God.

In the opening of the chapter we have seen God's great dishonour by man's great transgression, in presence of signal grace and not merely of creature responsibility. To this the priests were exposed, and therein the elder sons of Aaron fell. It was despising the Burnt-offering, and God's fire in its acceptance. Then came instruction to guard them against the expression of grief or the allowance of excitement. In these others might indulge, but not those who had the privilege of drawing near to His sanctuary. Their communion too with the holy oblation to Jehovah, and with the more freely enjoyed sacrifices of Peace offerings, was duly explained. There remained the solemn injunction that the priests should eat the Sin-offering. Their failure in this respect closes the chapter, deeply appealing to us who, though of a heavenly calling, are no less apt to forget what it speaks to our souls and means before God.

" 16 And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin-offering, and, behold, it was burnt up; then he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons [that were] left, saying, 17 Why have ye not eaten the sin-offering in the place of the sanctuary? For it [is] most holy; and he has given it to you, that ye might bear the iniquity of the assembly, to make atonement for them before Jehovah. 18 Behold, its blood was not brought in within the sanctuary: ye should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded. 19 And Aaron said to Moses, Behold, today have they presented their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before Jehovah; and such things as these have befallen me! And had I today eaten the sin-offering, would it have been good in the sight of Jehovah? 20 And Moses heard, and it was good in his sight" (vers. 16-20).

This thought will throw light upon the closing paragraph of our chapter. "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, saying, Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded. And Aaron said to 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 today, should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord? And when Moses heard that, he was content."

The "daughters" of Aaron were not permitted to eat of "the sin offering." This high privilege belonged only to the "sons," and it was a type of the most elevated form of priestly service. To eat of the sin offering was the expression of full identification with the offerer, and this demanded an amount of priestly capacity and energy which found its type in "the sons of Aaron." On the occasion before us, however, it is very evident that Aaron and his sons were not in a condition to rise to this high and holy ground. They ought to have been, but they were not. "Such things have befallen me," said Aaron. This, no doubt, was to be deplored; but, yet, "when Moses heard it, he was content." It is far better to be real in the confession of our failure and shortcoming, than to put forth pretensions to spiritual power which are wholly without foundation.

Thus, then, Leviticus 10 opens with positive sin, and closes with negative failure. Nadab and Abihu offered "strange fire;" and Eleazar and Ithamar were unable to eat the sin offering. The former was met by divine judgement; the latter, by divine forbearance. There could be no allowance for "strange fire." It was positively flying in the face of God's plain commandment. There is, obviously, a wide difference between a deliberate rejection of a plain command, and mere inability to rise to the height of a divine privilege. The former is open dishonour done to God; the latter is a forfeiture of one's own blessing. There should be neither the one nor the other, but the difference between the two is easily traced.

Fear seems to have fallen upon Aaron and his family. His other sons forgot to eat the sin-offering in the holy place; and Moses was angry, and rebuked them for their neglect. And all that Aaron could say in extenuation was, "Such things have befallen me," and asks whether his eating in such circumstances would have been acceptable to God. Are not these strange words from the man who has just blessed the people — the man who has been the most prominent in all that day's work? On that day he was arrayed in his beautiful garments. He never put them on again. One appearance was permitted of this super-excellent glory, as a glimpse of the future; and indeed no other dress would have been in keeping with eighth-day glory. But soon, not the symbolical, but the real and the eternal, will be seen when Jesus, the great High Priest, appears to bless His people in millennial joy. But Aaron, so honoured during the day, is down so low in the dust as to doubt the acceptability of his eating the sin-offering in the holy place. Open public failure, and with it swift judgment had taken place; and this time the failure was not in the common people, but the chosen family of priests have failed no less than the people when they made the calf. Ere they have properly commenced their duties as priests, the family, as a whole, prove their unfitness for the office, and the beautiful garments are laid aside. How very like the people, who broke the law ere the two tables were brought to them!

You will find this always to be the difference between that which is of God and that which is of man. A human religion instinctively makes excuses for its officials, and never fails to allow a certain latitude and license for those that propagate it. The true God nowhere maintains the nice exigencies of His own character so much as in those who are nearest to Him and most favoured by Him. There is not a heart and conscience renewed of God but must feel how right and becoming it is that so it should be. No doubt flesh shrinks from such searching work; but Christianity means and is based on the judgment, not the sparing, of the flesh — the gospel of Christ, and the Christian boasts in it with the apostle. There is nothing like the cross for God morally; but it is God acting in our interest, as well as for His own glory. Nothing more dishonouring to Him, nothing less wholesome for us than to give a dispensation for unholiness — to sell indulgences; yet it is what every religion under the sun has done in effect, save that which is revealed of God. Even in the lowest form of God's revelation, when it was a question of schooling the first man, not yet of the Second, we see man's way judged unsparingly: how much more where all sin is discerned and dealt with fully, whether in the cross itself or by the power of the Spirit of God in the consciences of those that believe! But immediately God with solemn severity is seen gravely resenting the liberty which two of those standing high in religious rank took that day; — so much so that men might taunt and say that the whole building had broken down before the very walls were complete. But the mediator was enabled to meet the occasion, and turns the chastening into matter for holy exhortation. "And Moses said to Aaron, and to Eleazar, and to Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which Jehovah has kindled." He felt that it did not become those so near to Jehovah to yield themselves up to natural grief, any more than to allow a carnal excitement in His worship. Henceforward this is forbidden. The outward signs of mourning for death are prohibited for the priests. Certainly the occasion was a serious one, and fully tested the principle. But connected with it we learn that excitement is just as uncomely on their part who enjoy such nearness to God. "And Jehovah spake to Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations." No doubt it had also a practical bearing. Drinking wine or the like might unfit one for putting difference between holy and unholy. But first and foremost, and most rightly, it did not suit the presence of God: next, it unfitted for the safe and holy help of man surrounded by evil and perplexity.

Afterward oversight appears even in the rest of Aaron's sons, inasmuch as they burnt the goat of the sin-offering, for which Moses was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar. The failure thus was complete. Two of them paid the penalty with their lives; the other two were only spared in answer to the intercession of Aaron.

So we note how Moses, acting on God's behalf, was content with the confession of Aaron's weakness. We might summarize the chapter as, "Strange fire," which was judged. "Strong drink," which was forbidden. "Sin-offering mishandled," which was passed over, as being the result of human infirmity.