Leviticus Chapter 10

The Conduct of Priests
A. Nadab and Abihu

1. (Leviticus 10:1) The sin of Aaron’s sons.

“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.” (Leviticus 10:1, KJV)

In the aftermath of the priestly consecration, Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, each took his censer and acted presumptuously by offering unauthorized fire before the LORD. This event took place directly after the glorious manifestation of God’s acceptance in Leviticus chapter nine, which should have filled their hearts with reverent fear and awe. Yet, rather than continuing in holy obedience, they attempted to approach God in their own way, apart from His command. This incident reveals the danger of substituting human innovation for divine instruction in matters of worship.

Their motivation is not explicitly stated. It may have been pride, ambition, jealousy, or even impatience. Perhaps they grew weary of the repetitive nature of the consecration sacrifices and desired a new display of spiritual excitement. Whatever the cause, their hearts were not governed by holiness or obedience, but by self-will. A believer must recognize that sincere emotion or zeal never substitutes for truth. True worship must be guided by Scripture, not personal inspiration or creativity.

Nadab and Abihu were not ignorant of God’s power. They had witnessed His miraculous acts in Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, the thunder and fire at Mount Sinai, and even saw the visible manifestation of God’s glory when they went up with Moses, Aaron, and the seventy elders on Mount Sinai. “Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: and they saw the God of Israel... and did eat and drink.” (Exodus 24:9–11, KJV). Yet, spiritual experience alone did not preserve them. This demonstrates that no matter how much one has seen or experienced of God, it is continual obedience and humble submission to His Word that sustains a right relationship with Him.

The phrase “which he commanded them not” reveals the true nature of their sin. They presumed to worship God according to their own ideas instead of the revealed pattern. The “strange fire” they offered was fire not taken from the altar of burnt offering, which was to be ignited only by the fire God Himself had kindled (Leviticus 9:24). In effect, they substituted human effort for divine provision. To man’s reasoning, fire is fire, but to God there is a difference between what He initiates and what man manufactures.

This “profane fire” represented worship disconnected from atonement, from the blood, and from the altar. It was a man-centered approach to God, void of dependence on His redeeming work. Exodus chapter thirty makes clear that the incense offered before God was to be holy, used only for His prescribed worship: “And as for the perfume which thou shalt make, ye shall not make to yourselves according to the composition thereof: it shall be unto thee holy for the LORD.” (Exodus 30:37, KJV). Their act thus violated God’s holiness, transforming what was sacred into an unholy experiment.

Alexander Maclaren wisely observed that even in modern worship, many bring “strange fire” before the LORD when their prayers, songs, or ministries are driven by self-will, emotional excitement, or carnal ambition rather than humble obedience. Any attempt to worship God apart from the pattern of His revealed Word is unacceptable. This also foreshadows the coming deception of false fire during the Tribulation, where “he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.” (Revelation 13:13, KJV). The Antichrist and his false prophet will use counterfeit signs to mimic the work of God, deceiving those without discernment.

The text adds “before the LORD,” suggesting they may have entered beyond the Holy Place, perhaps into the Holy of Holies itself, an area reserved only for the high priest and only once a year on the Day of Atonement. Leviticus 16:1–2 alludes to this possibility: “And the LORD spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the LORD, and died; And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.” (Leviticus 16:1–2, KJV). Their presumption to draw near in an unauthorized way proved fatal.

2. (Leviticus 10:2) The judgment of God upon Nadab and Abihu.

“And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.” (Leviticus 10:2, KJV)

The same fire that had previously consumed the offering in divine approval (Leviticus 9:24) now came forth in divine judgment. God’s glory is a consuming fire both to sanctify and to destroy. The event demonstrates that the same divine holiness which receives obedient worship also rejects self-willed worship.

Fire proceeding from the LORD is used twelve times in the Old Testament—six for blessing, and six for judgment. Here, it represents the latter. The fire of Leviticus 9:24 declared, “I accept your offering,” while the fire of Leviticus 10:2 declared, “I reject your presumption.” The distinction was not in the nature of the fire, but in its purpose and response to obedience or rebellion.

