The deaths of Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10 remain an interpretive enigma for interpreters of the Old Testament.1 As Rolf Rendtorff states, “There are many strange stories in the Bible, but this is one of the strangest. Many things in this story we do not fully understand.”2 One notable scholar, Bryan Bibb, has uniquely proposed a more charitable reading of the Nadab and Abihu episode.3 Bibb proposes that the literary function of the episode is to “expose gaps and ambiguities in the ritual legislation.”4 He states elsewhere, “By looking more carefully at the elements of ambiguity in this narrative [of Nadab and Abihu], one discovers that the story reveals the subtle intertwining of ritual and narrative for the purpose of exposing and addressing the ambiguities inherent in divine-human relationships.”5 In other words, the Nadab and Abihu episode according to Bibb demonstrates what is lacking, or the holes, in YHWH’s sacrificial system.

Bibb’s proposal relies on a unique interpretation of Nadab and Abihu’s cultic offering. Nadab and Abihu did not sin or commit an act of disobedience6 since “there is no indication in the text that the priests know that what they are doing is wrong.”7 Thus, if the brothers did nothing inherently wrong, then Leviticus 10:1–3 does not emphasize priestly disobedience but “that the ritual system itself is basically flawed.”8 The flaws of the cultic system, which Nadab and Abihu expose in Leviticus 10:1–3, provide the impetus for the priestly laws in Leviticus 10:8–20.9

This article does not attempt to jettison Bibb’s proposal concerning the literary function of Leviticus 10, but it does challenge his view that Nadab and Abihu were not disobedient.10 It proposes that Nadab’s and Abihu’s cultic mishap is best categorized as an act of sinful disobedience11 because (1) Moses describes the brothers’ offering as profane; (2) the brothers most likely presumed the role of the High Priest by transgressing the bi-daily incense offering outlined in Exodus 30:7–9 that was not their responsibility; (3) YHWH consumed the brothers with fire; and (4) YHWH cites his own character to explain his act of judgment. This article moves in four stages. Section 1 considers the twofold function of זור (“profane”) in Exodus 19–Numbers 10. Section 2 analyzes Moses’s authorial comment in Leviticus 10:1, אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה אֹתָם (“which he did not command them”), suggesting that the brothers committed a cultic infraction. Section 3 examines YHWH’s fire-filled response in Leviticus 10:2 and highlights its connection with Numbers 16 plus Leviticus 4 and 10. Section 4 considers YHWH’s verbal response in Leviticus 10:3 and juxtaposes it with Leviticus 22:32 and especially Ezekiel 28:20–24. The Nadab and Abihu episode reads as follows:12

And the sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, each took his censor, and they placed on them fire, and they set on it incense. And they brought before YHWH profane13 fire, which he did not command them [אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה אֹתָם]. And fire came out from before YHWH, and it consumed them. And they died before YHWH. And Moses said to Aaron, “This is what YHWH has said, saying, ‘By those near me I shall be recognized as holy, and in the sight of all the people I shall be recognized as glorious.’” And Aaron was silent.

1. Profane Fire: A Cursory Survey of זור in Exodus 19–Numbers 10

Leviticus 10:1 records Nadab and Abihu’s cultic offering, categorizing it as אֵשׁ זָרָה (“profane fire”).14 The phrase “profane fire” has engendered an abundance of scholarly discourse.15 Bibb suggests that this phrase has an indeterminate meaning, and because it is not explicitly prohibited, Nadab and Abihu committed no transgression.16 Bibb rightly recognizes our inability to fully understand profane fire, yet he fails to account for the twofold function of זור in Exodus 19–Numbers 10, crippling his proposal.17 The verb זור first describes a person who cannot participate in certain cultic elements.18 Most of the occurrences of זור in Exodus 19–Numbers 10 fall under this usage (Exod 29:33; 30:33; Lev 22:10, 12, 13; Num 1:51; 3:10, 38; 17:5 MT; 18:4, 7). Of special relevance are Numbers 1:51, 3:10, 3:38, 17:5 MT//16:40, 18:4, 18:7 because they juxtapose profane (זור), death, and Tabernacle. Take note of Exodus 29:33 and Numbers 1:51. Exodus 29:33 reads “And they [Aaron and his sons] shall eat them, [those things] that made atonement by them, to fill their hand [and] to consecrate them, but a profane person [זור] shall not eat for they are holy.” Also, YHWH commands Moses in Numbers 1:51, “And when the tabernacle is ready for departure the Levites shall dismantle it, and when the tabernacle rests the Levites shall set it up, but the profane person [וְהַזָּר] who is near shall die.” Both examples clearly juxtapose YHWH’s sacred space and the profane person. If a profane person comes too close to YHWH’s presence, he will die.

