LEVITICUS 10 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

The Death of Nadab and Abihu1 Aarons sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command.

BARNES, "Nadab and Abihu - The two elder sons of Aaron Exo_6:23; Num_3:2, who were among those invited to accompany Moses when he was going up Mount Sinai, but who were to worship afar off, and not come near the Lord. Exo_24:1-2.

Censer - See Exo_25:38 note.Strange fire - The point of their offence is evidently expressed in this term. This may very probably mean that the incense was lighted at an unauthorized time. And we may reasonably unite with this the supposition that they were intoxicated (compare Lev_10:9), as well as another conjecture, that they made their offering of incense an accompaniment to the exultation of the people on the manifestation of the glory of the Lord Lev_9:24. As they perished not within the tabernacle, but in front of it, it seems likely that they may have been making an ostentatious and irreverent display of their ministration to accompany the shouts of the people on their way toward the tabernacle. The offence for which they were immediately visited with outward punishment was thus a flagrant outrage on the solemn order of the divine service, while the cause of their offence may have been their guilty excess.

CLARKE, "And Nadab and Abihu - took either of them his censer - The manner of burning incense in the temple service was, according to the Jews, as follows: -

One went and gathered the ashes from off the altar into a golden vessel, a second brought a vessel full of incense, and a third brought a censer with fire, and put coals on the altar, and he whose office it was to burn the incense strewed it on the fire at the command of the governor. At the same time all the people went out of the temple from between the 1

porch and the altar. Each day they burned the weight of a hundred denaries of incense, fifty in the morning, and fifty in the evening. The hundred denaries weighed fifty shekels of the sanctuary, each shekel weighing three hundred and twenty barleycorns; and when the priest had burned the incense, he bowed himself down and went his way out. See Maimonides Treatise of the Daily Service, chap. iii. So when Zacharias, as his lot fell, burned incense in the temple, the whole multitude of the people were without at prayer while the incense was burning, Luk_1:9, Luk_1:10. By this service God taught them that the prayers of his faithful people are pleasing to him, whilst our High Priest, Christ Jesus, by his mediation puts incense to their prayers; (see Psa_141:2; Rom_8:34; Heb_8:1, Heb_8:2; Heb_9:24; Rev_8:3, Rev_8:4); for the priests under the law served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things; Heb_8:5. See Ainsworth in loco.In the preceding chapter we have seen how God intended that every part of his service should be conducted; and that every sacrifice might be acceptable to him, he sent his own fire as the emblem of his presence, and the means of consuming the sacrifice - Here we find Aarons sons neglecting the Divine ordinance, and offering incense with strange, that is, common fire, - fire not of a celestial origin; and therefore the fire of God consumed them. So that very fire which, if properly applied, would have sanctified and consumed their gift, became now the very instrument of their destruction! How true is the saying, The Lord is a consuming fire! He will either hallow or destroy us: he will purify our souls by the influence of his Spirit, or consume them with the breath of his mouth! The tree which is properly planted in a good soil is nourished by the genial influences of the sun: pluck it up from its roots, and the sun which was the cause of its vegetative life and perfection now dries up its juices, decomposes its parts, and causes it to moulder into dust. Thus must it be done to those who grieve and do despite to the Spirit of God. Reader, hast thou this heavenly fire? Hear then the voice of God, Quench not the Spirit. Some critics are of opinion that the fire used by the sons of Aaron was the sacred fire, and that it is only called strange from the manner of placing the incense on it. I cannot see the force of this opinion.Which he commanded them not - Every part of the religion of God is Divine. He alone knew what he designed by its rites and ceremonies, for that which they prefigured - the whole economy of redemption by Christ - was conceived in his own mind, and was out of the reach of human wisdom and conjecture. He therefore who altered any part of this representative system, who omitted or added any thing, assumed a prerogative which belonged to God alone, and was certainly guilty of a very high offense against the wisdom, justice, and righteousness of his Maker. This appears to have been the sin of Nadab and Abihu, and this at once shows the reason why they were so severely punished. The most awful judgments are threatened against those who either add to, or take away from, the declarations of God. See Deu_4:2; Pro_30:6; and Rev_22:18, Rev_22:19.

GILL, "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron,.... His two eldest sons, as seems from Exo_6:23, took either of them his censer; a vessel in which coals of fire were put, and incense

2

upon them, and burnt it, and so it follows: and put fire therein, and put incense thereon; which, as Aben Ezra says, was on the eighth day, that is, of their consecration, the day after their consecration was completely finished, and the same day that Aaron had offered the offerings for himself and for the people, see Lev_9:1, and offered strange fire before the Lord; upon the golden altar of incense, which stood in the holy place right against the vail, within which were the ark, mercy seat, and cherubim, the symbol and seat of the divine Majesty: this fire was not that which came down from heaven, and consumed the sacrifice, as related at the end of the preceding chapter Lev_9:24, but common fire, and therefore called strange; it was not taken off of the altar of burnt offering, as it ought to have been, but, as the Targum of Jonathan, from under the trivets, skillets, or pots, such as the flesh of peace offerings were boiled in, in the tabernacle: which he commanded not; yea, forbid, by sending fire from heaven, and ordering coals of fire for the incense to be taken off of the altar of burnt offering; and this, as Aben Ezra observes, they did of their own mind, and not by order. It does not appear that they had any command to offer incense at all at present, this belonged to Aaron, and not to them as yet; but without any instruction and direction they rushed into the holy place with their censers, and offered incense, even both of them, when only one priest was to offer at a time, when it was to be offered, and this they also did with strange fire. This may be an emblem of dissembled love, when a man performs religious duties, prays to God, or praises him without any cordial affection to him, or obeys commands not from love, but selfish views; or of an ignorant, false, and misguided zeal, a zeal not according to knowledge, superstitious and hypocritical; or of false and strange doctrines, such as are not of God, nor agree with the voice of Christ, and are foreign to the Scriptures; or of human ordinances, and the inventions of men, and of everything that man brings of his own, in order to obtain eternal life and salvation.

HENRY 1-2, "Here is, I. The great sin that Nadab and Abihu were guilty of: and a great sin we must call it, how little soever it appears in our eye, because it is evident by the punishment of it that it was highly provoking to the God of heaven, whose judgment, we are sure, is according to truth. But what was their sin? All the account here given of it is that they offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not (Lev_10:1), and the same Num_3:4. 1. It does not appear the they had any orders to burn incense at all at this time. It is true their consecration was completed the day before, and it was part of their work, as priests, to serve at the altar of incense; but, it should seem, the whole service of this solemn day of inauguration was to be performed by Aaron himself, for he slew the sacrifices (Lev_9:8, Lev_9:15, Lev_9:18), and his sons were only to attend him (Lev_10:9, Lev_10:12, Lev_10:18); therefore Moses and Aaron only went into the tabernacle, v. 23. But Nadab and Abihu were so proud of the honour they were newly advanced to, and so ambitious of doing the highest and most honourable part of their work immediately, that though the service of this day was extraordinary, and done by particular direction from Moses, yet without receiving orders, or so much as asking leave from him, they took their censers, and they would enter into the tabernacle, at the door of which they thought they had attended long enough, and would burn incense. And then their offering strange fire is the same with offering strange incense, which is

