Levítico 10
David Guzik · Citado em PreceptAustin
Levítico 10
Guzik - We don't know what their motivation was. Perhaps it was pride, perhaps it was ambition, perhaps it was jealousy, perhaps it was impatience that motivated them. Whatever their exact motivation, it wasn’t holiness unto the LORD. Nadab and Abihu had a legacy of great spiritual experiences. They saw first-hand: All the miracles God did in bringing the nation out of Egypt. The voice of God and saw the fire, lightning, smoke, and felt the thunder and the earthquake with the rest of the nation at Mount Sinai. They went up with Moses, Aaron, and the seventy elders for a special meeting with God on Mount Sinai (Ex 24:1-2), where they saw the God of Israel … so they saw God, and they ate and drank (Ex 24:9-11). This shows that even a legacy of great spiritual experiences can’t keep us right with God - only an abiding relationship grounded in the truth of God’s word can. Strange fire (NAB “profane fire”; NIV “unauthorized fire”; NRSV “unholy fire”; NLT “a different kind of fire”) It is notable that the next section warns Aaron "Do not drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you come into the tent of meeting, so that you will not die." (Lev 10:9) This warning at least raises the possibility that Nadab and Abihu may have been inebriated which cause them to lose the self-control and sound judgment that accompany drunkenness. Before the LORD - The idea is that of "face to face." This phrase even goes so far as to suggest they actually went into the Holy of holies behind the Veil, which was only to entered by the high priest and only once per year on the Day of Atonement. Which He had not commanded them - They came to God in a way He did not authorize. They came in their own way (and their own will), which was profane. Bishop Hall - It is a dangerous thing, in the service of God, to decline from his 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 avenge what He has not prescribed. Related Resources: Who were Nadab and Abihu? What is the meaning of the strange fire in Leviticus 10:1? What is the meaning of the strange fire in Leviticus 10:1? WHAT WAS STRANGE ABOUT THEIR FIRE? What was the nature of the strange fire? The Net Note says… The infraction may have involved any of the following or a combination thereof: (1) using coals from someplace other than the burnt offering altar (i.e., “unauthorized coals” according to J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:598; cf. Lev 16:12 and cf. “unauthorized person” אִישׁ זָר (’ish zar) in Num 16:40 [17:5 HT], NASB “layman”), (2) using the wrong kind of incense (cf. the Ex 30:9 regulation against “strange incense” קְטֹרֶת זָרָה (qétoreh zarah) on the incense altar and the possible connection to Ex 30:34–38), (3) performing an incense offering at an unprescribed time (B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 59), or (4) entering the Holy of Holies at an inappropriate time (Lev 16:1–2). (Leviticus 10 Commentary) John Hartley summarizes the strange fire interpretations: Because the nature of their transgression is obscure, there have been numerous suggestions. Snaith (58–59), taking זרה to mean “laity,” posits that their sin was that of laymen trying to act as priests. But these men are listed as priests elsewhere, as in Ex 28:1 and Nu 3:1–3. Another view is that they offered an unauthorized incense offering (Keil and Delitzsch, 351). Levine (59) points out that if there is a connection between this phrase and קטרת זרה, “strange incense,” as forbidden in Ex 30:9, these men broke that decree. But their transgression concerns illicit fire, not illicit incense. The use of the phrase אשׁ זרה strongly indicates that a key element of their transgression is the source of their fire. They must have taken it from some place other than the altar of the whole offering (Laughlin, JBL 95 [1976] 560–61). Their transgression, though, may have been more involved. They may have been trying to introduce a pagan ritualistic practice into the worship of Yahweh, possibly connecting that ritual with the appearance of Yahweh. Furthermore, it is possible that these priests attempted to enter the Holy of Holies, which they were not allowed to enter, or, if they were allowed, they did not take the proper precautions (cf. Lev 16:12–13; Gradwohl, ZAW 75 [1963] 288–96). By taking such a step they might have been seeking to usurp the high priest’s privilege of offering incense in the Holy Place (Ex 30:7–9; cf. Noordtzij, 108). Kiuchi (Purification Offering, 78–81) argues from the reference to this incident in Lev 16:1–2, which gives the background for the instructions to Aaron about entering the Holy of Holies to make atonement for himself and his house on the Day of Atonement, that the restrictions placed on Aaron in those verses confirm that the sin of Nadab and Abihu involved an untimely attempt to enter the Holy of Holies and that in their attempt they usurped the privilege of Aaron. If these two priests had succeeded in exalting themselves over their father and brothers, they would have created a deep rift in the priesthood that would have tarnished the true worship of Yahweh at its very