-
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