3

expressly forbidden, Exo_30:9. Moses, we may suppose, had the custody of the incense which was prepared for this purpose (Exo_39:38), and they, doing this without his leave, had none of the incense which should have been offered, but common incense, so that the smoke of their incense came from a strange fire. God had indeed required the priests to burn incense, but, at this time, it was what he commanded them not; and so their crime was like that of Uzziah the king, 2Ch_26:16. The priests were to burn incense only when it was their lot (Luk_1:9), and, at this time, it was not theirs. 2. Presuming thus to burn incense of their own without order, no marvel that they made a further blunder, and instead of taking of the fire from the altar, which was newly kindled from before the Lord and which henceforward must be used in offering both sacrifice and incense (Rev_8:5), they took common fire, probably from that with which the flesh of the peace-offerings was boiled, and this they made use of in burning incense; not being holy fire, it is called strange fire; and, though not expressly forbidden, it was crime enough that God commanded it not. For (as bishop Hall well observes here) It is a dangerous thing, in the service of God, to decline from his own institutions; we have to do with a God who is wise to prescribe his own worship, just to require what he has prescribed, and powerful to revenge what he has not prescribed. 3. Incense was always to be burned by only one priest at a time, but here they would both go in together to do it. 4. They did it rashly, and with precipitation. They snatched their censers, so some read it, in a light careless way, without due reverence and seriousness: when all the people fell upon their faces, before the glory of the Lord, they thought the dignity of their office was such as to exempt them from such abasements. The familiarity they were admitted to bred a contempt of the divine Majesty; and now that they were priests they thought they might do what they pleased. 5. There is reason to suspect that they were drunk when they did it, because of the law which was given upon this occasion, Lev_10:8. They had been feasting upon the peace-offerings, and the drink-offerings that attended them, and so their heads were light, or, at least, their hearts were merry with wine; they drank and forgot the law (Pro_31:5) and were guilty of this fatal miscarriage. 6. No doubt it was done presumptuously; for, if it had been done through ignorance, they would have been allowed the benefit of the law lately made, even for the priests, that they should bring a sin-offering, Lev_4:2, Lev_4:3. But the soul that doth aught presumptuously, and in contempt of God's majesty, authority, and justice, that soul shall be cut of, Num_15:30.II. The dreadful punishment of this sin: There went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, Lev_10:2. This fire which consumed the sacrifices came the same way with that which had consumed the sacrifices (Lev_9:24), which showed what justice would have done to all the guilty people if infinite mercy had not found and accepted a ransom; and, if that fire struck such an awe upon the people, much more would this.1. Observe the severity of their punishment. (1.) They died. Might it not have sufficed if they had been only struck with a leprosy, as Uzziah, or struck dumb, as Zechariah, and both by the altar of incense? No; they were both struck dead. The wages of this sin was death. (2.) They died suddenly, in the very act of their sin, and had not time so much as to cry, Lord, have mercy upon us! Though God is long-suffering to us-ward, yet sometimes he makes quick work with sinners; sentence is executed speedily: presumptuous sinners bring upon themselves a swift destruction, and are justly denied even space to repent. (3.) They died before the Lord; that is, before the veil that covered the mercy-seat; for even mercy itself will not suffer its own glory to be affronted. Those that sinned before the Lord died before him. Damned sinners are said to be tormented in the presence of the Lamb, intimating that he does not interpose on their behalf, Rev_

4

14:10. (4.) They died by fire, as by fire they sinned. They slighted the fire that came from before the Lord to consume the sacrifices, and thought other fire would do every jot as well; and now God justly made them feel the power of that fire which they did not reverence. Thus those that hate to be refined by the fire of divine grace will undoubtedly be ruined by the fire of divine wrath. The fire did not burn them to ashes, as it had done the sacrifices, nor so much as singe their coats (Lev_10:5), but, like lightning, struck them dead in an instant; by these different effects of the same fire God would show that it was no common fire, but kindled by the breath of the Almighty, Isa_30:23. (5.) It is twice taken notice of in scripture that they died childless, Num_3:4, and 1Ch_24:2. By their presumption they had reproached God's name, and God justly blotted out their names, and laid that honour in the dust which they were proud of.2. But why did the Lord deal thus severely with them? Were they not the sons of Aaron, the saint of the Lord, nephews to Moses, the great favourite of heaven? Was not the holy anointing oil sprinkled upon them, as men whom God had set apart for himself? Had they not diligently attended during the seven days of their consecration, and kept the charge of the Lord, and might not that atone for this rashness? Would it not excuse them that they were young men, as yet unexperienced in these services, that it was the first offence, and done in a transport of joy for their elevation? And besides, never could men be worse spared: a great deal of work was now lately cut out for the priests to do, and the priesthood was confined to Aaron and his seed; he has but four sons; if two of them die, there will not be hands enough to do the service of the tabernacle; if they die childless, the house of Aaron will become weak and little, and the priesthood will be in danger of being lost for want of heirs. But none of all these considerations shall serve either to excuse the offence or bring off the offenders. For, (1.) The sin was greatly aggravated. It was a manifest contempt of Moses, and the divine law that was given by Moses. Hitherto it had been expressly observed concerning every thing that was done that they did it as the Lord commanded Moses, in opposition to which it is here said they did that which the Lord commanded them not, but they did it of their own heads. God was now teaching his people obedience, and to do every thing by rule, as becomes servants; for priests therefore to break rules and disobey was such a provocation as must by no means go unpunished. Their character made their sin more exceedingly sinful. For the sons of Aaron, his eldest sons, whom God had chosen to be immediate attendants upon him, for them to be guilty of such a piece of presumption, it cannot be suffered. There was in their sin a contempt of God's glory, which had now newly appeared in fire, as if that fire were needless, they had as good of their own before. (2.) Their punishment was a piece of necessary justice, now at the first settling of the ceremonial institutions. It is often threatened in the law that such and such offenders should be cut off from the people; and here God explained the threatening with a witness. Now that the laws concerning sacrifices were newly made, lest any should be tempted to think lightly of them because they descended to many circumstances which seemed very minute, these that were the first transgressors were thus punished, for warning to others, and to show how jealous God is in the matters of his worship. Thus he magnified the law and made it honourable; and let his priests know that the caution which so often occurs in the laws concerning them, that they must do so that they die not, was not a mere bugbear, but fair warning of their danger, if they did the work of the Lord negligently. And no doubt this exemplary piece of justice at first prevented many irregularities afterwards. Thus Ananias and Sapphira were punished, when they presumed to lie to the Holy Ghost, that newly-descended fire. (3.) As the people's falling into idolatry, presently after the moral law was given, shows the weakness of the law and its insufficiency to take away sin, so

5

the sin and punishment of these priests show the imperfection of that priesthood from the very beginning, and its inability to shelter any from the fire of God's wrath otherwise than as it was typical of Christ's priesthood, in the execution of which there never was, nor can be, any irregularity, or false step taken.

JAMISON, "Lev_10:1-20. Nadab and Abihu burnt.the sons of Aaron, etc. If this incident occurred at the solemn period of the consecrating and dedicating the altar, these young men assumed an office which had been committed to Moses; or if it were some time after, it was an encroachment on duties which devolved on their father alone as the high priest. But the offense was of a far more aggravated nature than such a mere informality would imply. It consisted not only in their venturing unauthorized to perform the incense service - the highest and most solemn of the priestly offices - not only in their engaging together in a work which was the duty only of one, but in their presuming to intrude into the holy of holies, to which access was denied to all but the high priest alone. In this respect, they offered strange fire before the Lord; they were guilty of a presumptuous and unwarranted intrusion into a sacred office which did not belong to them. But their offense was more aggravated still; for instead of taking the fire which was put into their censers from the brazen altar, they seem to have been content with common fire and thus perpetrated an act which, considering the descent of the miraculous fire they had so recently witnessed and the solemn obligation under which they were laid to make use of that which was specially appropriated to the service of the altars, they betrayed a carelessness, an irreverence, a want of faith, most surprising and lamentable. A precedent of such evil tendency was dangerous, and it was imperatively necessary, therefore, as well for the priests themselves as for the sacred things, that a marked expression of the divine displeasure should be given for doing that which God commanded them not.

K&D 1-3, "Nadab and Abihu took their censers (machtah, Exo_25:38), and having put fire in them, placed incense thereon, and brought strange fire before Jehovah, which He had not commanded them. It is not very clear what the offence of which they were guilty actually was. The majority of expositors suppose the sin to have consisted in the fact, that they did not take the fire for the incense from the altar-fire. But this had not yet been commanded by God; and in fact it is never commanded at all, except with regard to the incense-offering, with which the high priest entered the most holy place on the day of atonement (Lev_16:12), though we may certainly infer from this, that it was also the rule for the daily incense-offering. By the fire which they offered before Jehovah, we are no doubt to understand the firing of the incense-offering. This might be called strange fire if it was not offered in the manner prescribed in the law, just as in Exo_30:9incense not prepared according to the direction of God is called strange incense. The supposition that they presented an incense-offering that was not commanded in the law, and apart from the time of the morning and evening sacrifice, and that this constituted their sin, is supported by the time at which their illegal act took place. It is perfectly obvious from Lev_10:12. and 16ff. that it occurred in the interval between the sacrificial transaction in ch. 9 and the sacrificial meal which followed it, and therefore upon the day of their inauguration. For in Lev_10:12 Moses commands Aaron and his remaining sons Eleazar and Ithamar to eat the meat-offering that was left from the firings of