inception. (Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 4, Leviticus 593pp- John E. Hartley) Leon Hyatt - The sin of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1) Lev 10:1. Then Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put in it fire and laid on it incense and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which He had not commanded them. Then Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put in it fire and laid on it incense. Nadab and Abihu were the two older sons of Aaron (Ex. 6:23). They had been mentioned by name three other times previously (Ex. 24:1,9; 28:1). They had surely been fully informed of all of Jehovah’s instructions concerning the fire-offerings, and they had heard the repeated emphasis that the offerings were to be performed exactly as Jehovah had commanded. They had also heard the stern warning that departing from Jehovah’s instructions would result in death (see comments on Lev. 8:35-note in MESSAGE 10; see also Ex. 19:22). Yet, none of those instructions seem to have impressed them. Somehow, they still did not understand the seriousness of their responsibilities. While the people were still on their faces in awe over the appearance of The Glory fire (see comments on Lev. 9:24-note in MESSAGE 10), Nadab and Abihu rushed to use the holy articles that had been delivered to their charge like they were play things. The very fact that they were busy with anything at that holy moment shows that they missed the spiritual significance of the occasion. It seems that they were more impressed with themselves and their new authority than they were with Jehovah’s majesty. They may have rationalized in their minds that they were expressing their joy and gratitude to God by designing their own offering. However, if they truly wanted to express joy over God’s gift to them, they would have been careful to offer an offering that Jehovah had authorized. Nadab and Abihu took their censers and put fire and incense on them. The censers of the priests had been mentioned previously only in listings of vessels to be used in The Tabernacle (Ex. 25:38; 37:23; 27:3; 38:3). The only authorization for burning incense on a censer is found in Leviticus 16:12-13-note, and that instruction was not given until later for a very different purpose (see comments on those verses in MESSAGE 20). What Nadab and Abihu did was entirely their own invention. and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which He had not commanded them. “Offered strange fire before Jehovah,” means that they stood before The Tabernacle with the burning incense in their censers, because standing before The Tabernacle was understood to be standing before Jehovah (Lev. 1:3,5,11; 3:1,7,12; 4:4,6,15,17,24). Probably they waved their censers to obtain Jehovah’s attention. They got His attention, but not as they intended. The word translated “strange” is an active participle. When used alone, it is equivalent to a noun and means “one who is an outsider.” It was used to refer to people outside the family or outside of an authorized group. With regard to the Israelites, it referred to a foreigner (Ex. 29:33; 30:33; Lev. 22:10,13; Num. 1:31; 3:10,38; 16:40; 18:4,7; Deut. 25:5). When the word was used in connection with a noun, as it is here, it described an item that was “outside” the authorized norm. “Strange fire” then means burning an offering that had not been authorized by Jehovah. In this case, the offering was incense smoldering in their censers. This conclusion is further confirmed by the words “which He had not commanded them.” Four suggestions have been offered as to why this action was displeasing to Jehovah: (1) The incense was not prepared according to the authorized formula (Ex. 30:34-38; compare Ex. 30:9). (2) The fire did not come from the altar (Lev. 16:12). (3) The incense was burned at the wrong time of day (Ex. 30:7-8). (4) The incense was burned in the wrong place (Ex. 30:1,7). The real reason their action was so displeasing to Jehovah is that Jehovah had given no provision for a ceremony in which a priest stood before The Tabernacle waving a censer that contained smoldering incense. This action was extremely serious, because if the priests were to feel free to innovate offerings as they saw fit, the pure and spiritual meanings that Jehovah had poured into His offerings would soon be lost. (Leviticus 15 - Message 11 - Lev. 10:1-7) Question: What is the meaning of the strange fire in Leviticus 10:1? Answer: In order to understand the phrase “strange fire,” we must review the story in Leviticus in which it appears. The first tabernacle had been erected, and Aaron was doing a lot of sacrificing per God’s instructions (Leviticus 8—9). One day, two of Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, came along and offered incense with “strange fire.” The Hebrew word translated “strange” means “unauthorized, foreign, or profane.” God not only rejected their sacrifice; He found it so offensive that He consumed the two men with fire. After Nadab and Abihu were killed, Moses explained to Aaron why God had done such a harsh thing: “This is what the LORD spoke of when he said: ‘Among