What is the “strange fire” mentioned here?

Leviticus records, “Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. ² And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord” (Lev. 10:1-2 NASB). What was this strange fire?

Here is an assessment of a few options:

(1) They went into the Holy of Holies. After God killed Aaron’s sons (Lev. 16:1), he told Moses, “Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die. For I will appear in the cloud over the atonement cover” (Lev. 16:2). While the context fits well with Leviticus 16:1-2, it doesn’t fit with the fact that their sin focuses on the “fire” they presented which was “contrary to [God’s] command.” The fire is the issue—not the location where they offered it.

(2) They were the wrong people to offer the sacrifice. Harrison^[1] writes, “There is nothing in the detailed prescriptions of sacrifice which stated that anyone except the high priest himself should place incense upon a censer of coals and present it to God.” He speculates that this was due to pride. Their motivation might’ve been in the wrong, but the text speaks to the fire—not their motivations. This seems to be too speculative to be correct.

(3) They offered this sacrifice at the wrong time. Under this view, this refers to making a sacrifice at the wrong time of year. However, once again, it doesn’t fit with the language of fire, rather than the time.

(4) They offered this while intoxicated. Harrison^[2] points to verse 9 to support this possibility: “You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the tent of meeting, or you will die” (v.9). This makes good use of the context, but it comes too late for such a serious judgment in verse 2. Moreover, the text never makes this connection, other than saying that they would die.

(5) They used coals that weren’t from the holy area. Rooker^[3] favors this position. On our view, this is possible, but it doesn’t explain the mention of the incense.

(6) They offered novel incense in their fire. This would explain the mention of incense. Elsewhere, we read, “You must not offer strange incense on it, nor burnt offering, nor meal offering, and you must not pour out a drink offering on it” (Ex. 30:9 NET). If the priests misused the anointing oil, they “must be cut off from their people” (Ex. 30:33).

(7) They offered fire originally devoted to false gods. This fits with the language of “contrary to his command,” which appears elsewhere to refer to idolatry (Deut. 17:3). In such a case, capital punishment the result (Deut. 17:5). In its greater context, this pattern fits with God rescuing the people—only to quickly see them worshipping idols. This happened with Moses receiving the Law and Aaron immediately leading the people into idolatry (Ex. 32). Perhaps the same motif is occurring here.

“Fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them.” Identical language occurred a couple verses earlier to refer to the consumption of the sacrifice with God’s fire: “Fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed the burnt offering” (Lev. 9:24). Now, Nadab and Abihu are themselves the sacrifice! Wenham writes, “Exactly the same phrase occurs in 9:24. On the first occasion divine fire came only after all the sacrifices had been offered. This time it came instantly, and consumed them; cf. 9:24, “consumed” the sacrifices. This was a fire of judgment: they died before the Lord. The first time it was proof of God’s blessing.”^[4]

Why did this result in capital punishment? If God had allowed them to get away with this at the inaugural ceremony, it would likely have led to a break down in his sacrificial system. Whatever the “strange fire” happened to be, the act was against God’s will. We agree with Calvin when he writes, “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.”[5]

Conclusion

Whatever they did, the main message is clear. This was something “contrary to his command.” Wenham writes, “The whole narrative from 8:1 has led us to expect God’s ministers to obey the law promptly and exactly. Suddenly we meet Aaron’s sons doing something that had not been commanded.”^[6] It must’ve involved some sort of novelty. Harrison writes, “This kind of ritual innovation was the very antithesis of what God had prescribed for his worship.”^[7] They seemed to start off right by getting fire and incense from God. Elsewhere, we read, “He is to take a censer full of burning coals from the altar before the LORD and two handfuls of finely ground fragrant incense and take them behind the curtain” (Lev. 16:12). So far, so good. However, they ran into trouble when they added the strange fire (“…and they offered…”).

It is interesting that the book of Leviticus is almost entirely rules and regulations for the priests and people. Right in the middle of this book, we have a short narrative on how God killed two priests, because they didn’t follow his instructions. What do you suppose this narrative is here for? Surely this this little pericope exists to remind us that we need to approach God in his prescribed way—not our own. There was to be no innovation in this. God makes the terms of approaching him clear, and we aren’t allowed to invent our own approach. This is particularly important in our post-modern culture, which believes that “all paths are equally valid.” We should be reminded of the lesson of Nadab and Abihu: we need to approach God in his way—not our own.

^[1] R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 3, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 112.

^[2] R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 3, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 112.

^[3] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, vol. 3A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 157.

^[4] Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), 155.

[5] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Books of Moses (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 2:431.

^[6] Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), 155.

^[7] R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 3, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 112.