What is the context?
Moses discovers that the people’s sin offering was burned rather than eaten. Because its blood was not taken inside the holy place, he expects the priests to have eaten it as instructed and asks why they did not.
Aaron responds by naming the calamity that has befallen him and asking whether eating it that day would have pleased the Lord. Moses accepts the explanation. The account ends with a serious question heard and considered, rather than treating every apparent failure as identical to Nadab and Abihu’s action.
How is this passage commonly understood?
Wesley understands Aaron’s grief and sincere concern to please God as the reason Moses accepts the answer. The USCCB notes regard Aaron’s exact reasoning as somewhat unclear while recognizing his reference to the loss. The text supplies the exchange and Moses’ satisfaction, but it does not provide a complete new rule canceling the earlier instructions.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.
Where can I study this further?
No deeper study linked yet.