those who approach me I will show myself holy; in the sight of all the people I will be honored’” (Leviticus 10:3). The exact nature of the profane fire isn’t known, but, since it was the fire that was unauthorized, it could be that Nadab and Abihu were burning the incense with fire of their own making rather than taking fire from the altar, as specified in Leviticus 16:12+. Or it could have been that the two men came into the tabernacle drunk and therefore could not remember what was a violation and what was not (Leviticus 10:8–9). Whatever it was the men did to render the offering profane, it was a sign of their disregard for the utter holiness of God and the need to honor and obey Him in solemn and holy fear. Their carelessness and irreverence were their downfall. In judging Nadab and Abihu for their strange fire, God was making a point to all the other priests who would serve in His tabernacle—and later, in His temple—and to us, as well. Since this was the first time sacrifices were being offered on the altar and Israel was getting to know the living God better, when Aaron’s sons were disobedient and profane, God displayed His displeasure in no uncertain terms. God was not going to allow the disobedience of Aaron’s sons to set a precedent for future disregard of His Law. A similar story occurs in Acts 5:1-11+, during the time of the early church. A husband and wife lie to Peter about some land given to the church, and they are judged with physical death because of their lie. As Peter puts it, “You have not lied just to human beings but to God” (Acts 5:4+). God knows our hearts. He knows what we truly believe and our attitude toward Him. We cannot offer to Him proud “sacrifices” that are unworthy of Him. He seeks those who come to Him in humility, ready to sacrifice their pride and lay before Him humble and contrite hearts grieving for sin (Psalm 51:17+). Certainly, there is grace and forgiveness and plenty of “second chances” for those who belong to Him. But God wants us to know that He is serious when it comes to His honor and glory. If there is willful disobedience in the life of a believer, then God disciplines us out of His great love for us (Hebrews 12:7–11+). If such disobedience continues, God will take harsher measures until we understand how we are disappointing Him. If we continue in our disobedience even after that, then God has every right to remove us from this earth (see 1 Corinthians 11:29–30). GotQuestions.org J J Knap - Strange Fire - Leviticus 10:1 It seems that Nadab and Abihu had transgressed the command to use the glowing coals of the burnt offering altar for the sacrifice of incense, because they brought strange fire before the Lord’s countenance. This invoked the judgement of the Almighty One. A consuming fire went out from the Lord to destroy them, because, if anywhere, the Lord should be sanctified in those who approached Him as priests,—respect for His commands was required first of all here. Let us place the hand in our own bosom, to examine, whether we in our service of the Lord, do not approach Him at times with strange fire, that provokes His disfavour, even if we think to honour Him with it. The apostle urges us to be fervent of spirit, to put off all slackness and deadness in the service of the Lord, to enter His courts with burning desires and to proclaim the praise of our God with fiery tongues. In truth, a cool obeisance, in which no loftier zeal is contained, is completely rejectable in God’s sight. The glorified Messiah had it written to the lukewarm Laodiceans, that if they did not repent from their lukewarmness, He would spew them out of His mouth. On the other hand let us be on guard that it is not strange, but holy and heavenly fire that kindles us, because who would deny it that even now we can approach the altar with strange fire? Strange fire—a false zeal—sometimes dishonours our prayer. When we stand before the throne of grace, we ought more than ever to pray as the Spirit gives us to pray, and the language of the Spirit is warm, respectful, humble, and trusting. Place over against this the excited and passionate prayers, the urgent and disrespectful petitions, in which an unholy glow shines, and, is it not true, then it falls upon us as a judgement upon the soul, that the Lord wants to be sanctified in those who approach Him. Strange fire—deceitful enthusiasm—can also be in our zeal for the Name of the Lord. To fight for the church, for the mission, for the Bible, for the confession, in one word, for the Kingdom of God, but in such a manner that a reddish glow of fleshly passion alights in our innermost, and we seek more ourselves in our words and works than the glorification of God Truly, something within us must burn. However, the zeal must come from above. All titillation that flares up from our own flesh, is an abomination to the Lord. We need the holy, clearly shining fire, the lofty, heavenly zeal, that the Holy Ghost kindles in the heart, so that before all our God be sanctified in those who approach Him to serve Him in a priestly manner. James Smith - Handfuls of Purpose - NADAB AND ABIHU Leviticus 10:1–5 Miracles are not sufficient to convince men of sin, and to put them in a right attitude for worshipping God acceptably. Nadab and his priestly brother had just a little ago seen the glory of God, and the miraculous fire falling from Heaven consuming the sacrifice upon the altar, and would be among those who reverently bowed and worshipped (see chap. 9), yet because of their pride and irreverence they were smitten with judgment. Surely there is a solemn warning here for all the people of God. We notice— 1. A great privilege. They were the “sons of Aaron.” They had a— 1. GODLY FATHER. To be the son of a saint is a priceless boon, but a man may be the son of a divine and yet be the servant of the devil. 2. RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING. From their infancy they were familiar with holy things, and had been trained up in the admonition of the Lord. 3. GOOD PROFESSION. They were recognised by others as the servants of God. It is possible to bear the name of Christian, to take part in Christian work, and yet in spirit to know not the holiness of God or the awfulness of sin. 2. A presumptuous act. “They offered strange fire before the Lord.” They— 1. OFFERED FIRE OF THEIR OWN MAKING. This the Lord had forbidden (v. 1). Their offering was like the prayer of the Pharisee (Luke 18:11), or like the sacrifice of Cain. Only a manifestation of self-conceit and rebellion. 2. REJECTED THE GIFT OF GOD. The fire that burned on the altar was the gift of God. This they should have used, but this they despised (chap. 16:12). How much better are those who seek the favour of God on the ground of their own goodness, and utterly reject Christ as the gift of God? They seek to establish their own righteousness, but have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. 3. An unexpected doom. “There went out fire from the Lord and devoured them.” Waxen professors have need to beware of the fire. They— 1. PERISHED AT THE HAND OF HIM WHOM THEY PROFESSED TO SERVE. This is an early version of the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5). Not zeal without knowledge so much as presumption without fear. 2. PERISHED BY THAT WHICH THEY REJECTED. Fire from the Lord. The rejected stone shall grind to powder (Luke 20:17, 18). Christ Jesus, the gift of God, is now appointed Judge of all. To reject Him now as offered to us on the altar of the Cross will be to meet Him then as a consuming fire. 4. A solemn sight. They died before the Lord. “Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord.” They— 1. WERE CARRIED OUT. They were able of themselves to go in, but unable of themselves to come out. There is no atonement for the sin of presumption (Num. 15:30). He that being often reproved hardeneth his neck shall perish without remedy. 2. WERE CARRIED OUT IN THEIR COATS. Their priestly garbs did not protect them. Coats of profession will not save. “I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of the holy” (Eccles. 8:10). The man who builds his house on the sand is sure to perish on the ruin of it. If our religion is only in our coats it will certainly be buried with us. 5. An important lesson. It is the gracious purpose of God to be— 1. SANCTIFIED IN US. “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh Me.” Sanctify therefore the Lord in your heart, for He looketh not upon the outward appearance, but upon the heart (1 Sam. 16:7). Without holiness no man shall see the Lord. The pure in heart shall see God. 2. GLORIFIED THROUGH US. “Before the people will I be glorified.” It is ours to be still and know that He is God, that He may be exalted among the heathen (Psa. 46:10). Let us magnify the Lord together. Glorify Thou Thy Son in me. Walter Kaiser - Hard Sayings of the Bible - Note this discussion refers to "Why Did God Destroy Uzzah?" which is related to Nadab and Abihu... Over the years, many have complained that God was unfair to kill Uzzah when he tried to protect the ark of God from damage or shame when the oxen stumbled and the ark slipped. Should not Uzzah have been praised for lunging forward to protect the ark of God? There is no doubt that David’s intentions in bringing the ark to Jerusalem were noble and good. Now that his kingdom was established, he did not forget his earlier vow to return the ark to its rightful place of prominence. But what began as a joyful day quickly became a day of national grief and shame. Why? A significant omission in 2 Samuel 6:1–3 (COMMENTARY) sets the scene for failure. Previously when David needed counsel, for example when he was attacked by the Philistines, the text records that David “inquired of the Lord” (2 Sam 5:19, 23). But those words are sadly missing in 2 Samuel 6:1–3. Instead, we are told in the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 13:1–14 that David “conferred with each of his officers.” There was no need to consult these men. God had already given clear instructions in Numbers 4:5–6 as to how to move the ark. It should be covered with a veil, to shield the holiness of God from any kind of rash intrusion, and then carried on poles on the shoulders of the Levites (Num 7:9). God had plainly revealed his will, but David had a better idea—one he had learned