Fire often symbolizes the penetrating judgment of God. Paul writes, “Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.” (1 Corinthians 3:13, KJV). Likewise, Christ is described as having “his eyes were as a flame of fire.” (Revelation 1:14, KJV), signifying His searching and discerning gaze that tests all things.

It was an act of mercy that God swiftly judged Nadab and Abihu. Their example, if left unchecked, could have led to widespread rebellion within Israel’s priesthood. As Maclaren noted, “It is mercy to trample out the first sparks beside a powder-barrel.” When divine worship is corrupted, the integrity of the entire nation is endangered. God’s swift action protected His holiness and preserved His people.

The word “devoured” does not necessarily mean their bodies were burned to ashes, for verses four and five indicate that their garments and bodies remained intact. Matthew Poole commented that “lightning many times kills persons without any hurt to their bodies or garments.” Their lives were taken instantly by the fire of God, yet their outward appearance remained as a silent testimony to divine wrath.

They died “before the LORD,” likely within the tabernacle, the very place they sought to honor in disobedience. Their corpses lying there served as a solemn warning that access to God’s presence must always be on His terms. The priests were to serve in holy fear, never forgetting that the God who calls them is both merciful and consuming.

3. (Leviticus 10:3) God’s warning to Moses and Aaron.

“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.” (Leviticus 10:3, KJV)

Following the fiery judgment upon Nadab and Abihu, Moses turned to Aaron and spoke words that revealed the heart of God’s justice: those who draw near to Him must regard Him as holy. This statement set forth an enduring principle for all who would serve God—holiness is not optional for those who approach Him. The holiness of God is His most central attribute in relation to sinful man, and no one may enter His presence apart from reverent obedience to His Word.

God declared, “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me.” This means that He demands to be treated as holy by all who minister before Him. The Hebrew term translated “sanctified” carries the idea of being regarded, acknowledged, or treated as sacred. Nadab and Abihu had failed in this. They approached a holy God with unauthorized fire, assuming that their zeal or enthusiasm would suffice. Yet, God does not accept worship based on human enthusiasm or creativity. He accepts only what is offered according to His Word.

It is vital to understand that although anyone may come to God through His appointed way, no one has the right to invent their own method of approach. As Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6, KJV). The way to God is not left to personal interpretation but is established in the finished work of Christ. The fire that fell upon Nadab and Abihu teaches that access to God must always be through the atoning provision He has made, never through human invention or self-will.

To be sanctified means that God will display His holiness either through the obedience of His servants or through His judgment upon their disobedience. John Trapp’s remark captures this balance perfectly: “Sanctified He will be, either in the sincerity of men’s conversation, or else in the severity of their condemnation.” If His ministers do not uphold His holiness, He will uphold it Himself, even by means of judgment.

The Lord continued, “And before all the people I will be glorified.” God’s glory must always remain central in the worship of His people. The priesthood, sacrifices, and tabernacle rituals were all designed to reflect His majesty and moral perfection. When men shift the focus from God to themselves—on human ability, ritual, excitement, or display—His glory is diminished, and judgment soon follows. The same danger exists in modern worship when the service of God becomes centered on performance or human recognition rather than on the reverence of His name.

To glorify God means that His servants must live and act in a way that directs all honor and attention to Him. God will not share His glory with another, for He declares, “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another.” (Isaiah 42:8, KJV). Those who stand before His people, as Aaron and his sons did, bear the solemn duty to represent His holiness and to reflect His glory. When ministers fail in this calling, God’s name is profaned among men; when they honor Him faithfully, His name is magnified before the congregation.

Finally, the verse concludes, “And Aaron held his peace.” This short statement speaks volumes about the depth of Aaron’s submission to the righteousness of God. He had just watched his two sons struck dead by divine fire, yet he restrained his grief and remained silent before the justice of the Almighty. Aaron’s silence was not the silence of despair but of reverence. He recognized the holiness of God’s act, understanding that divine justice had been carried out. As Adam Clarke notes, “How elegantly expressive is this of his parental affection, his deep sense of the presumption of his sons, and his own submission to the justice of God!”