6

Jehovah, and inquires in Lev_10:16 for the goat of the sin-offering, which the priests were to have eaten in a holy place. Knobel's opinion is not an improbable one, therefore, that Nadab and Abihu intended to accompany the shouts of the people with an incense-offering to the praise and glory of God, and presented an incense-offering not only at an improper time, but not prepared from the altar-fire, and committed such a sin by this will-worship, that they were smitten by the fire which came forth from Jehovah, even before their entrance into the holy place, and so died before Jehovah. The expression before Jehovah is applied to the presence of God, both in the dwelling (viz., the holy place and the holy of holies, e.g., Lev_4:6-7; Lev_16:13) and also in the court (e.g., Lev_1:5, etc.). It is in the latter sense that it is to be taken here, as is evident from Lev_10:4, where the persons slain are said to have lain before the sanctuary of the dwelling, i.e., in the court of the tabernacle. The fire of the holy God (Exo_19:18), which had just sanctified the service of Aaron as well-pleasing to God, brought destruction upon his two eldest sons, because they had not sanctified Jehovah in their hearts, but had taken upon themselves a self-willed service; just as the same gospel is to one a savour of life unto life, and to another a savour of death unto death (2Co_2:16). - In Lev_10:3 Moses explains this judgment to Aaron: This is it that Jehovah spake, saying, I will sanctify Myself in him that is nigh to Me, and will glorify Myself in the face of all the people. is unquestionably to be taken in the same sense as in Exo_14:4, Exo_14:17; consequently is to be taken in a reflective and not in a passive sense, in the Eze_38:16. The imperfects are used as aorists, in the sense of what God does at all times. But these words of Moses are no reproof to Aaron, who had not restrained the untimely zeal of his sons (Knobel), nor a reproach which made Aaron responsible for the conduct of his sons, but a simple explanation of the judgment of God, which should be taken to heart by every one, and involved an admonition to all who heard it, not to Aaron only but to the whole nation, to sanctify God continually in the proper way. Moreover Jehovah had not communicated to Moses by revelation the words which he spoke here, but had made the fact known by the position assigned to Aaron and his sons through their election to the priesthood. By this act Jehovah had brought them near to Himself (Num_16:5), made them = persons standing near to Jehovah (Eze_42:13; Eze_43:19), and sanctified them to Himself by anointing (Lev_8:10, Lev_8:12; Exo_29:1, Exo_29:44; Exo_40:13, Exo_40:15), that they might sanctify Him in their office and life. If they neglected this sanctification, He sanctified Himself in them by a penal judgment (Eze_38:16), and thereby glorified Himself as the Holy One, who is not to be mocked. And Aaron held his peace. He was obliged to acknowledge the righteousness of the holy God.

CALVIN, "1.And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron A memorable circumstance is here recorded, from whence it appears how greatly God abominates all the sins whereby the purity of religion is corrupted. Apparently it was a light transgression to use strange fire for burning incense; and again their thoughtlessness would seem excusable, for certainly Nadab and Abihu did not wantonly or intentionally desire to pollute the sacred things, but, as is often the case in matters of novelty, when they were setting about them too eagerly, their precipitancy led them into error. The severity of the punishment, therefore, would not please those arrogant people, who do not hesitate superciliously to criticise Gods judgments; but if we reflect how holy

7

a thing Gods worship is, the enormity of the punishment will by no means offend us. Besides, it was necessary that their religion should be sanctioned at its very commencement; for if God had suffered the sons of Aaron to transgress with impunity, they would have afterwards carelessly neglected the whole Law. This, therefore, was the reason of such great severity, that the priests should anxiously watch against all profanation. Their crime is specified, viz., that they offered incense in a different way from that which God had prescribed, and consequently, although they may have erred from ignorance, still they were convicted by Gods commandment of having negligently set about what was worthy of greater attention. The strange fire is distinguished from the sacred fire which was always burning upon the altar: not miraculously, as some pretend, but by the constant watchfulness of the priests. Now, God had forbidden any other fire to be used in the ordinances, in order to exclude all extraneous rites, and to shew His detestation of whatever might be derived from elsewhere. Let us learn, therefore, so to attend to Gods command as not to corrupt His worship by any strange inventions. But if He so severely avenged this error, how horrible a punishment awaits the Papists, who are not ashamed obstinately to defend so many gross corruptions! COFFMAN, "Verse 1"And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which he had not commanded them. And there came forth fire from before Jehovah and, devoured them, and they died before Jehovah. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is that Jehovah spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace. And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Draw near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp. So they drew near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp, as Moses had said. And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Let not the hair of your heads go loose, neither rend your clothes; but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which Jehovah hath kindled. And ye shall not go out from the door of the tent of meeting, lest ye die; for the anointing oil of Jehovah is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.""Which he had not commanded them ..." This is the true key to understanding the sin of Nadab and Abihu. Whatever they did here, it was totally upon their own PRESUMPTUOUS initiative, unsupported by any word whatever from the Lord. The many speculations about what their sin actually was are idle. All that they did here was SINFUL. Their taking of censers, unbidden, their putting incense upon censers carried by themselves, instead of sprinkling it upon the proper altar, their intrusion into the sanctuary in the circumstances and at the time of these events, their taking coals of fire from some place other than from the brazen altar where God had commanded the coals to be taken - all of these things were exceedingly sinful. Why? God had not authorized or commanded a single one of the things that they did.

8

Can people today commit this sin? Of course, it is impossible for people to commit exactly this sin in the form it appears here, but we must agree with Kellogg that, "As regards the inner nature and essence of this sin, no sin in all the ages has been more common."[1] What about the countless innovations and variations of Christian worship today? How many things there are which so-called Christian churches are doing "as worship of God," which are absolutely nothing else than the teachings and doctrines and practices invented by men and imposed upon the true worship! The frightful example of these unfortunate sons of Aaron serves as a grim warning in such matters.Those who wish to specify exactly what the transgression of these two sons was cannot go wrong by accepting the comment of Clements: "They transgressed the divine command regarding the altar fire by offering unholy fire before God. In Hebrew, the expression is literally `strange,' or `foreign' fire."[2] This established the principle that when God has commanded a specific action, the doing of something else additionally or instead of what he commanded is the worst form of disobedience. For example, when God commands His church to sing, that also means, do NOT play instruments of music additionally or instead of the singing.Some have tried to make out that this error for which God visited the penalty of death upon Aaron's sons was, by modern standards, understandable and forgivable. Seizing upon the instructions later given in Leviticus 10:9, it is alleged that, after all, Nadab and Abihu had simply had a little too much to drink. Of course, in the modern view, drunkenness excuses everything from murderous driving on the streets and highways to rape, incest, and wife-beating! First, it is totally incorrect to ascribe drunkenness to these disobedient sons. There is no connection whatever between Leviticus 10:9 and this episode, as attested by Clements and many others.[3]Knight's comment on the sin of these two brothers was as follows: "Theirs was a flagrant piece of disobedience and disloyalty to God. These men were virtually saying, "Our fire is as good as yours, God! We don't need yours." This is an acted parable of the way secular man thinks about his relation to God."[4]The same author added that their sins came under the category of "sins with a high hand" and so were worthy of death."Fire from before Jehovah ... devoured them ..." (Leviticus 10:2). Certainly, this was a case of instantaneous divine judgment against presumptuous sin, but the whole conception of the wrath of God and divine judgment against sinners is almost totally foreign to the popular theologies so widely received in today's world. Therefore, as Wenham said, "(Such examples) are upsetting to the cozy-bourgeois attitudes that often pass for Christian. In many parts of the church, the Biblical

9

view of divine judgment is conveniently forgotten."[5]There are a number of other such judgments recorded in the Bible. God slew the first two sons of Judah for failure in their duty to Tamar (Genesis 38:7-10). In the early church, Ananias and Sapphira were stricken with sudden death for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5). Uzzah's laying hands upon the ark of the covenant was likewise thus punished (2 Samuel 6:7,8). The startling example here should "challenge Bible-believing Christians whose theological attitudes are influenced by prevailing trends of thought."[6]"Devoured them ..." The meaning here is simply that they were instantly killed. As evidenced by Leviticus 10:5, neither their bodies nor their ceremonial dress (the coats) were consumed. It seems to have been resembling a stroke of lightning.Jamieson based an opinion upon the use of the words "from before the Lord" in Leviticus 10:2, that, "This fire issued from the most Holy Place."[7] Of course, God does not punish gross and presumptuous sinners in these days as he did in the instance here, "but that is no reason to think that the sinner will not have his reckoning yet at some time in some place."[8] "Some men's sins are evident, going before unto judgment; and some men also they follow after" (1 Timothy 5:24). "We must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body" (2 Corinthians 5:10).It perhaps may be a gross error to conclude from such O.T. judgments as this that the objects of such prompt and total punishment were also to be condemned to eternal death at the time of the final judgment, and, although no one can deny that such an eventuality might indeed ensue, there are some hints in the Bible that such might not be the case. For example, the following words by Kellogg point out such a hint: "In 1 Corinthians 11:30-32, we are told that among the Christians of Corinth, many, because of their irreverence for the Lord's Supper, slept the sleep of death (physical death). The judgment was sent not to assure their eternal destruction, but in order that they might not finally perish. The apostle's words are explicit: `But when we are thus judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.'"[9]Kellogg's argument might not be correct, but the total absence in the Word of God regarding the eternal state of any person thus judged leaves the matter unresolved as far as any positive teaching is concerned. It will be remembered in this connection that the apostles of Christ never mentioned Judas after his death, except in prayer. The awful question remains unanswered."Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel ..." The pedigree of these men is given in Exodus 6:18,22. They were cousins of the stricken brothers. "Being Levites, they were forbidden to defile themselves by contact with the dead. Aaron, as