from the pagan Philistines. He would put it on a “new cart” (2 Sam 6:3). However, God had never said anything about using a new cart. This was a human invention contrary to the will and law of God. Thus David did things in the wrong way, following his own ideas or those of others instead of God’s ways. Surely this passage warns that it is not enough to have a worthy purpose and a proper spirit when we enter into the service of God; God’s work must also be performed in God’s way. Pursuing the right end does not automatically imply using the right means. But why did God’s anger break out against Uzzah if David was at fault? The Lord had plainly taught that even the Kohathites, the Levite family designated to carry the ark, “must not touch the holy things or they will die” (Num 4:15+). Even if Uzzah were not a Kohathite or even a Levite, he still would know what the law taught in Numbers 4 and 7. God not only keeps his promises, but also fulfills his threats! When the Philistines, who had no access to the special revelation of God, sinned by touching the ark and using a new cart to transport it, God’s anger did not burn against them (1 Sam 6). God is more merciful toward those less knowledgeable of his will than toward those who are more knowledgeable. This is why it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than it will be for those who personally witnessed the great acts of the Savior in Capernaum (Mt 11:23–24+). Uzzah’s motive, like David’s, was pure, but he disregarded the written Word of God, just as David did. Thus one sin led to another. Consulting one’s peers is no substitute for obeying God when he has spoken. Good intentions, with unsanctified minds, interfere with the kingdom of God. This is especially true of the worship of God and the concept of his holiness. Because God is holy, he is free of all moral imperfections. To help mortals understand this better, a sharp line of demarcation was drawn between holy things and the common or profane. Our word profane means “before” or “forth from the temple.” Thus all that was apart from the temple, where the holiness of God was linked, was by definition profane. However, Uzzah’s act made the holiness associated with the ark also profane and thereby brought disrepute to God as well. It is unthinkable that God could condone a confusion or a diffusion of the sacred and the profane. To take something holy and inject into it the realm of the profane was to confuse the orders of God. Thus in 1 Samuel 6:19 seventy men of Beth Shemesh were killed for peering into the ark. The situation with Uzzah can be contrasted with that of the Philistines in 1 Samuel 6:9. These uncircumcised Gentiles also handled the ark of God as they carted it from city to city in what is now called the Gaza Strip, as they did when they prepared to send the ark back home to Israel on a cart. But where the knowledge of holy things had not been taught, the responsibility to act differently was not as high as it was for Uzzah, who should have known better. In fact, in order to determine if the calamities that had struck each of the cities where the ark had gone (a calamity that was almost certainly an outbreak of the bubonic plague) was merely a chance happening unrelated to any divine wrath from the God of Israel, the Philistines rigged up an experiment that was totally against the grain of nature. They took two cows that had just borne calves, penned up the calves, and hitched these cows, who had never previously been hitched to a cart, to a new cart, and watched to see if against every maternal instinct in the animal kingdom the cows would be directed back to the territory of the Philistines. They were. The Philistines were convinced that what happened to them in the outbreak in each city during the seven months when the ark of God was in their midst was no chance or freak accident at all: it was the hand of God! And they had better not harden their hearts as the Egyptians did years ago (1 Sam 6:6). The Philistines had enough sense for the holiness of God to use a new cart and to send back offerings of reparation, to the degree that they had any knowledge, but they were not judged for what they did not know about the distinction between the sacred and the common. Another case of trivializing that which is holy can be seen in the brief reference to Nadab and Abihu offering strange fire on the altar of God (Lev 10:1–3). It is impossible to say whether the two sons of Aaron, the high priest, erred in the manner in which they lighted their fire-pans, the timing, or in the place of the offering. The connection with strong drink and the possibility of intoxication cannot be ruled out, given the proximity and discussion of that matter in the same context (Lev 10:8–11). If that was the problem, then the drink may have impeded the sons’ ability to think and to act responsibly in a task that called for the highest degree of alertness, caution and sensitivity. The offense, however, was no trivial matter. Nor was it accidental. There was some reversal of everything that had been taught, and what had been intended to be most holy and sacred was suddenly trivialized so as to make it common, trite