The verb זור also describes a cultic substance forbidden on the Altar of Incense. Exodus 30:7 says that Aaron shall burn on the Altar of Incense only an “incense of spices”, a mixture of balsam, onycha, galbanum, and frankincense.19 Exodus 30:9 then says that “You shall not offer on it profane incense [קְטֹרֶת זָרָה] or a burnt offering, or a grain offering, and a drink offering you shall not pour on it.” Profane incense refers to a prohibited substance that is not סַמִּים (balsam, onycha, galbanum, and frankincense). To determine the exact nature of profane incense is impossible, but it represents an unholy substance.20

The data above does not lead us to a definitive understanding of profane fire but it helps illuminate whether the brothers were disobedient. The brothers’ offering suggests at the bare minimum: (1) permitting a profane person to enter sacred space and/or (2) putting a profane substance on YHWH’s altar.21 One may assert that Nadab and Abihu’s offering should not be read in light of the other occurrences of זור outlined above, but reading these occurrences together is useful since they appear in the same literary corpus of Exodus 19–Numbers 10.22

2. Nadab and Abihu’s Offering: Cultic Disobedience

Leviticus 10:1 concludes with an ominous comment: “which he did not command them.”23 Bibb comments on this clause:

Commentators have generally assumed that there exists a specific command that Nadab and Abihu violate by bringing their incense offering. The text explicitly says, however, that there is no command particularly relevant to this incense offering. They perform something that he had not commanded them…. The real problem for Nadab and Abihu is the absence of Yahweh’s word or command. The priests prepare their incense offering and “bring it near [קרב] unto Yahweh.” The text gives us no indication that they know their incense to be inherently wrong.24

However, imagine a husband and wife, who own a bakery specializing in oatmeal cookies, and have two adult sons. The parents take a vacation and leave the two adult sons in charge of making the cookies. The parents have prepared their sons for their absence, providing them a specific recipe for the oatmeal cookies. The parents return from their vacation and discover their sons have sold oatmeal cookies with a different recipe. The parents are frustrated and vow never again to leave their sons in charge of the bakery. According to Bibb’s logic, the adult sons committed no shortcomings because the parents never told them that they could not add or change the recipe for the oatmeal cookies. The adult sons are not at fault; instead, the parents are wrong because they never explicitly charged the sons not to add or change the recipe.

Bibb’s remark ultimately has two flaws. First, his remark fails to recognize the centrality of priestly obedience in Leviticus 8–10.25 Priests must not add to or subtract from YHWH’s cultic instruction but must diligently adhere to it. The relative pronoun (כַּ)אֲשֶׁ֖רand verb צוה are conjoined seventeen times in Leviticus 8–10, nine times in chapter 8 (vv. 4, 5, 9, 13, 17, 22, 29, 31, 36), five times in chapter 9 (vv. 5, 6 ,7 10, 21), and three times in chapter 10 (vv. 1, 15, 18), and Leviticus 10:1 is the only instance of לֹא (“not”) being conjoined with אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה (“which he commanded”). Consequently, obedience to divine/mosaic instruction is a paramount theme in Leviticus 8–10, and the brothers’ offering sorely stands out. James Watts comments, “The intrusion of the לֹא ‘not’ in the familiar refrain comes like a thunderclap…. The story in Lev 10:1–3 does not introduce a new theme or subject, but rather the momentary reversal of the theme of compliance with divine instructions which the following verses then reinstate.”26 Similarly, Leviticus 8–10 reinforces the centrality of the priests treating YHWH’s sacred space with the utmost care. Michael Hundley aptly comments on the danger of presumptuously entering the Tent of Meeting:

The Priests may not presume to regulate what YHWH does within his own home, especially since he is superior to them both socially and ontologically…. Since they are in his space, they must follow his rules. Servants must simply obey their masters; they are not entitled to invade their master’s space or to fully understand his purposes.27

This discussion ultimately leads to a proposal concerning Nadab and Abihu’s transgression. While there is no consensus on this issue, Jacob Milgrom has popularized that Nadab and Abihu offered their own private incense with illegitimate coals of the outer altar or an oven when they should have taken coals from the altar before YHWH.28 Some commentators similarly argue that Nadab and Abihu took fire from an unauthorized source29 or presumptuously entered YHWH’s throne room at a wrong time.30 Other commentators meanwhile plead ignorance but emphasize priestly disobedience.31

Most scholars retroactively apply the stipulations of Leviticus 16 to the Nadab and Abihu episode. The problem with this hermeneutic is that Leviticus 10 fails to indicate that Nadab and Abihu presumptuously performed the Day of Atonement. Leviticus 10 certainly provides the buildup for Leviticus 16 (16:1–2), yet retroactively transposing the cultic instruction of the Day of Atonement onto the Nadab and Abihu story fails to recognize the fundamental difference between Leviticus 10 and Leviticus 16 and explain the actual nature of the brothers’ transgression. If YHWH instituted the correct source of coals after Nadab and Abihu died (16:12), then they were ignorant of the right source for coals. Instead, it coheres to read Nadab and Abihu’s offer through the paradigm of Exodus 30–Leviticus 9, which records the cultic instruction that Moses taught Aaron and his sons, instead of reading the cultic stipulations of Leviticus 16 onto Leviticus 10:1–3 retroactively.

Bibb secondly fails to consider that Nadab and Abihu potentially presumed the role of the High Priest32 by offering the bi-daily incense offering outlined in Exodus 30:7–9. Baruch Levine also associates Leviticus 10:1 and Exodus 30:9, but he asserts that the brothers offered their own incense offering, not the daily incense offering.33 Admittedly, most scholars dismiss a connection between Leviticus 10:1 and Exodus 30:7–9. For instance, Bibb states, “The Exodus verses warn against unauthorized incense mixtures, saying nothing about the source of the fire.”34 John Hartley also dismisses a correspondence between Exodus 30:7–9 and Leviticus 10:1 because “their [Nadab and Abihu] transgression concerns illicit fire, not illicit incense.”35 Jay Sklar similarly states, “It is unlikely this [זרה] refers to the ‘unauthorized incense’ mentioned in Exod 30:9, for the simple reason that we would expect to read of ‘unauthorized incense,’ not ‘unauthorized fire.’”36

My proposal to read Leviticus 10:1–3 in view of Exodus 30:7–9 is legitimate on three grounds. First, Moses speaks in both Exodus 30:7–9 and Leviticus 10:1 of not allowing something or someone categorized as זרה (an uncommon stem) to enter sacred space. Second, both the bi-daily incense offering and Nadab and Abihu’s were incense offerings placed before YHWH (Exod 30:7–9; Lev 10:1). YHWH instructs Moses in Exodus 30:6, “And you shall set it [the altar of incense] before the curtain, which is before the Ark of the Testimony, which is alongside the atonement seat, which is over the testimony, where I shall meet you.” The bi-daily incense offering sits in front of the Ark of the Testimony, where YHWH appears. Similarly, Nadab and Abihu offer their incense before YHWH (Lev 10:1), and Moses instructs Mishael and Elzaphon to remove their dead corpses from before the holy (Lev 10:4). Third, as will be displayed below, there is lexical and thematical overlap between Leviticus 10:1–3 and Numbers 16, where YHWH judges Korah and his group for attempting to assert the High Priesthood (16:10–11).

Bibb ultimately raises a good point concerning אֵשׁ זָרָה, but he fails to convince in his understanding of אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה אֹתָם. Bibb fails to account for the centrality of (כַּ)אֲשֶׁ֖ר and צוה in Leviticus 8–10, a passage that emphasizes priestly obedience. His proposal also fails to read Leviticus 10 in view of Exodus 30–Leviticus 9 and so neglects the allusion to the bi-daily incense of Exodus 30:7–9, an offering reserved for Aaron alone.