In this moment, Aaron’s silence testified that the holiness of God takes precedence even over natural affection. His personal pain bowed to divine glory. It is a rare and costly obedience to remain silent when God’s hand brings discipline, yet such submission demonstrates true faith and maturity. Aaron’s response becomes an enduring example for all believers: when confronted with the severity of God’s holiness, it is better to worship in silent awe than to murmur against His righteous judgments.

B. Aftermath of God’s Judgment on Nadab and Abihu

1. (Leviticus 10:4–5) The bodies are removed.

“And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp. So they went near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said.” (Leviticus 10:4–5, KJV)

After the judgment fell, the bodies of Nadab and Abihu were still lying near the tabernacle, a sobering sight for all Israel. Moses immediately commanded that they be removed by Mishael and Elzaphan, sons of Uzziel, who was Aaron’s uncle. These men were relatives of the priests but not priests themselves. Because the priests were consecrated to the service of the sanctuary, they could not defile themselves by touching a dead body (Leviticus 21:1). Thus, the duty of removing the bodies fell to these family members who were not bound by the same restrictions.

Their obedience to Moses’ command illustrates the seriousness with which God’s holiness must be handled. The bodies were carried “by their coats”—that is, by their priestly garments—out of the camp, symbolizing that sin and defilement had no place in the presence of God. Even though they had been consecrated as priests, their disobedience rendered them unfit for sacred service. They had profaned the holy, and now they were to be carried outside the camp, a symbol of separation and divine judgment.

The phrase “out of the camp” also foreshadows the typology of Christ, who “suffered without the gate” (Hebrews 13:12). Just as the sin offering was burned outside the camp, Christ bore our sins outside the city, identifying Himself with those who were cast out. The death of Nadab and Abihu thus reinforces the truth that holiness cannot dwell with sin, and that access to God requires atonement and obedience.

2. (Leviticus 10:6–7) Mourning is prohibited.

“And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled. And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.” (Leviticus 10:6–7, KJV)

This was perhaps the most agonizing moment in Aaron’s life. Two of his sons had just been struck dead by divine fire for their disobedience, yet God commanded that neither Aaron nor his remaining sons Eleazar and Ithamar engage in any visible mourning. The tearing of garments and uncovering of the head were traditional Hebrew signs of deep grief and lamentation. To do so in this case would have implied—even unintentionally—that God had acted unjustly or too severely toward Nadab and Abihu. Any public display of mourning could have communicated to Israel that God’s judgment was excessive or undeserved, which would dishonor His holiness.

Therefore, Moses strictly warned them not to “uncover your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people.” The priests, as mediators between God and the nation, were to represent divine righteousness, not human sentiment. Because of their consecrated position, they bore greater responsibility to model reverence and obedience. If Aaron or his surviving sons had openly mourned, it might have given the people cause to murmur against the Lord’s justice, bringing wrath upon the entire congregation.

Peter-Contesse accurately observes that “because the priests were intermediaries between God and His people, they were required more than all others to avoid contact with death.” Their consecration separated them for sacred service; they were not to defile themselves with any symbols associated with death, even in mourning their own family. God was impressing upon Israel that His holiness takes precedence over all natural emotion and familial attachment when those come into conflict with His revealed will.

The Lord permitted the rest of Israel to lament: “But let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled.” This distinction revealed the difference between the priesthood and the people. The people could grieve corporately as witnesses of divine judgment; the priests, however, were to remain steadfast in service, demonstrating that holiness before God stands higher than natural affection.

Moses also said, “And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you.” The priests were not to abandon their duties or depart from the sacred space of the tabernacle. Their consecration and anointing oil represented their separation unto God’s service. To leave that position prematurely, even in a moment of personal tragedy, would dishonor the divine calling. Their very lives were under the authority of the anointing—they were God’s men, set apart for His purpose.

Aaron may have silently reflected, “I did worse than this at the golden calf, yet God spared me.” But there is an important distinction: Aaron’s sin with the golden calf occurred before his consecration. Now that he bore the anointing of priestly service, his accountability was greater. “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” (Luke 12:48, KJV). His silence and obedience under such grief displayed profound submission to God’s sovereignty. Thus, “they did according to the word of Moses.” Even in sorrow, they upheld the holiness of their office.