and secular. Exodus 30:9 had warned that there was to be no “other incense” offered on the altar to the Lord. From the phrase at the end of Leviticus 10:1, “which he did not command them” (literal translation), what was done was a clear violation of God’s command. As a result fire comes from the presence of the Lord and consumed Nadab and Abihu. Again, the fact that they are ministers of God makes them doubly accountable and responsible. Moses then used this as an occasion to teach a powerful lesson on the holiness and worship of God (Lev 10:3). See also comment on 1 SAMUEL 2:25. William MacDonald Notes on Leviticus 10 - Nadab and Abihu burned incense before the Lord with “strange fire,” perhaps fire that was not taken off the brazen altar (Lev 10:1). Since the altar speaks of Calvary, it was as if they tried to approach God in some way other than through the atoning work of Christ. Fire came out from the Most Holy Place and consumed them as they stood by the golden altar in the holy place (Lev 10:2). Moses warned Aaron, in effect, that any complaint would be rebellion against God’s righteous dealings (Lev 10:3). After two men had carried the corpses from in front of the tabernacle to a place outside the camp, Moses told Aaron and his two remaining sons that they must not mourn but remain within the tabernacle while the people mourned the flaring forth of God’s wrath (Lev 10:4-7). Some have inferred from the reference to drinking in Lev 10:8-1 1 that Nadab and Abihu may have been intoxicated when they offered the strange fire. Moses commanded Aaron and his sons to eat the meal offering (Lev 10:12, 15) and the flesh of the wave offering (Lev 10:14, 15). When he looked for the goat that had been used as a sin offering for the people, he found that Eleazar and Ithamar, sons of Aaron, had burned the sacrifice instead of eating it in the holy place. (Perhaps they feared God’s wrath which had just fallen on their brothers.) The rule was that if the blood of the sin offering was brought into the holy place, then the sacrifice was to be burned (Lev 8:30). But if not, it was to be eaten (Lev 6:28). Moses reminded them that, in this case, the blood had not been brought into the holy place; therefore, they should have eaten the meat (Lev 10:16-18). In reply to Moses’ reprimand, Aaron explained that they had carried out the sin and burnt offerings, as required, but, in view of the Lord’s severe chastisement on Nadab and Abihu, he wondered if his eating the sin offering would have been acceptable to the Lord. Moses accepted the excuse (Lev 10:19, 20). This chapter concludes the section on the priesthood. Leviticus 10:2 And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. fire: Lev 9:24 16:1 Nu 3:3,4 16:35 26:61 2Sa 6:7 2Ki 1:10,12 1Ch 24:2 They died: Nu 3:3,4 Nu 16:32,33,49 Nu 26:61 1Sa 6:19 1Ch 13:10 15:13 Ac 5:5,10 1Co 10:11 Leviticus 10 Resources SUPERNATURAL FIRE FROM HEAVEN CONSUMED STRANGE FIRE OFFERERS Fire - The tragic irony is that the fire that consumed the sacrifice and showed God's glory in Lev 9:24-note consumed the errant priests and demonstrated God's wrath! "By fire they sinned, and by fire they perished." (Trapp) This dramatic event reminds me of the warning in Hebrews 12… Therefore (term of conclusion), since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken (context Heb 12:25-27), let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence (NLT = "HOLY FEAR") and awe (KJV = "GODLY FEAR"); for (term of explanation) our God is a consuming fire. (Heb 12:28-29-note, quoting Dt 4:24, 9:3) They died - They died but there body was not consumed as when "the fire came out from before the LORD and consumed the burnt offering." (Lev 9:24 uses the same verb "consumed"). This is a picture that was apparently not recalled by Korah, who against God's clear decree, sought the priesthood and also were removed from God's presence when "the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them (Korah and those with him and their families) up, and their households, and all the men who belonged to Korah, with their possessions. So they and all that belonged to them went down alive to Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly." (Num 16:32-33). Fire came out from the presence of the LORD - That is the fire came from the Tent of Meeting (the Tabernacle) which is where God's presence (the "Shekinah Glory Cloud") was manifest. Leon Hyatt - The consequences of their sin (Lev 10:2-5) Lev 10:2. And fire came forth from the face of Jehovah and devoured them, and they died at the face of Jehovah. Suddenly fire burst forth from Jehovah, that is, out of The Tabernacle. For the second time in a few minutes fire burst forth from The Tabernacle. The first time, it showed Jehovah’s acceptance of the offerings He had commanded. This time it showed His wrath on an offering He had not commanded. God’s fire could either approve or disapprove. It could either empower or destroy. The use of Jehovah’s power depended on the relationship the worshiper had to Him. The fire did not completely consume the bodies of the priests (vs. 4), as it did the offerings (Lev 9:24-note), but it killed the disobedient