3. YHWH’s Fire-Filled Response

Verse 2 reads, “And fire came out from before YHWH, and it consumed them, and they died before YHWH.” Bibb surprisingly offers very little concerning YHWH’s judgment, commenting, “The severity of the mishap does not seem to correlate with the degree of punishment.”37 Bibb’s conclusion creates more concerns than answers, because he implicitly suggests that YHWH unfairly judged Nadab and Abihu. This logic contradicts Leviticus, which portrays YHWH as Israel’s merciful redeemer who graciously dwells in Israel’s presence through his cultic program. Instead, YHWH’s response should be seen as an act of mercy and justice.38 As Segal notes, “If the Lord had not executed Nadab and Abihu the whole community would have suffered from the wrath of his holiness.”39 In light of Numbers 16 and Leviticus 4 and 10, it seems more plausible that Nadab and Abihu committed an act of disobedience, not a mere misstep.

3.1. Numbers 16

YHWH’s response to Nadab and Abihu parallels Numbers 16,40 where Korah and a large group accuse Moses and Aaron of exalting themselves over the people, setting up a clash over the position of High Priest (16:11). To settle the dispute, Moses commands Korah and his group to take censors, put fire on them, set incense on them, and place them before YHWH. Moses tells Aaron to do the same, and whoever’s sacrifice is accepted may assume the High Priesthood. Unsurprisingly, YHWH accepts Aaron’s censor and quickly judges Korah and his group. Consider the lexical and thematical overlap below.

Table 4. Parallelism of Leviticus 10:1–2 and Numbers 16:18, 35

Lev 10:1–2	Num 16:18, 35
וַיִּקְחוּ בְנֵי־אַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ וַיִּתְּנוּ בָהֵן אֵשׁ וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלֶיהָ קְטֹרֶת וַיַּקְרִבוּ לִפְנֵי יהוה אֵשׁ זָרָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה אֹתָם (v. 1)	וַיִּקְחוּ אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ וַיִּתְּנוּ עֲלֵיהֶם אֵשׁ וַיָּשִׂימוּ עֲלֵיהֶם קְטֹרֶת וַיַּעַמְדוּ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן(v. 18)
And the sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, each took his censor, and they placed on them fire, and they set on it incense. And they approached YHWH with strange fire that He had not commanded them…	And each took his censer, and they placed on them fire, and they set on them incense. And they stood at the entrance of the tent of meeting. Now Moses and Aaron…
וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי יהוה וַתּוֹכַל אֹתָם וַיָּמֻתוּ לִפְנֵי יהוה (v. 2)	וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי יהוה וַתּוֹכַל אֹתָם וַיָּמֻתוּ לִפְנֵי יהוה (v. 35)
And fire came out from before YHWH and consumed them, and they died before YHWH (v. 2)	And fire came out from before YHWH and consumed them, and they died before YHWH (v. 35)

 

There are nine lexical overlaps between both episodes. In both episodes, they take (וַיִּקְח֣וּ) their own censors (אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ), place fire on them (וַיִּתְּנוּ בָהֵן אֵשׁ), and set on them incense (וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלֶיהָ קְטֹרֶת). Then the narration of YHWH’s response is the same with four words overlapping between both accounts. Fire (אֵשׁ) comes out (stem: יצא) from YHWH (יְהוָה), and the fire consumes (וַתֹּאכַל) those who gave the offering.41

The thematical connection between both accounts concerns the intermingling of cultic offering and priesthood.42 In both incidents, YHWH rejects a cultic offering. In the case of Korah and his group, YHWH rejects their offering because they hastily sought the office of the High Priest, which is rebellion against YHWH himself (Num 16:11). YHWH also rejects Nadab and Abihu’s offering likely because they presumptuously offered incense solely reserved for the High Priest Aaron (Exod 30:7–8).