10

High Priest, was explicitly forbidden to do so, whereas ordinary priests were allowed to defile themselves for near relatives (Leviticus 21:2ff)."[10]"Let not the hair of your head go loose ..." (Leviticus 10:6). This is a disputed passage, and there is ample reason for believing it means "do not shave your head."[11] The shaving of the head was a common mode of expressing great grief."Rend not your garments ..." Aaron was strictly included in this prohibition, the tearing of garments being absolutely forbidden to the High Priest. In the light of this, how hypocritical and shameful was the action of Caiaphas who, upon hearing the confession of Jesus under oath, to the truth that he was the Divine Messiah, "rent his clothes" (Mark 14:63).Some of the church fathers think that by this action Caiaphas involuntarily typified the rending of the priesthood from himself and from the Jewish nation.[12]"This is that Jehovah spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me ..." (Leviticus 10:3). Wenham's paraphrase of this is: "The closer a man is to God, the more attention he is to pay to holiness and the glory of God."[13] By this, Moses surely inferred that Nadab and Abihu should certainly have known better than to act so presumptuously."And they did according to the word of Moses ..." Aaron and his remaining sons accepted with all grace and humility the stern demands of Moses, and no higher credit to them could have been given than the magnificent words here.COKE, "Leviticus 10:1. And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron The offence of Nadab and Abihu, according to almost all the commentators, was their kindling their censers from strange or common fire; not from the fire which burned always upon the altar of the Lord: (see ch. Leviticus 16:12.) One may conceive, from the prohibition of wine to the priests immediately following this catastrophe, Leviticus 10:9 that the too free use of wine had occasioned them to act thus, contrary to what God had commanded; for though there is no law extant prohibiting the offering of common fire, yet it is not to be supposed that they would have been condemned to death had they not done something which God had expressly forbidden, or omitted what he had expressly commanded. Hence the words, which he commanded them not, are thought to imply an express prohibition; as if it had been said, which he had forbidden. See Jeremiah 32:35. As strange incense, i.e. other incense than God had appointed, is forbidden, Exodus 30:9 so strange fire is implicitly forbidden, ch. Leviticus 6:12 as afterwards God sheweth, ch. Leviticus 16:2. We refer to the reflections at the end of the chapter for a further account of this extraordinary event; which, however, a learned writer, in a distinct treatise on the subject, explains in a very different manner: he makes two objections against the common interpretation, remarking, 1st, That Moses gives to the fire, of which the two sons of Aaron made use, the direct name of fire without any qualification; not calling it strange fire till after he had said that they put incense thereon: so that, considering

11

the mode of expression he uses, it seems as if the fire which Nadab and Abihu employed was not in itself a strange fire, and only became such when they had cast the incense upon it. 2nd, He insists, that the last verse of the foregoing chapter destroys the common interpretation; where it is said, that there came a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt-offering and the sat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces: to which Moses immediately adds, And Nadab and Abihu, the sons, &c. It seems, therefore, that, as soon as the sacred fire had descended upon the burnt-offering and the fat, in the presence of all the people and in view of Aaron and his sons, then, precisely then, these took each of them his censer, and put fire therein. Now, how does it appear that they could have taken of any other fire upon the spot than that which they attended, and which, it is most probable, God had before expressly commanded them to make use of?But why, then, should Moses call the fire with which Nadab and Abihu furnished themselves strange? To this the learned divine answers, because they put the incense upon this fire in another manner than that which God had ordained. According to him, the passage should be thus rendered, Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put [sacred] fire therein, and put incense thereon: thus they offered strange fire before the Lord, which had been forbidden them. There are three considerations, which are advanced to confirm this conjecture: 1st, It is certain that the priests were to kindle incense in the holy place upon the golden altar: Maimonides and several rabbies are express on this head. 2nd, It is evident, from the words of the sacred historian, that Nadab and Abihu put the incense upon the fire of their censers previous to their coming before the Lord: this we are led to conclude from the connexion and construction of the passage. Lastly, it is clear, that the Scripture often gives the epithet strange to that which is improperly joined, or mixed with other things. Thus a false worship offered to the true God is called a strange worship, as a prostitute is denominated a strange woman; (Proverbs 7:5.) and the incense, compounded in another manner than God had appointed, whether as to the quantity or quality of the drugs, is called strange incense: (Exodus 9:34-35.) Here, therefore, it is urged in like manner, the strange fire was sacred fire, rendered strange, or impure, by the association of incense put to it, contrary to the rules, and in contempt of the orders which God had given, though Moses does not mention them. See Theodor. Scheltinga, de fato Nadabi & Abihu; and Chais on the passage. ELLICOTT, "(1) And Nadab and Abihu.Immediately after the Divine manifestation of Gods acceptance of the services connected with the institution of the priesthood, and whilst the congregation are still giving utterance to their profound expressions of thankfulness and joy, the assembled people see a most daring act of sacrilege committed by two of the five newly-installed priests, and have to witness the most awful punishment which befals the offenders. The offenders are the two eldest sons of Aaron, who had received the high distinction to be invited to accompany their father and Moses to the summit of the hallowed mount (Exodus 24:1); the lesson to the Israelites being that the priests, though mediators between

12

God and the people, are beset with the same infirmities as the laity, and must not presume upon their office.Took either of them his censer.The sin of Nadab and Abihu was of a complicated nature, and involved and consisted of several transgressions:(1) They each took his own censer, and not the sacred utensil of the sanctuary. (2) They both offered it together, whereas the incense was only to be offered by one. (3) They presumptuously encroached upon the functions of the high priest; for according to the Law the high priest alone burnt incense in a censer. (Sec Leviticus 16:12-13; Numbers 17:11.) The ordinary priests only burnt it on the golden altar in the holy place (Exodus 30:7-8), or on the brazen altar as a part of the memorial. (See Leviticus 2:2-3; Leviticus 2:16, &c.) The case of Korah and his company was an exception, since it was ordered by Moses for an especial purpose (Numbers 16:6-25). (4) They offered the incense at an unauthorised time, since it was apart from the morning and evening sacrifice.And offered strange fire.They filled their vessels with common fire instead of taking it from the holy fire of the altar, which was always to be used in burning incense. (See Leviticus 9:24; Leviticus 16:12.) It is with reference to this practice that we are toldAnd the angel took the censer and filled it with fire off the altar (Revelation 8:5). Ancient tradition says that Nadab and Abihu had partaken too freely of the drink offering, and performed their service in a state of intoxication, when they were incapacitated to distinguish between what was legal and illegal. So general was this tradition that it is actually embodied in the Palestinian Chaldee Version of Leviticus 10:9, which contains the solemn warning against wine to those engaged in the service of the sanctuary, and which is regarded as a sequel to this awful catastrophe. Others, however, suppose that the phrase strange fire denotes not offered according to the prescribed law, just as strange incense is used in the sense of incense not prepared in the manner ordered by the Law (Exodus 30:9).Before the Lord.This may mean before the door of the sanctuary (see Leviticus 1:5), or in front of the holy of holies. (See Leviticus 4:6.) As the dead bodies are said in Leviticus 10:4 to have lain in the court of the tabernacle, the former must be the meaning in the passage before us.Which he commanded them not.According to a figure of speech frequently used in Hebrew, where the negative form is used for the emphatic affirmative, this phrase is better rendered, which he had strongly forbidden them. Though the command is only expressed in Leviticus 16:12, there can hardly be any doubt that it was previously given by Moses, since it is implied in Leviticus 1:7; Leviticus 6:12. A similar reference to a well known statement, though not here recorded, we have in the following verse.TRAPP, "Leviticus 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.