3. (Leviticus 10:8–11) The prohibition of drunkenness.

“And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.” (Leviticus 10:8–11, KJV)

This divine commandment came immediately after the judgment upon Nadab and Abihu, suggesting a possible cause for their sin. Many scholars and commentators have inferred that intoxication may have impaired their judgment, leading them to offer “strange fire” before the Lord. If this was indeed the case, then God’s warning here provides both a correction and a perpetual statute for all who minister in His presence.

The Lord spoke directly to Aaron—an extremely rare occurrence in Leviticus. Normally, God addressed Moses, who then conveyed the message. This time, however, the Lord spoke personally to Aaron, emphasizing the seriousness of the matter. The instruction was clear: “Do not drink wine nor strong drink... when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die.” To approach God’s presence while under the influence of alcohol was not merely inappropriate; it was a capital offense. God’s holiness requires clear-minded reverence, not impaired devotion.

Adam Clarke rightly stated, “Indeed, common sense itself shows that neither a drunkard nor a sot should ever be suffered to minister in holy things.” Alcohol dulls the senses, weakens self-control, and diminishes discernment. The worship of God must be conducted with a clear mind and a pure heart. Maclaren similarly remarked, “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.” The lips that speak holy words and offer prayers for the people must not be stained by the cup of intoxication.

Some interpreters suggest this command did not forbid all use of alcohol by priests but restricted it to times of active service within the tabernacle. Yet the principle remains timeless: those who represent God must maintain sobriety and discernment. The fact that some modern religious assemblies incorporate alcohol into their services is a tragic contradiction of this eternal standard.

The Lord gave two reasons for this command. First, “that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean.” The priest’s role was to discern moral and ritual distinctions, maintaining the separation between what was sacred and what was defiled. Alcohol clouds judgment, dulling the ability to discern clearly between the holy and the profane. The service of God requires spiritual precision and moral sensitivity—both of which are compromised by intoxication.

Second, “that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken.” The priest was not only a mediator but also a teacher. He was to instruct Israel in the law of God, preserving truth and doctrine among the people. This role required clarity of mind and purity of spirit. As Scripture attests:

• “They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law.” (Deuteronomy 33:10, KJV)

• “For the lips of the priest should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 2:7, KJV)

• “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge... because thou hast forgotten the law of thy God.” (Hosea 4:6, KJV)

The priests were responsible for both discernment and instruction. Their teaching preserved the moral and spiritual health of the nation. As Rooker notes, “Related to this latter function is the involvement of the priests in copying biblical manuscripts, since most of the scribes were also priests.” Their calling therefore required discipline, focus, and holiness of life—virtues utterly incompatible with intoxication.

Thus, the Lord’s command extended beyond mere abstinence; it established the spiritual qualifications for all who minister before Him. To serve God in holiness demands a mind unclouded, a spirit undistracted, and a heart devoted solely to His glory.

4. (Leviticus 10:12–15) The priest’s portions defined.

“And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy: And ye shall eat it in the holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons’ due, of the sacrifices of the LORD made by fire: for so I am commanded. And the wave breast and heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they be thy due, and thy sons’ due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel. The heave shoulder and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the LORD; and it shall be thine, and thy sons’ with thee, by a statute for ever; as the LORD hath commanded.” (Leviticus 10:12–15, KJV)

After the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, God reaffirmed to Aaron and his surviving sons their sacred duties and privileges concerning the priestly portions. The priesthood was to continue its service without interruption, demonstrating that the sin of two men could not nullify the divine order of worship. Moses therefore instructed Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar regarding what parts of the offerings rightfully belonged to them.