priests. The force that is known to us that most nearly resembles this fire is lightning, which can kindle a consuming flame as in Leviticus 9:24-note or can kill without a flame as in this verse. (Leviticus 15 - Message 11 - Lev. 10:1-7) Guzik comments that " Fire is a figure of searching judgment and purification. Our works for Jesus will be judged by fire (1Corinthians 3:13-15), and Jesus is described as having eyes like a flame of fire (Revelation 1:14). He has eyes of searching judgment and discernment. Many of those who cry out to God, “send your fire among us” think only of a Leviticus 9:24 fire, without considering the same fire is present to purify and cleanse in Leviticus 10:2. Truth be known, many of us desperately beg God not to send His fire, so the purity of His judgments will not be known among us. God reads our hearts and not only our pious prayers to send revival fire. Consumed (00398) ('akal) means to eat, feed, consume, devour. Gilbrant - The verb ʾākhal means "to consume." It is used of both humans and animals. Sometimes, it is used with the verb "to drink" in connection with the good life. Genesis 26:30 reads "and he made for them a feast and they 'ate' and drank." Judges 9:27 reads "They 'ate' and 'drank' and cursed Abimelech." First Kings 4:20 reads "Judah and Israel were many 'eating' and 'drinking' and making merry." In Job 1:4, Job's sons and daughters met regularly "to eat and drink." Generally, the noun is used in the context of to "eat food" (Gen. 3:19). "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou 'eat' bread." The same is true of Gen. 37:25, "They sat down to 'eat' bread." It is used of birds and beasts eating. Genesis 40:17 tells of the baker saying to Joseph, "The birds were 'eating' them out of the basket from on my head. In Gen. 37:20, Joseph's brothers said, "we will say some evil beast hath devoured him." In 1 Ki. 13:28, the lion did not eat the carcass of the slain prophet. The verb connotes "consumption," as fires consume material. In Lev. 10:2, we read of a fire coming out from the Lord and devouring Nadab and Abihu. In the story of the parable of Jotham in Judg. 9:15, the bramble warned if its advice was not heeded: "let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of the Lebanon." Second Samuel 18:8 says that the forest "devoured" more people that day than the sword "devoured." More persons perished by being lost in the woods than died of wounds on the battlefield. In Deut. 32:42, Moses says that the sword of the Lord devours flesh. Amos 1:4, 7, 10, 12, 14 speaks of a divine fire consuming major kingdoms. This would be through the devouring of the sword. Other inanimate forces devour. In Gen. 31:40, Jacob complained to Laban that the heat and dry weather consumed him by day as well as did the chilly weather by night. Famine and pestilence will devour those in the city; the sword will do likewise to those in the country, according to Ezek. 7:15. Proverbs 30:14 speaks of a social system that oppresses the poor and the needy. It devours them. David, in Ps. 27:2, speaks of his enemies and foes approaching him to devour his flesh. The enmity of the enemy consumes a person. (Complete Biblical Library) W E Vine on akal - "to eat, feed, consume, devour." This verb occurs in all Semitic languages (except Ethiopic) and in all periods, from the early Akkadian to the latest Hebrew. The word occurs about 810 times in Old Testament Hebrew and 9 times in Aramaic. Essentially, this root refers to the "consumption of food by man or animals." In Gen. 3:6, we read that Eve took of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and "ate" it. The function of eating is presented along with seeing, hearing, and smelling as one of the basic functions of living, (Deut. 4:28). "Eating," as every other act of life, is under God's control; He stipulates what may or may not be eaten (Gen. 1:29). After the Flood, man was allowed to "eat" meat (Gen. 9:3). But under the Mosaic covenant, God stipulated that certain foods were not to be "eaten" (Lev. 11; Deut. 14), while others were permissible. This distinction is certainly not new, inasmuch as it is mentioned prior to the Flood (Gen. 7:2; cf. Gen. 6:19). A comparison of these two passages demonstrates how the Bible can speak in general terms, with the understanding that certain limitations are included. Hence, Noah was commanded to bring into the ark two of every kind (Gen. 6:19), while the Bible tells us that this meant two of every unclean and fourteen of every clean animal (Gen. 7:2). Thus, Gen. 9:3 implies that man could "eat" only the clean animals. This verb is often used figuratively with overtones of destroying something or someone. So the sword, fire, and forest are said to "consume" men. The things "consumed" may include such various things as land (Gen. 3:17), fields (Isa. 1:7), offerings (Deut. 18:1), and a bride's purchase price (Gen. 31:15). ʾĀkal might also connote bearing the results of an action (Isa. 3:10). The word can refer not only to "eating" but to the entire concept "room and board" (2 Sam. 9:11, 13), the special act of "feasting" (Eccl. 10:16), or the entire activity of "earning a living" (Amos 