13

Ver. 1. And Nadab and Abihu.] These jolly young priests, overjoyed haply of their new employment and overwarmed with wine, as some gather out of Leviticus 10:9, over did themselves the very day of their service, [Leviticus 10:19] and are suddenly surprised by a doleful death. So was that inconsiderate priest of Naples, Anno Dom. 1457, of whom Wolphius (a) reports, that when the hill Vesuvius had sent huge flames, and done great spoil, he, to make proof of his piety, read a mass, and would needs go up the hill to find out the cause of such a calamity. But for a reward of his foolhardiness, he perished in the flames, and was never heard of any more. BENSON, "Leviticus 10:1. Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron He had other sons; but these were the two eldest, Exodus 6:23. Took either of them his censer That is, a certain vessel, in which they put coals of fire for burning incense. This is supposed to have happened on the last day of their consecration, when fire came down from heaven, Leviticus 9:24. Their sin was that they offered incense with what is here called strange fire, that is, common fire, or fire not taken from the altar. Thus incense, which was not such as was prescribed, is called strange incense, Exodus 30:9. Which he commanded them not This is what we call a Meiosis, where more is understood than is expressed. It implies not only that they did it of their own proper motion, without any command or authority from God, but that they did it against his command; in which sense the expression is used Jeremiah 32:35. For though no express law is recorded, as having been already given, prohibiting to offer common fire, yet as it was forbidden implicitly Leviticus 6:12, especially when God himself made a comment upon that text, and by sending fire from heaven, declared of what fire he there spake; so it is more than probable it was forbidden expressly, though that be not here mentioned, nor was it necessary it should. Indeed, it is not to be supposed they would have been punished with death, if they had not done something which God had expressly forbidden, or omitted what he had expressly commanded. It is not easy to say how two such persons, who had the honour and happiness of being with God on the mount, (Exodus 24:1; Exodus 24:9-10,) could be guilty of this fatal error. Some think they had drunk too freely at the feast upon the peace-offerings, which made them forget themselves; because of the prohibition against drinking wine or strong drink, which immediately follows the relation of this event.WHEDON, "1. Offered strange fire These men were not at liberty to take each his own censer; there was a utensil provided for that action, and for any man to bring his own ironmongery to serve in such a cause was to insult the Spirit of the Universe. They ventured to put incense thereon, when only the pontiff of Israel was allowed to use such incense. Joseph Parker. The fire is called strange in distinction from that of celestial origin which came out from before Jehovah and consumed the burnt offering.Leviticus 9:24. The great difficulty in this matter is found in the absence of any previously recorded regulation touching the proper use of sacrificial fire. This regulation is found in Leviticus 16:12. The presumption is very strong that it was

14

instituted before the events narrated in chapters 9 and 10, since the statute respecting the preservation of the altar-fire was given in Leviticus 6:9; Leviticus 6:13. For various theories respecting this sin, see Numbers 3:4, note. Their sin consisted in the performance of the Lords service in a manner which he commanded them not. They departed in some way from the plain words of Jehovah, deeming their own reason a better guide in religious matters. Very much of that which passes among men for the worship of God is but strange fire.MACLAREN, "STRANGE FIRELeviticus 10:1 - Leviticus 10:11.This solemn story of sin and punishment is connected with the preceding chapter by a simple and. Probably, therefore, Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire, immediately after the fire from Jehovah had consumed the appointed sacrifice. Their sin was aggravated by the time of its being committed. But a week had passed since the consecration of their father and themselves as priests. The first sacrifices had just been offered, and here, in the very blossoming time, came a vile canker. If such licence in setting aside the prescriptions of the newly established sacrificial order asserted itself then, to what lengths might it not run when the first impression of sanctity and of Gods commandment had been worn by time and custom? The sin was further aggravated by the sinners being priests, who were doubly obliged to punctilious adherence to the instituted ritual. If they set the example of contempt, would not the people better {or, rather, worsen} their instruction?Unquestionably, their punishment was awfully severe. But we shall entirely misconceive their sin if we judge it by our standards. We are not dependent on forms as Israel was, but the spiritual religion of Christianity was only made possible by the externalism of the older system. The sweet kernel would not have softened and become juicy without the shelter of the hard shell. Scaffolding is needed to erect a building; and he is not a wise man who either despises or would keep permanently standing the scaffold poles.We draw a broad distinction between positive commandments and moral or religious obligations. But in the Mosaic legislation that distinction does not exist. There, all precepts are Gods uttered will, and all disobedience is rebellion against Him. Nor could it be otherwise at the stage of development which Israel had reached.What, then, was the crime of these two rash sons of Aaron? That involves two questions: What did they do? and What was the sin of doing it? The former question may be answered in various ways. Certainly the designation of strange fire seems best explained by the usual supposition that it means fire not taken from the altar. The other explanations, which make the sin to have been offering at an unauthorised time, or offering incense not compounded according to the prescription, give an unnatural meaning to the phrase. It was the fire which was

15

wrong,-that is, it was fire which they had kindled, caught up from some common culinary hearth, or created by themselves in some way.What was their sin in thus offering it? Plainly, the narrative points to the essence of the crime in calling it fire which He had not commanded. So this was their crime, that they were tampering with the appointed order which but a week before they had been consecrated to conserve and administer; that they were thus thrusting in self-will and personal caprice, as of equal authority with the divine commandment; that they were arrogating the right to cut and carve Gods appointments, as the whim or excitement of the moment dictated; and that they were doing their best to obliterate the distinction on the preservation of which religion, morality, and the national existence depended; namely, the distinction between holy and common, clean and unclean. To plough that distinction deep into the national consciousness was no small part of the purpose of the law; and here were two of its appointed witnesses disregarding it, and flying in its face. The flash of holy fire consuming the sacrifices had scarcely faded off their eyeballs when they thus sinned.They have had many successors, not only in Israel, while a ritual demanding punctilious conformity lasted, but in Christendom since. Alas! our censers are often flaming with strange fire. How much so-called Christian worship glows with self-will or with partisan zeal! When we seek to worship God for what we can get, when we rush into His presence with hot, eager desires which we have not subordinated to His will, we are burning strange fire which He has not commanded. The only fire which should kindle the incense in our censers, and send it up to heaven in fragrant wreaths, is fire caught from the altar of sacrifice. God must kindle the flame in our hearts if we are to render these else cold hearts to Him.The prayers I bring will then be sweet indeedIf Thou the Spirit give, by which I pray.The swift, terrible punishment does indeed bear marks of the severity of that earlier stage of revelation. But it was not disproportioned to the offence, and it was not the cruelty of a martinet who avenged ceremonial lapses with penalties which should have been kept for moral offences. The surface of the sin was ceremonial impropriety: the heart of it was flouting Jehovah and His law. It was better that two men should die, and the whole nation perish not, as it would have done if their example had been followed. It is mercy to trample out the first sparks beside a powder-barrel.There is a very striking parallel between Leviticus 10:2 and the last verse of the preceding chapter. In both the same expression is used, There came forth fire from before the Lord, and consumed {the word rendered devoured in Leviticus 10:2 is the same in Hebrew as consumed} . So, then, the same divine fire, which had graciously signified Gods acceptance of the appointed sacrifice, now flashed out with lightning-like power of destruction, and killed the two rebel priests. There is

16

dormant potency of destruction in the God who reveals Himself as gracious. The wrath of the Lamb is as real as His gentleness. The Gospel is the savour of life unto life and of death unto death.Moses word to the stunned father is of a piece with the severity of the whole incident. No voice of condolence or sympathy comes from him. The brother is swallowed up in the lawgiver. He puts into words the meaning of the terrible stroke, and expects Aaron to acquiesce, though his heart bleeds. What was his interpretation? He saw in it Gods purpose to be sanctified in them that come nigh Him. The priests were these. Nadab and Abihu had been consecrated for the purpose of enforcing the truth of Gods holiness. They had done the very opposite, by breaking down the distinction between sacred and common.But their nearness to God brought with it not only corresponding obligations, but corresponding criminality and penalty, if these obligations were not discharged. If God is not sanctified by His servants, He will sanctify Himself on them. If His people do not set forth His infinite separation from all evil and elevation above all creatures, He will proclaim these truths in lightning that kills and thunder that roars. It is a universal law which Moses sternly spoke to Aaron instead of comfort, bidding him recognise the necessity of the fearful blow to his paternal heart. You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.The prohibition to Aaron and his sons to show signs of mourning is as stern as the rest of the story, and serves to insist upon the true point of view from which to regard it. For the official representatives of the divine order of worship to mourn the deaths of its assailants would have seemed to indicate their murmuring at Gods judgments, and might have led them to participate in the sin while they lamented its punishment. It is hard to mourn and not to repine. Affection blinds to the ill-desert of its objects. Nadabs and Abihus stark corpses lying in the forecourt of the sanctuary, and Aarons dry eyes and undisturbed attire, proclaim the same truths,-the gravity of the dead mens sin, and the righteous judgment of God. But the people might sorrow, for their mourning would help to imprint on them more deeply the lessons of the dread event.While the victims cousins carried their bodies to their graves in the sand, their father and brothers had to remain in the Tabernacle, because the anointing oil of Jehovah is upon you. That oil, as the symbol of the Spirit, separates those on whom it is poured from all contact with death, from participation in sin, from the weight of sorrow. What have immortality, righteousness, joy in the Holy Ghost, to do with these dark shadows? Those whom God has called to His immediate service must hold themselves apart from earthly passions, and must control natural affection, if indulging it imperils their clear witness to Gods righteous will.The prohibition [Leviticus 10:8] of wine and strong drink during the discharge of the priestly functions seems to suggest that Nadab and Abihu had committed their

