Leviticus 10:18
Behold, its blood was not brought into the inner part of the sanctuary. You certainly ought to have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.”
English Standard Version (ESV)
This page isn't yet indexed by search engines.
The command to eat the sacrifice in the sanctuary wasn't just about location; it was about participation in the atoning work. When the blood wasn't brought into the inner sanctuary, it signaled that a different kind of sacrifice was needed, but failing to eat the portion that remained in the court showed a misunderstanding of the ongoing priestly role in representing the people before God.
Following the tragic deaths of Nadab and Abihu for offering unauthorized fire, Moses is instructing Aaron and his surviving sons on how to properly handle the remaining sin offerings. He points out that because the blood of this particular sin offering wasn't brought into the inner sanctuary, they should have eaten its flesh in the designated holy area, as the law commanded for such sacrifices. This corrective instruction highlights a crucial detail about sacrificial procedures that had been overlooked in the wake of the disaster.
Why was the location of the blood so critical in this moment? It wasn't just a detail; it was the linchpin of the entire command.
God's instructions for sin offerings were precise, especially concerning the blood.
Ask a follow-up
Ask Sola things like:
Live chat about Leviticus 10:18 is available in the Sola app.
In this verse, God points out the blood wasn't brought into the inner sanctuary. This clearly indicated the priests should have eaten the flesh, not burned it.
God commanded the priests to eat the sacrifice. This wasn't a casual dinner, but a deeply symbolic act of ministry.
The command to eat the sin offering's flesh in the sanctuary wasn't about satisfying hunger; it was a sacred duty.
Understand the original words
dâm · Hebrew Noun
The vital, life-giving element of a sacrifice, representing the life surrendered to God. In the sacrificial system, it acts as the primary means of cleansing and making propitiation on the altar.
This passage directly states the command that Moses is referencing: that the flesh of the sin offering, whose blood was not carried into the Most Holy Place, was to be eaten by the priests in a holy place within the sanctuary.
Leviticus 6:30This verse outlines the contrasting rule: if the blood *was* brought into the sanctuary, the flesh of the sin offering was to be completely burned, not eaten, highlighting the critical distinction Moses is emphasizing.
Numbers 18:8-10This passage further explains the priestly portions, including the fact that certain offerings were to be eaten by the priests as 'most holy,' reinforcing the sacred and specific nature of how these sacrifices were to be handled.
Hebrews 9:12This New Testament passage speaks about Jesus entering the Most Holy Place once for all with his own blood, contrasting the efficacy and location of His sacrifice with the Old Testament rituals, thereby illuminating the significance of where the blood was or wasn't brought in the earthly sanctuary.
gillLeviticus 10:18: "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."
Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place,.... When that was the case, indeed, the flesh of the sin offering was not to be eaten, but burnt, see Leviticus 6:30 but this was not the case now, and therefore its flesh should have been eaten, and not burnt: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded, Levit…
pooleLeviticus 10:18: "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."
The blood of it was not brought in within the holy place; the reason whereof was, because Aaron was not yet admitted into the holy place, whither that blood should have been brought, till he had prepared the way by the sacrifices which were to be offered in the court.
The command to eat the sacrifice in the sanctuary wasn't just about location; it was about participation in the atoning work. When the blood wasn't brought into the inner sanctuary, it signaled that a different kind of sacrifice was needed, but failing to eat the portion that remained in the court showed a misunderstanding of the ongoing priestly role in representing the people before God.
Following the tragic deaths of Nadab and Abihu for offering unauthorized fire, Moses is instructing Aaron and his surviving sons on how to properly handle the remaining sin offerings. He points out that because the blood of this particular sin offering wasn't brought into the inner sanctuary, they should have eaten its flesh in the designated holy area, as the law commanded for such sacrifices. This corrective instruction highlights a crucial detail about sacrificial procedures that had been overlooked in the wake of the disaster.
Following the tragic deaths of Nadab and Abihu for offering unauthorized fire, Moses is instructing Aaron and his surviving sons on how to properly handle the remaining sin offerings. He points out that because the blood of this particular sin offering wasn't brought into the inner sanctuary, they should have eaten its flesh in the designated holy area, as the law commanded for such sacrifices. This corrective instruction highlights a crucial detail about sacrificial procedures that had been overlooked in the wake of the disaster.
"Behold, its blood was not brought into the inner part of the sanctuary. You certainly ought to have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.”" — The command to eat the sacrifice in the sanctuary wasn't just about location; it was about participation in the atoning work. When the blood wasn't brought into the inner sanctuary, it signaled t…
Get the original Greek and Hebrew, verse-by-verse context, and related passages inside the app.