3.2. Leviticus 4 and 10

YHWH prevents Nadab and Abihu from atoning for their transgression or explaining their actions. YHWH provides atonement for those, including the anointed priest, whose sin is שְׁגָגָה (“unintentional” or “inadvertent”; Lev 4:2–3),43 yet Nadab and Abihu have no chance to atone for their mistake. YHWH quickly judged Nadab and Abihu like Korah and his group in Numbers 16 because their cultic blunder fell outside the category of שְׁגָגָה and in the category of זור, which necessitated divine judgment.44 Furthermore, in Leviticus 10:16–20, immediately after Nadab and Abihu’s cultic blunder, Aaron’s other sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, apparently commit a cultic misstep by not eating the sin offering in the sanctuary according to Mosaic instruction (10:16–18). YHWH does not consume them, however, because their mistake seems to be more innocent.45

4. YHWH’s Verbal Response

YHWH’s verbal response further implies Nadab and Abihu committed an act of disobedience. Leviticus 10:3 reads, “And Moses said to Aaron, ‘This is what YHWH has spoken saying ‘By those who approach me I shall be recognized as holy, and in the sight of all the people I shall be recognized as glorious.’ And Aaron was silent.” Bibb comments on YHWH’s response:

In this speech the presence of YHWH comes to Aaron, but it is not a comforting word. It helps very little in rationalizing the events that have happened, but only sows further seeds of doubt. In the face of this, Aaron is silent. Therefore, the speech by Yahweh does not close any of the gaps in the story. We could say that Nadab and Abihu are destroyed because they violate the rules of God’s holiness. That is certainly true. The problem is, however, that we do not know what all of those rules are.46

According to Bibb, YHWH’s verbal response sheds no light on the nature of Nadab’s and Abihu’s offering, downplaying the significance of YHWH’s response to the ordeal. But YHWH’s response, his emphasis on his holiness and glory, underscores that Nadab and Abihu committed an act of disobedience on two grounds.47

4.1. Leviticus 22:32

The next time in Leviticus YHWH describes himself as קדש (“holy”) in the passive, first person singular, it occurs in the context of profaning the sanctuary. Leviticus 22:32 reads, “And you shall not profane the name of my sanctuary so I will be recognized as holy [וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי] in the midst of the sons of Israel. I am YHWH who sanctifies you.” Note the lexical and thematical overlap below.

There are two lexical connections between Leviticus 10:3 and Leviticus 22:32: (1) The divine name יהוה (“YHWH”); and (2) the Niphal, passive, first person singular of the verb קדש.

There are two thematic connections between Leviticus 10:3 and Leviticus 22:32. First, both occur in sections detailing priestly stipulations (Lev 10; 21–22). Second, both juxtapose right worship and YHWH’s holiness. If the sanctuary is not profaned, then YHWH will be recognized as holy. Conversely, if the sanctuary is profaned, then YHWH’s holiness will be absent before the people.

4.2. Ezekiel 28:22

Ezekiel 28:22, like Leviticus 10:3, conjoins כבד (“I shall be recognized as glorious”) and קדש (“I shall be recognized as holy”) in the context of judgment and disobedience.48 Ezekiel 28 records three prophecies against the ruler of Tyre (vv. 1–10), against the King of Tyre (vv. 11–19), and against the nation of Sidon (vv. 20–24). YHWH declares to the ruler of Sidon in verse 22, “Behold, I am against you Sidon, and I shall be glorified [וְנִכְבַּדְתִּי] in your midst, and they shall know that I am YHWH when I bring on her judgments, and I shall be recognized as holy [וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי] in her.” Observe the lexical and thematical overlap below.

There are three lexical connections between Ezekiel 28:22 and Leviticus 10:3: (1) The divine name יהוה;
(2) both record the Niphal, passive, first person singular of the verb כבד (“glory”); and (3) both record the Niphal, passive, first person singular of the verb קדש.

There are two thematic connections between both accounts. First, YHWH references in both episodes his character, his glory, and his holiness to explain his actions. In Leviticus 10:3, YHWH cites his holiness and glory to explain his consumption of Nadab and Abihu. In Ezekiel 28:22, YHWH mentions his holiness and glory to explain his pending judgment of Israel’s enemy. Second, YHWH judges in both accounts because of malpractice. In Leviticus 10:3 Nadab and Abihu transgressed cultic instruction, and in Ezekiel 28:22 Sidon mistreated Israel.

