in se recipiebant” (Deyling observv. ss. i. 45, 2).[1]
verses 19-20
Aaron excused his sons, however, by saying, “Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering and their burnt-offering, and this has happened to me,” i.e., the calamity recorded in Lev 10:1. has befallen me (קרא = קרה, as in Gen 42:4); “and if I had eaten the sin-offering to-day, would it have been well-pleasing to Jehovah?” וגו ואכלתּי is a conditional clause, as in Gen 33:13, cf. Ewald, §357. Moses rested satisfied with this answer. Aaron acknowledged that the flesh of the sin-offering ought to have been eaten by the priest in this instance (according to Lev 6:19), and simply adduced, as the reason why this had not been done, the calamity which had befallen his two eldest sons. And this might really be a sufficient reason, as regarded both himself and his remaining sons, why the eating of the sin-offering should be omitted. For the judgment in question was so solemn a warning, as to the sin which still adhered to them even after the presentation of their sin-offering, that they might properly feel “that they had not so strong and overpowering a holiness as was required for eating the general sin-offering” (M. Baumgarten). This is the correct view, though others find the reason in their grief at the death of their sons or brethren, which rendered it impossible to observe a joyous sacrificial meal. But this is not for a moment to be thought of, simply because the eating of the flesh of the sin-offering was not a joyous meal at all (see at Lev 6:19).[2]
- ↑ C. a Lapide has given this correct interpretation of the passage: “ut scilicet cum hostiis populi pro peccato simul etiam populi peccata in vos quasi recipiatis, ut illa expietis.” There is no foundation for the objection offered by Oehler, that the actual removal of guilt and the atonement itself were effected by the offering of the blood. For it by no means follows from Lev 17:11, that the blood, as the soul of the sacrificial animal, covered or expiated the soul of the sinner, and that the removal and extinction of the sin had already taken place with the covering of the soul before the holy God, which involved the forgiveness of the sin and the reception of the sinner to mercy.
- ↑ Upon this mistaken view of the excuse furnished by Aaron, Knobel has founded his assertion, that “this section did not emanate from the Elohist, because he could not have written in this way,” an assertion which falls to the ground when the words are correctly explained.