They were told, “Take the meat offering that remaineth... and eat it without leaven beside the altar.” The “meat offering” (meaning grain or meal offering) represented the devotion of man’s labor to God. Whatever portion was not burned as a memorial upon the altar was given to the priests for their sustenance. However, they were to eat it “without leaven beside the altar”—that is, within the courtyard of the tabernacle. Leaven symbolized corruption, and since this portion was “most holy,” it had to be eaten in the purest manner possible, representing fellowship with a holy God. The place of eating, beside the altar, underscored that their provision came directly from the Lord’s service. It was not common food; it was holy food, sanctified by sacrifice.

Moses also said, “And ye shall eat it in the holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons’ due.” This indicated that the priests did not live by the produce of their own hands but by what God provided through the offerings of His people. This divine provision established a pattern later reaffirmed in Scripture: “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 9:14, KJV). The priest’s sustenance was not a privilege but a God-ordained right, showing that those who minister in holy things are sustained by holy things.

Furthermore, “the wave breast and heave shoulder” were designated for the priestly families. The “wave offering” involved moving the offering back and forth before the Lord as a gesture of acknowledgment that it belonged to Him but was being received from His hand. The “heave offering” was lifted upward, symbolizing dedication to God in thanksgiving. These acts illustrated that all blessings, even those received for physical nourishment, must first be presented to the Lord in gratitude.

Unlike the grain offering, which had to be eaten beside the altar, these portions could be eaten “in a clean place,” which included the priests’ homes. The wave breast and heave shoulder were “thy due, and thy sons’ due, and thy daughters with thee,” showing that God extended His provision not only to the priests themselves but to their entire household. It was a sacred reminder that God sustains His servants and their families through His covenant faithfulness. The command concluded with a permanent decree: “It shall be thine, and thy sons’ with thee, by a statute for ever.” The Lord established this as a perpetual ordinance, signifying that His provision for those who serve Him will not fail.

5. (Leviticus 10:16–20) Confusion regarding what the priests should eat.

“And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying, Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD? Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded. And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD? And when Moses heard that, he was content.” (Leviticus 10:16–20, KJV)

After reaffirming the priestly duties, Moses inspected the remains of the sin offering and discovered that it had been burned entirely, contrary to the command. According to Leviticus 6:26, the priests were to eat the sin offering in a holy place if its blood had not been taken inside the tabernacle. Moses therefore became angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, demanding an explanation for why they had not eaten the portion assigned to them.

His rebuke reveals how seriously God’s commands concerning worship were to be observed. He reminded them that the sin offering was given “to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD.” In other words, the priest’s eating of the sin offering symbolically completed the atonement ritual. By partaking of it, the priests identified themselves with the people whose sins had been atoned for, sharing in the reconciliation God provided. Burning the offering instead of eating it disrupted that symbolism.

Yet Aaron’s reply reveals deep humility and spiritual discernment. He said, “Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering today, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD?” His heart was heavy with grief over the death of his sons. Though he was obedient in service, he could not bring himself to partake of the sin offering, for it would have been an act performed without joy or peace of heart. Aaron reasoned that to eat under such sorrow might render the act hollow and insincere before God.

Aaron’s restraint, though not commanded, reflected a sensitivity to the holiness of the occasion. His reasoning pleased Moses, for “when Moses heard that, he was content.” The Hebrew phrase literally means “it was good in his eyes,” echoing the divine approval expressed in similar language throughout Scripture. God accepted Aaron’s discernment because it flowed from reverence, not rebellion. His silence and self-denial demonstrated that true worship is not merely about outward conformity to ritual but about the inward attitude of the heart.

This passage also carries a profound lesson for believers today. It is far easier to condemn sin from a distance—to “burn the sin offering”—than to sit down with others in humility and partake of the grace that covers sin. Moses’ anger reminds us of the danger of judging too quickly when outward compliance is lacking, while Aaron’s response shows the value of inner sincerity before God.

Ultimately, Jesus Christ fulfilled the imagery of this passage perfectly. He is both the priest who ministers and the sin offering itself. As Isaiah prophesied, “He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows... the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:4–6, KJV). He not only bore sin but fully identified with His people in their weakness, grief, and guilt. Aaron’s hesitation, born of sorrow, foreshadowed the compassion and identification of Christ, who bore our sins while sharing in our humanity.