7:12; cf. Gen. 3:19). In Dan. 3:8 and Dan. 6:24, "to eat one's pieces" is to charge someone maliciously. "To eat another's flesh," used figuratively, refers to tearing him to pieces or "killing him" (Psa. 27:2), although ʾākal may also be used literally, as when one "eats" human beings in times of serious famine (Lev. 26:29). Eccl. 4:5 uses the expression, "eat one's own flesh," for allowing oneself to waste away. Abstinence from eating may indicate deep emotional upset, like that which overcame Hannah before the birth of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:7). It may also indicate the religious self-denial seen in fasting. Unlike the pagan deities (Deut. 32:37-38), God "eats" no food (Psa. 50:13); although as a "consuming" fire (Deut. 4:24), He is ready to defend His own honor and glory. He "consumes" evil and the sinner. He will also "consume" the wicked like a lion (Hos. 13:8). There is one case in which God literally "consumed" food, when He appeared to Abraham in the form of three "strangers" (Gen. 18:8). God provides many good things to eat, such as manna to the Israelites (Exod. 16:32) and all manner of food to those who delight in the Lord (Isa. 58:14), even the finest food (Psa. 81:16). He puts the Word of God into one's mouth; by "consuming" it, it is taken into one's very being (Ezek. 3:2). (Online Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old Testament and New Testament Words) The Hebrew verb akal is used 701 x with 81 uses in Leviticus (Click here and scroll down to "Frequency Lists" to see all the uses in 6 different translations - including ESV, KJV, NASB - note all the uses in Genesis 3!) - Lev 3:17; 6:10, 16, 18, 23, 26, 29f; 7:6, 15f, 18ff, 23ff; 8:31; 9:24; 10:2, 12ff, 17ff; 11:2ff, 8f, 11, 13, 21f, 34, 40ff, 47; 14:47; 17:10, 12ff; 19:6ff, 23, 25f; 21:22; 22:4, 6ff, 10ff, 16, 30; 23:6, 14; 24:9; 25:7, 12, 19f, 22; 26:5, 10, 16, 26, 29, 38 ate(76), certainly have eaten(1), certainly not eat(1), consume(30), consumed(30), consumes(9), consuming(9), devour(38), devour you will be devoured(1), devoured(30), devourer(2), devouring(3), devours(7), dine(1), eat(398), eat freely(1), eaten(66), eaten at all(2), eaten freely(1), eater(2), eater's(1), eating(25), eats(29), edible(2), enjoys(2), entirely consumed(1), feast(1), fed(8), feed(10), food(4), give him to eat(1), had(2), has enough(1), lived off(1), meal*(1), moth-eaten*(1), plenty to eat(1), reduces(1), shared*(1), tasting(1), took space away(1), use(1). THOUGHT - One lesson for all of us who are "priests" (every believer is a member of the "royal priesthood" = 1Pe 2:9+, cf Rev 5:10+) in the modern church is that we dare not draw near to God with a casual or careless attitude! Indeed “the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God." (Deut 4:24+) Yahweh is a holy and jealous God, and has the righteous right to consume those who profane His glory. This truth makes it that much more incredible that Aaron was not consumed in Ex 32:1-5+! Confess - Repent - Draw Near. James 4:7-8+ says it this way "Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded." (Note all red words are aorist imperative and call on us to depend on the Holy Spirit to obey) See - Is the priesthood of all believers biblical? | GotQuestions.org; What does it mean that we are a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9)? | GotQuestions.org John Hartley says God's "power might be compared to electricity. Electricity is a useful, wonderful source of energy, but in order to work with it safely one must be very careful and astute. Whoever touches uninsulated, hot wires is severely shocked, burned, or, depending on the voltage, instantly killed. When a person approaches God properly, his holiness imparts life (cf. Isa 57:15) and inspires wonder (cf. Ex 3:3–4). But should anything that is profane or unclean enter God’s presence, it is consumed. (Word Biblical Commentary) Henry
Levítico 10
Guzik - Make no mistake: We can come to God just as we are, but we may not come to Him our own way. We must come the way He has provided, the way made in Jesus Christ. (Jn 14:6 = "the [definitive, only] way") Matthew
Levítico 10
Guzik - More important than Aaron’s right to grieve was the respect of God’s holiness… To mourn might have implied - even in the slightest way - that God was wrong in bringing this fire upon Nadab and Abihu, and Aaron or Moses could not communicate this. Aaron must also have thought, “I did worse than this at the golden calf incident; why did God take them?” But Aaron did that before his consecration as a priest. After his consecration, he and his sons had a greater accountability. So Aaron, therefore, kept silent (ESV = "held his peace") - He "grew dumb!" The Septuagint puts a slightly different spin on Aaron's reaction - "And Aaron was shocked." (NETS Lxx) Brenton's version has "And Aaron was pricked ["in his heart" is implied]." The verb is katanussomai which is used in Acts 2:37 "they were pierced in their heart." BDAG says this verb means "to be pierced, stabbed figuratively of the feeling of sharp pain connected with anxiety, remorse, etc." Liddell-Scott's entry says katanussomai means "be silenced." Adam