(3) The first priestly transgression and its punishment (1–7)

1. Nadab and Abihu were specially chosen to ‘come up unto the Lord’ with Moses, Aaron and the 70 elders (Exodus 24:1; Exodus 24:9-11, the only reference to these sons of Aaron outside P).

his censer] The Heb. word is used in this sense here, in ch. Leviticus 16:12 (of Aaron on the Day of Atonement), and in Numbers 16 (the censers of Korah and his company, and of Aaron). A dish or pan for carrying live coal is meant.

offered strange fire] This is sometimes explained as fire not taken from the altar of Burnt-Offering (cp. Leviticus 16:12; Numbers 16:46); but then the adjective ‘strange’ would have been used with fire when first mentioned—‘and put [strange] fire therein.’ If the offence consisted in bringing ‘strange incense’ (Exodus 30:9), i.e. incense not prepared according to the prescription in Exodus 30:34-36, then the next clause would have been—‘and laid [strange] incense thereon.’ The whole action is here described as ‘offering strange fire before the Lord,’ an expression found only here and in passages referring to this event (Numbers 3:4; Numbers 26:61). It was an irregular fire-offering, and the sin of Nadab and Abihu consisted in offering that which the Lord had not commanded them. At the commencement of priestly ministrations both priests and people are taught by this visitation to observe scrupulously the Divine commands in all that concerns the ministration of the sanctuary. From Leviticus 16:1 it may be conjectured that the regulations for entering into the Holy place were at one time more closely connected with this narrative.

there came forth fire from before the Lord] As in Leviticus 9:24; see note there.

devoured them] They were not wholly consumed (cp. Leviticus 10:5). For similar punishment cp. Numbers 11:1; Numbers 16:35; 2 Kings 1:10.

3. I will be sanctified] The words seem to be a quotation and are in poetical parallelism:

“In them that come nigh me I will shew myself holy,

And before all the people I will glorify myself.”

The sense is that the priests are those who have the right to approach God, and He shews Himself holy in punishing those who do it improperly.

4. For the relationship between the persons mentioned see Exodus 6:18; Exodus 6:22.

5. their coats] their priestly garments. See on Leviticus 8:13.

6. The ordinary priest might defile himself for those near of kin (Leviticus 21:2) but the high priest was not allowed to do so (Leviticus 21:11). On this occasion Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar were all subject to the stricter rule. The whole house of Israel joined in the mourning.

Let not the hair of your heads go loose] It was said to Ezekiel when forbidden to mourn, ‘bind thy headtire upon thee’ (Ezekiel 24:17). On removing the headtire the hair would fall down, so that the prohibition ‘Uncover not your heads’ (A.V.), is in effect the same. To let the hair loose and to rend the garments were and still are signs of mourning among the Jews and Eastern nations.

7. for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you] The commands of this verse do not necessarily imply that the seven days of consecration (Leviticus 8:33) are not yet ended, for a similar statement is applied in Leviticus 21:12 to the high priest at all times.

(4) Wine and strong drink forbidden (8, 9)

Aaron is the direct recipient of God’s commands here and in Numbers 18:1; Numbers 18:8; Numbers 18:20 only. Elsewhere they are given ‘unto Moses and unto Aaron’ or ‘unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron.’

According to an old tradition, Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire when under the influence of wine. The close connexion of this prohibition with the record of their transgression is probably the basis of this tradition. In many ancient cults wine was forbidden to priests and other officials. Cp. Ezekiel 44:21.

10, 11. This passage may well have an immediate relation to the preceding context, as meaning that perfect sobriety was required in order to enable them to discriminate between ‘holy’ and ‘common’ and to give right Torah. Others have thought that the words in the last clause of Leviticus 10:11 ‘the Lord hath spoken’ shew that it is not connected with Leviticus 10:8, and that Leviticus 10:9 seems marked off by its last clause from what follows. Leviticus 10:10 would form an appropriate introduction to chs. 11–15.

Driver and White (Haupt’s SBOT., ad loc.) think that something may have fallen out here.

(5) The law of eating the holy things (12–15)

The reference is to the Meal-Offering and Peace-Offering of Leviticus 9:17-18. The remainder of the Meal-Offering, after the handful therefrom had been burnt, belonged to the priests, Leviticus 2:2-3, Leviticus 6:16-18. Being most holy, it was eaten only by priests in a holy place here specified as ‘beside the altar.’ Cp. Leviticus 6:16; Leviticus 6:26; ‘in the court of the tent of meeting.’ The priestly portions of the Peace-Offering might be eaten by the families of the priests in a clean place, of course only by those who were ritually clean (Leviticus 7:20-21). The Sin-Offering when eaten, being most holy, was treated as the Meal-Offering. See Leviticus 6:24-29.

14. For the ‘wave breast’ and the ‘heave thigh’ see Appendix IV, pp. 183 ff.

(6) Aaron’s excuse for not eating the Sin-Offering (16–20)

The Sin-Offering is that of Leviticus 9:15 which was offered as the first, i.e. as Aaron’s, Sin-Offering, and burnt without the camp (Leviticus 9:11). This burning (as opposed to eating by the priests) should only have taken place, if (as was not done in this case) the blood had been brought into the ‘tent of meeting.’ Moses is angry with Aaron’s sons, but they acted under direction, and Aaron acknowledges his responsibility by replying.

17. and he hath given it you to bear [mg. to take away] the iniquity of the congregation] Two interpretations of this clause have been proposed, (a) God has given the Sin-Offering for the purpose of taking away the iniquity of the congregation, (b) God has given to you the Sin-Offering (the part not burnt on the altar) to eat for the purpose of bearing (or taking away) the iniquity … The first is a general statement as to the efficacy of the Sin-Offering; the second attributes an atoning value to the eating by the priests, although not to this action apart from the ceremonial of which it formed a constituent portion. The acceptance of a sacrifice depends on the due observance of the whole appointed ritual, and each action as contributing towards the acceptance of the whole may be said to have an atoning value.

19. Aaron in his reply admits that he should have eaten the Sin-Offering, but gives as a reason for not doing so ‘there have befallen me such things as these.’ This is explained as a reference to the death of his sons. Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar were forbidden to mourn for them; but Aaron considered their death as a sign that God was displeased and refrained from eating the Sin-Offering. The whole incident presents difficulties which have not been satisfactorily explained, one of which is that the sacrifice to which Moses refers belongs to that class of which the priests were not to eat. The direction in Leviticus 6:26, that the priest who offers a Sin-Offering ‘shall eat it’ is there limited in Leviticus 6:30, by forbidding that this shall be done when any of the blood has been brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement. In accordance with this restriction, the rebuke by Moses in Leviticus 10:18 is justified, but on the other hand it should be noted that no blood has yet been brought into the Holy place, not even that of the calf for Aaron’s Sin-Offering (Leviticus 9:8 ff.), and yet no objection against the burning of it was made by Moses.

For one who desired to defend the burning of all the parts the argument would be fairly obvious that the rules for the Sin-Offering of the priest as laid down in Leviticus 4:3 ff. direct this course. Aaron’s line of defence, however, is wholly different. Dillm. suggests that the section as it now stands has arisen through the expansion of an older and simpler narrative in P, in which was set forth the original disinclination of the priests to partake of the flesh of the Sin-Offering.

The most probable explanation of the passage is that it is an attempt to account for a discrepancy between the earlier and later ritual. That the priests should abstain, in the contemplated case, from eating the victim whose blood had not been brought into the sanctuary, was opposed to the later custom, and thus needed special circumstances to justify it, and the consequent sanction of Moses.