17

sin while in some degree intoxicated. Be that as it may, the prohibition is rested upon the necessity of preserving, in all its depth and breadth, the distinction between common and holy which Nadab and Abihu had broken down. That distinction was to be very present to the priest in his work, and how could he have the clearness of mind, the collectedness and composure, the sense of the sanctity of his office, and ministrations which it requires and gives, if he was under the influence of strong drink?Nothing has more power to blur the sharpness of moral and religious insight than even a small amount of alcohol. God must be worshipped with clear brain and naturally beating heart. Not the fumes of wine, in which there lurks almost necessarily the tendency to excess, but the being filled with the Spirit supplies the only legitimate stimulus to devotion. Besides the personal reason for abstinence, there was another,-namely, that only so could the priests teach the people the statutes of Jehovah. Lips stained from the wine-cup would not be fit to speak holy words. Words spoken by such would carry no power.Gods servants can never impress on the sluggish conscience of society their solemn messages from God, unless they are conspicuously free from self-indulgence, and show by their example the gulf, wide as between heaven and hell, which parts cleanness from uncleanness. Our lives must witness to the eternal distinction between good and evil, if we are to draw men to abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is good.PETT, "IntroductionChapter 10 A Stark Lesson and a Glorious Continuation.But as so often when there is blessing, disobedience comes. Men have a strange ability to forget their own weakness and begin to think that they know better than God, to declare, I am the captain of my soul, I am the master of my fate, even at such times as this. And thus it was with Aarons elder sons. In overweening pride, or overweening folly, or both, they ignored what God had revealed and chose to follow their own way. They offered what Yahweh had not laid down in a way that demonstrated that they despised the set service of the tabernacle. They did not fully follow His will. Were they not now superior to common mortals? Had they not been with Yahweh in the Mount? (Exodus 24:9). Could they not now lead the way with their own innovations (which were simply pagan practises)?This whole chapter concerns the holiness of God and the necessity for His people to be fully holy if they are to meet with Him. It first declares that His ordinances must be followed exactly. It then goes on to declare that the priests, in preparation for their service, are to keep away from alcohol when about to enter His presence, are to be careful to discern at all times between what is clean and unclean, and are therefore to avoid all that is unclean, and that they are to ensure that the people are made fully aware of all covenant requirements, that they sin not in any way. It

18

commences with this example of those who failed in holiness, and died for it, and then goes on to deal with various requirements in order to maintain the holiness of the Sanctuary, all of which are made more serious by these untimely deaths of those who failed to discern Gods holiness. The stress all through is on the holiness of God.Verses 1-7Disobedience Brings Death For the Disobedient And A Test For The Faithful (Leviticus 10:1-7).Leviticus 10:1And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire in it, and laid incense on it, and offered strange fire before Yahweh, which he had not commanded them.Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, transgressed against the holiness of God. They treated holy things lightly, and brought Gods judgment on themselves. When dealing with God we too need always to remember with Whom we have to do.As sons of Aaron Nadab and Abihu might possibly one day have had the right as his deputies to put fire in the holy censers from the altar of incense, and to put incense on it, and bear it within the veil (if Aaron was unwittingly ceremonially unclean or ill on the Day of Atonement), and they would certainly have had the right to offer incense on the altar of incense at the time of the morning and evening sacrifices that its odour might go within the veil. But the right was carefully restricted and limited. God must not be demeaned, nor must His holy things be treated lightly. He had given no authority otherwise to burn incense in censers.So what they had not the right to do was to do their own thing. Indeed at such a time at this when the very priesthood was new, such an attitude would only lead swiftly into error. It had to be severely dealt with. We must recognise that what they did was done deliberately and with an ungodly attitude. They would certainly have had to hide what they were about from Aaron and their other brothers.Strange fire. It was strange fire because it was unauthorised fire. It may be that the coals had not been taken from the altar of incense, the altar before Yahweh (Leviticus 16:12), and thus were not holy (they probably had to sneak in their ashes for otherwise Aaron would have asked what they were doing), that the censers were their own and not sanctified, and that the incense was not of the prescribed type and was therefore also not holy (Exodus 30:9, compare Exodus 30:34-38; Exodus 37:29). Thus would they be bringing in what was not holy to the Holy Place. That was bad enough. But what was far worse was that they did in His Holy Place what Yahweh had not commanded. They grossly slighted Yahweh. They took to themselves the right to worship in ways that Yahweh had not commanded or revealed, in a way

19

that was not acceptable, and they did it in Yahwehs very presence. It revealed an attitude of heart that was thoroughly blasphemous.Had it not been stopped it would have led to an anything goes situation. Compare how later Uzziah would sin in a similar way and also paid the penalty (2 Chronicles 26:16-21). We may hesitate at the seriousness of the penalty. But consider the situation. They had been by their own voluntary will sanctified as Gods priests. They had taken on a holy appointment. They had sworn to obey Yahweh absolutely. They had been made holy to Him. But now they had demonstrated that in heart they were not so. They could not be allowed therefore to continue as priests. What then was to be done? They were holy to Yahweh. They could not therefore return to what they had been. There could only be one solution, that Yahweh would remove them by fire as was done with all sanctified things that were no longer of use or that were offered to Him. (What happened to them then was between God and them).That censers could be used in this way when commanded by Yahweh comes out in Numbers 16:46 but the incident in Numbers 16:6-38 had similarities to this. There Moses challenged the malcontents sarcastically that if they wished to take on themselves the Aaronite priesthood against Gods clear commandment they follow the example of Nadab and Abihu. He was warning them that men do not take such privileges on themselves. He wanted them to remember what had happened to Nadab and Abihu when they went outside Yahwehs remit and burned incense in censers. They should all have remembered and taken heed. But foolishly they ignored the warning, they too burned incense in censers before Yahweh and they too were consumed with fire. SIMEON, "DEATH OF NADAB AND ABIHULeviticus 10:1-3. And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them; and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.IN all that we behold around us there is a great degree of obscurity, so that we can judge but very imperfectly either of the actions of men, or of the dispensations of God. For want of an insight into the motives of mens conduct, we cannot form a correct estimate of their character; nor can we, without a revelation from heaven, distinguish those events which come directly from God, and those which, though ultimately referable to him, proceed rather from secondary causes. But in the Bible we find certainty. We learn the principles by which men are actuated; and see the hand of God accomplishing his own unerring purpose. We behold sin in all its diversified forms; virtue in all its various degree; mercies in all their rich extent; and judgments in all their tremendous consequences. Had the event, of which we read in our text, happened in our day, we should probably have admired the zeal of

20

Nadab and Abihu, and have represented their death as a translation from the service of God in an earthly tabernacle to the enjoyment of him in the tabernacle above. It is possible too that we might have ascribed the silence of Aaron to a want of parental affection. But, through the light which the Scripture casts upon these things, we behold in the death of the former, a judgment inflicted; and, in the silence of the latter, a virtue exercised.Under these two heads we shall consider the history before us.I. The judgment inflictedNadab and Abihu were the two eldest sons of Aaron. They had been just consecrated, together with their father, to the priestly office: but,They committed a grievous sin[It should seem that they were elated with the distinction conferred upon them, and impatient to display the high privileges they enjoyed. Hence, without waiting for the proper season of burning incense, or considering in what manner God had commanded it to be done, they both together took their censers (though only one was ever so to officiate at a time) and put common fire upon them, and went in to burn incense before the Lord.Now this was a great and heinous sin: for God had just before sent fire from heaven, which he commanded to be kept always burning on the altar for the express purpose of being exclusively used in the service of the tabernacle. Their conduct therefore shewed, that they had made no just improvement of all the wonders they had seen; and that they were unconscious of the obligations which their newly-acquired honours entailed upon them. It even argued u most criminal contempt of the Divine Majesty, in opposition to whose express commands they now acted.]For this, they were visited with a most awful judgment[God, jealous of his own honour, punished their transgression, and marked their sin in their punishment. They had slighted the fire which God had given them from heaven; and he sent fresh fire to avenge his quarrel. They neglected to honour God; and He got himself honour in their destruction. They, by their example, encouraged the people to disregard the laws that had been promulged; and He, by executing judgment on the offenders, shewed the whole nation, yea and the whole world also, that he will by no means clear the guilty. Thus did God maintain the honour of his law, as he afterwards did the authority of his Gospel [Note: Acts 5:1-11.].]Whilst in them we behold with grief the enormity and desert of sin, in their afflicted father we are constrained to admire,II. The submission exercised

21

Doubtless the affliction of Aaron was exceeding great[These were his own sons, just consecrated to the high office they sustained. In them he had promised himself much comfort; and had hoped, that the whole nation would receive permanent advantage from their ministrations. But in a moment he beholds all his hopes and expectations blasted. He sees his sons struck dead by the immediate hand of God, and that too in the very act of sin, as a warning to all future generations. It they had died in any other way, his grief must have been pungent beyond expression: but to see them cut off in this way, and with all their guilt upon their heads, must have been a trial almost too great for human nature to sustain.]But he submitted to it without a murmuring word or thought[The consideration suggested to him by Moses, composed his troubled breast. God had given repeated warning that he would punish with awful severity any wilful deviations from his law [Note: Exodus 19:22; Leviticus 8:35; Leviticus 22:9.]. Now, as a Sovereign, he had a right to enact what laws he pleased: and they, as his creatures, were bound to obey them. It became him to enforce the observance of his laws, and to vindicate the honour of his insulted majesty, if any should presume to violate them. What would have been the effect if such a flagrant violation of them, in those who were to be examples to the whole nation, were overlooked? Would not a general contempt of the divine ordinances be likely to ensue? For prevention then as well as punishment, this judgment was necessary. And the consequence of it would be, that God would henceforth be honoured as a great and terrible God, and that the whole assembly of the people would learn to tremble at his word, and to obey it without reserve. Thus, however painful the stroke was to him, he submitted humbly to it, because it was necessary for the public good, and conducive to the honour of his offended God.It is not improbable too that he would recollect the forbearance exercised towards him in the matter of the golden calf; and that, while he deplored the fate of his children, he magnified the mercy that had spared him.]From this subject we may learn,1. To reverence Gods ordinances[Well may all, both ministers and people, learn to tremble when they approach God in the institutions of his worship. Were this example of divine vengeance duly considered, surely ministers would never dare to seek their own glory when they stand up to address their audience in the name of God. They would look well to their ministrations, and be sure that they presented before God no other fire than what they had previously taken from his own altar The people too would never venture to come to the house of God in a thoughtless or irreverent manner, but would reflect on the holiness and majesty of the Supreme Being, and endeavour to approve themselves to him in all the services they offered [Note: Psalms

22

89:7.] Beloved Brethren, it is no legal argument which we offer, when we remind you that God is jealous of his own honour, and exhort you from that consideration to take heed to yourselves whensoever you approach his house, his altar, or his throne of grace: it is the very argument urged by an inspired Apostle, and that too in reference to the history before us; Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear; for our God is a consuming fire. [Note: Hebrews 12:28-29.] ]2. To submit to his dispensations[It pleases God sometimes to try in a peculiar manner his most favoured saints. But from whatever quarter our trials come, we should view the hand of God in them, and say, It is the Lord, let him do what seemeth him good [Note: 1 Samuel 3:18. See also Psalms 38:13 and Job 1:21.]. It becomes not us to reply against God; or the clay to strive with the potter. As a Sovereign, he has a right to do with us as he will: and, if only he be glorified, we should be content, whatever we may suffer for the attainment of that end. The recollection of our own deserts should always stop our mouths, or rather prevent even the rising disposition to murmur against him. He never did, nor can in this world, punish us more than our iniquities deserve: and therefore a living man can never have occasion to complain [Note: Lamentations 3:39.]. Let us then, whatever our afflictions be, submit with meekness to his chastising hand: let us be still, and know that he is God: yea, let us be thankful that he is magnified in our body, whether it be by life or by death [Note: Philippians 1:20.].]PULPIT, "Verses 1-7EXPOSITIONTHE DEATH OF NADAB AND ABIHU, THE SONS OF AARON (Leviticus 10:1-7). The first day of Aaron's ministry had not yet closed. He had offered the sacrifices, and had entered into the holy place with Moses, and had returned to the court of the tabernacle, where the people had been standing in mute expectation, and God had shown his approval and his confirmation of him in his priestly acts by consuming the sacrifices, as they lay on the altar, with a miraculous fire emblematic of himself, when a rash act on the part of his two eldest children changed the day from one of rejoicing to one of mourning. It would seem that Nadab and Abihu, being already in a slate of exaltation from the events of the day, in which they had taken so prominent a part, felt bound, when the fire came forth from God, and the people shouted and fell on their times, to lake some step whereby to acknowledge on the part of the people the graciousness displayed so visibly by the Lord. Moses and Aaron had been parted from them when they went into the tabernacle, and were now facing the congregation, the ministers rather of God to man than of man to God, and Nadab and Abihu appear to have regarded themselves as the representatives of tile people. Without waiting for instructions, they rose from their prostration, and, preparing to make a return to God for his gift of fire by the

23

offering of incense symbolical of prayer, they lit their censers from one of the fires which had been made for boiling the sacrificial flesh, and, putting incense upon them, started forward, with the intention of carrying the burning incense to the golden altar of prayer in the holy place. They reached the door of the tabernacle, where Moses and Aaron were standing, when they were met by a blast of the same fire which had already swept to the brazen altar, and they fell dead. They had acted presumptuously. They had not, like Eleazar and Ithamar, waited for the Divine command, but, in their haste, they had irreverently broken the custom, which rested upon a Divine command, of taking the fire for the altar of incense from the altar of burnt sacrifice alone. The fact that this offense was the transgression of a positive rather than of a moral precept, would have made the lesson the more complete and emphatic. Theythe newly ordained priestshad, with whatever good intentions, done what God had not commanded, and in doing it had done what he had forbidden. Like Uzzah afterwards (2 Samuel 6:7), they died for it, that others might fear to do the same. Will-worship (Colossians 2:23) received thereby an emphatic condemnation, and priests and people were taught, in a manner not to be forgotten, that "to obey is better than sacrifice" (1 Samuel 15:22).Leviticus 10:1Nadab and Ahibu are said to have each taken his censer. This is the first time that the word used in the original is translated "censer." It means any vessel or pan that will hold embers or tinder (see Exodus 25:38; Exodus 27:3, 23; Exodus 28:3). They put fire therein, and put incense thereon. No doubt they used the incense ordered in Exodus 30:34. They are not found fault with for the incense, but for the fire that they used. They offered strange fire, that is, fire not taken from the altar of burnt offering, which they might have feared to approach after the miracle that had occurred. In Exodus 16:12 it is ordered that, on the Day of Atonement, the incense fire should be taken from the brazen altar, and this was no doubt the rule on all occasions, though the law has not been recorded.BI 1-2, "Nadab and Abihu . . . offered strange fire.The fall of Nadab and AbihuNadab and Abihu were no inconsiderable personages. They were the sons of Israels priest, the nephews of Israels leader, the head of Israels princely elders. They had been with Moses and Aaron in the hallowed mount; they had looked upon the glorious vision of God as He appeared on Sinai; they had been chosen and consecrated to the priesthood; they had stood by and assisted Aaron in the first operations of the Hebrew ritual; and in all that camp of Gods ransomed ones, Moses and Aaron alone had higher dignity than theirs. But, from the mount of vision they fell into the pit of destruction. They were accepted priests yesterday; they are disgraced victims of Gods holy indignation to-day. An event so startling and melancholy, occurring at the very inception of the Mosaic ceremonies, challenges our special attention, and calls for serious thinking.I. Let us inquire, then, into the nature of the offence which called out this startling

24

visitation upon these unfortunate men. The context shows that it was not one isolated and specific act of disobedience. It was of a complex nature, and involved sundry particulars, each of which contributed to make up the general crime for which judgment came upon the guilty ones. The special statute recorded in the ninth verse, of which this occurrence seems to have been the occasion, furnishes ground for the inference, that Nadab and Abihu had indulged too freely in stimulating drinks, and thus incapacitated themselves for that circumspection and sacred reverence which belonged to the priestly functions. And if this inference be correct, we have here another among the many sad exhibitions of the mischiefs wrought by indulging in a too free use of intoxicating liquors. The history of strong drink is the history of ruin, of tears, of blood. It is, perhaps, the greatest curse that has ever scourged the earth. But, although drunkenness was most likely the root of Nadab and Abihus offending, it was not the body of their came. If these men had not been first set on fire of hell by excessive indulgence in drink, they would never perhaps have been driven to the daring impiety which cost them their lives. The head and front of the sin of these men, as I understand it, was the presumptuous substitution of a will-worship of their own, in defiance of what God had appointed. In three points did they offendfirst, in the time; second, in the manner; and third, in the matter of the service which they undertook. It was the prerogative of Moses or Aaron to say when their services were needed; but they went precipitately to work, without waiting for instructions, or asking for directions. It was for the high priest alone to go in before the Lord and offer incense at the mercy-seat; but they wickedly encroached upon His functions, and went in themselves. Never more than one priest was to officiate in burning incense at the same time; but they both together entered upon a service which did not belong to either. These things in themselves evince a very high-handed disregard of Divine order. But the great burden of their sin rested in the matter of the service. They offered strange firecommon firefire wholly foreign to the fire which God had kindled for such purposes. They thus obtruded what was profane into what was holy, desecrated Gods ritual, cast contempt upon His institutions, put their own will-worship above His sacred regulations, and thus called down upon themselves a judgment which made all Israel tremble.II. Let us now consider some of the implications, surroundings, and foreshadowings of this sad occurrence. The shadows of the future were linked in with the facts of the past. Scarcely had Christianity been constituted, until we find a foreign and fitful spirit insinuating itself into the operations of those into whose charge its earthly services had been given (see 2Th_2:3-4; 1Jn_4:3). Along with pontifical power, came in great doctrinal and moral corruption. The one was a part of the other. Bishops retired from the pulpits to sit as spiritual lords, superior to all the kings of earth; the Virgin Mary was installed as the worlds mediator; earthly priests assumed the work of intercession, and undertook to forgive and license crime for a price; the Church was driven to the wilderness; another Abihu in his drunkenness had entered the Holy Place, and was offering strange fire before the Lord. And the thing that hath been is the thing that is. Philosophy still has its additions to make to the Word of God. Heathenish pomp still moves to lift itself up in our temples. Human reason is still at work to devise ways to worship and please God which He has not commanded. Men are still found who claim authority to perform offices for the souls of others, which belong only to our great High Priest in heaven. Thousands there are who flatter themselves that they are doing great things in their worship, though the spirit that is in them is not at all the Spirit of Christ. But it shall not always be so. There is a price annexed to all these usurpations and irregularities with regard to holy things. God has magnified His Word above all His

25

name; and he that adds to or takes from it, has his reward specified, and his portion reserved for him. Nadab and Abihu were suddenly and miraculously cut off in the midst of their sin; and so shall it be at last with all the confederates in usurpation and wrong, whether secular or ecclesiastical. Fire from the Lord shall slay them. (J. A. Seiss, D. D.)

Repulsive incenseI. Their offensive offering.

1. What rendered their incense odious to God? Strange fire.(1) Not kindled by God.(2) Not mingled with blood.

2. What corresponding offensiveness may mar our offerings? The fire is strange when our religion or work is the outcome of(1) Mere emotional fervour.(2) Mere intellectual excitement.(3) Mere feverish activity.(4) Mere self-glorifying religious effort.(5) Mere spiritual rhapsody.

II. Their rash impiety.1. Fearless presumption.2. Wilful disobedience.

III. THEIR ALARMING DESTRUCTION.1. Remember the God with whom we have to do.2. The rebuke which presumption will receive. (W. H. Jellie.)

The sin of Aarons sonsI. How elevation to high and holy positions does not place men beyond the temptation and liability to commit sin.II. How the committal of sin merits, and may meet with sudden corresponding retribution.III. How such retribution, while it condemns the sinner, vindicates the broken law and glorifies the lawgiver.

1. We may note that the punishment they received(1) Condemns them here in the eyes of all Israel.(2) Showed the exceeding sinfulness of sin; and(3) The exacting demands and exalted dignity of the law.

26

2. God thus manifesting Himself as a consuming fire showed(1) His jealousy, that He could not be openly and grossly insulted.(2) His power, that the fire which glowed in the cloud, which had kindly let them out of Egypt, protected them from their foes, and which consumed the burnt-offering on the day of consecration, had power to destroy, and, unless held in check, would consume all sinners.(3) His mercy, that while sin deserved punishment, and God had the right and power to destroy, He made judgment His strange work, and such retributionas that which visited Aarons sonsan exceptional thing. Let us learn that though worship must be voluntary yet it must be according to Gods own appointed way. Liberty is not to be perverted into lawlessness.

3. Strange fire is offered upon Gods altar when worship is presented with(1) Unsolicited materials, or from(2) Unsanctified motives. Enthusiasm is holy ardourliterally, God in usHis own fire ascending to Himself. (F. W. Brown.)

Nadab and AbihuI. The position of these two men. Regularly ordained priests of the Lord (Exo_40:12-16). They had a right, therefore, to burn incense before the Lord.II. The charge against these men (Lev_10:1).

1. The letter of the law was violated (chap. 16:12, 13).2. The essence of this sin (verse3).

(1) Emphasis to be placed on I. I will be sanctified, &c.(2) This implies that when deviations from Divine and clearly-defined instructions occur, the Lord charges that such deviations do not enhance His glory; neither is He sanctified in those who are guilty of such deviations.

III. The punishment inflicted on these men (Lev_10:2). The punishment indicates the unspeakable importance with which God regards implicit and strict obedience to the letter of all His ordinances.IV. The conduct of aaron, the father of these two men. Held his peace.

1. How great the grace needed for this.2. How exemplary the use of needed grace in such a trial as this.

V. The accustomed mourning for the dead was prohibited in respect to these men (Lev_10:6). Does not the rebellious element oftentimes enter into our mourning, and thus the grace of God, in bereavement, becomes of no practical value?VI. The new prohibition (Lev_10:8-11). The connection in which this prohibition stands suggests

1. That Nadab and Abihu were probably under the influence of some intoxicating

27

liquor when led to offer strange fire before the Lord.2. That such liquors have a tendency to unfit any one for any true spiritual exercise, because of their exciting nature.

Lessons:1. How profound a lesson is here taught in regard to the only acceptable manner of administering the ordinances of Gods housenot with the strange fire of willworship, nor by the slightest deviation from the prescribed order.2. We learn the unfitness of those who minister in holy things, who neglect the proper observance of the ordinances, and teach men so to do.3. Let us learn to submit to Gods judgments, however severe.4. Let us avoid everything that would disqualify us for acceptable worship. (D. C. Hughes, M. A.)

Lessons1. No new or strange doctrine to be brought into the Church.2. Gods election free, and of grace, not of any worthiness in man.3. That God is no accepter of persons.4. God is to be glorified even in His judgments.5. Of a double power of the Word, to life or death.6. The bodies of the dead to be reverently used, and after a seemly manner to be buried.7. That it is lawful upon just occasion to be angry. (A. Willet, D. D.)

Moral observations1. In prosperity we must think of adversity.2. Not to present ourselves before God with carnal, vile, and strange affections.3. Wherein a man sinneth, he shall be punished.4. To submit ourselves to the will of God.5. That men should not for the occasion of private grief neglect the public business, especially in Gods service.6. Against the sin of drunkenness, especially in ministers.7. That our sins are an offence unto Christ, and to all the celestial company.8. Not to be too rigorous toward those who are in heaviness, and sin in weakness. (A. Willet, D. D.)

28

Strange fireTheir sin was that to burn incense withal, they took not the fire from the altar of that which came down from heaven, and was preserved by the diligence of the priests till the captivity of Babylon, but other fire, which therefore is called strange fire because it was not fire appointed and commanded. Which fault in mans eyes may seem to have excuse, and not to deserve so fearful a punishment. For they were but yet green in their office and so of ignorance might offend, being not yet well acquainted with the nature of their office. Again, of forgetfulness they might offend, not remembering or thinking of the matter as they ought. Thirdly, there was no malice in them, or purpose to do evil, but wholly they aimed at Gods service with a true meaning, although in the manner they missed somewhat. But all these, and whatsoever like excuses, were as fig-leaves before God, vain and weak to defend them from guiltiness in the breach of His commandment.

1. First, with what severity the Lord challengeth and defendeth His authority in laying down the way and manner of His worship, not leaving it to any creature to meddle with, but according to prescription and appointment from Him. Content He is that men shall make laws for human matters, concerning their worldly estate in this earth as shall be fittest for the place where they live. Laws against murder, theft, oppression, &c., but for His Divine worship He only will prescribe it Himself, and what He appointeth that must be done and that only, or else Nadab and Abihu their punishment expected, that is, Gods wrath expected, in such manner as He shall please.2. But doth not a good intent and meaning prevail with God, albeit the thing be not expressly warranted? Yourself judge by that which you see here, and in many other Scriptures. Had Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, here any ill-meaning towards God, or did they of malicious purpose offend Him and procure their own destruction? No; you must needs think their intent was good, but because they swervest from the Word, that good intent served not. The words out of Deuteronomy are not, you shall not do ill in your own eyes, But you shall not do that which seemeth goodgood I say, and I pray you mark it, you shall not do that, but shall keep you to My commandment. Be it never so good, then, in my conceit, that is, be my meaning never so good, it profiteth not, neither shall excuse Gods destroying wrath more than it did here these sons of Aaron. There is a way, saith Solomon, that seemeth good