5. Conclusion

I applaud any scholar who seeks to rightly understand the relationship between law and narrative in the Old Testament, and so I highly recommend Bibb’s work on Leviticus. That said, Bibb’s unique interpretation of Nadab and Abihu’s cultic offering has imperfections. This article has sought to elucidate those imperfections and demonstrate that Nadab and Abihu’s cultic mishap is best categorized not as an act of ignorance but as an act of disobedience, because (1) Moses describes the brothers’ offering as profane; (2) the brothers most likely presumed the role of the High Priest by transgressing the bi-daily incense offering outlined in Exodus 30:7–9 that was not their responsibility; (3) YHWH consumed the brothers with fire; and (4) YHWH cites his own character to explain his act of judgment.

---

[1] Interpretations on the episode include Jay Sklar, Leviticus, ZECOT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2023), 293–305; Katherine M. Smith, “The Persuasive Intent of the Book of Leviticus,” (PhD thesis, University of Bristol, 2017), 143–47; James W. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, HCOT (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 503–52; Arthur J. Wolak, “Alcohol and the Fate of Nadab and Abihu: A Biblical Cautionary Tale against Inebriation,” JBQ 41 (2013): 219–26; Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Pentateuch, ZAT 2/25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 576–619; Jeffrey M. Cohen, “Acharei Mot and the Strange Fire,” JBQ 34 (2006): 51–54; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 94; D. Jeffery Mooney, “On this Day Atonement Will Be Made for You: A Theology of Leviticus 16 (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003), 99–120; John W. Kleinig, Leviticus, ConC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2003), 223–39; Rolf Rendtorff, “Nadab and Abihu,” in Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines, ed. J. Cheryl Exum and H. G. M. Williamson, JSOTSup 53 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 359–63; Richard S. Hess, “Leviticus 10:1: Strange Fire and an Odd Name,” BBR 12 (2002): 187–98; Mary Douglas, Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 200–205; Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, NAC 3A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000), 156–58; Moshe Greenberg, “The True Sin of Nadab and Abihu,” JBQ 26 (1998): 263–67; John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC 4 (Dallas: Word, 1992), 129–38; John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative:
A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 330–31; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 595–640; Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 152–58; John C. H. Laughlin, “The ‘Strange Fire’ of Nadab and Abihu,” JBL 95 (1975): 559–65.

[2] Rendtorff, “Nadab and Abihu,” 359–63.

[3] Bryan D. Bibb, “Blood, Death, and the Holy in Leviticus Narrative,” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 137–46; Bryan D. Bibb, Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds in the Book of Leviticus, LHBOTS 480 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 111–32; Bryan D. Bibb, “Nadab and Abihu Attempt to Fill a Gap: Law and Narrative in Leviticus 10.1–7,” JSOT 96 (2001): 83–99.

[4] Bibb, “Blood, Death, and the Holy,” 142, italics original.

[5] Bibb, Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds, 116.

[6] Bibb, Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds, 116.

[7] Bibb, “Blood, Death, and the Holy,” 142.

[8] Bibb, Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds, 116.

[9] Bibb, “Blood, Death, and the Holy,” 142.

[10] I ultimately disagree with Bibb’s proposal concerning the literary function of Leviticus 10, but a response to his entire proposal is beyond the scope of this article.

[11] So Sklar, Leviticus, 293–305; Smith, “The Persuasive Intent of the Book of Leviticus,” 142; L. Michael Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus, NSBT 37 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 143; Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 257; Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, 94; Rooker, Leviticus, 137; Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 330–31, Peretz Segal, “The Divine Verdict of Leviticus x 3,” VT 39 (1989): 91–95.

[12] All translations and Hebrew citations are taken from Rudolf Kittel et. al, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967).

[13] Commentators disagree over the translation of זרה. C.f. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 527; Hartley, Leviticus, 132–133; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 598.

[14] Leviticus 10:1–2 presents the Nadab and Abihu story via a chiastic structure of seven wayyiqtols.

[15] See footnote 1. Cf. HALOT 1:279; TDOT 4:52–58; DCH 3:98–100.

[16] Bibb, “Blood, Death, and the Holy in Leviticus Narrative,” 142.

[17] This survey does not include Numbers 3:4 and 26:61 since both texts quote Leviticus 10:1.

[18] Hess, “Leviticus 10:1,” 189.

[19] DCH 6:167; HALOT 2:759.

[20] Smith, “The Persuasive Intent of the Book of Leviticus,” 145–46 n. 51; Hess, “Leviticus 10:1: Strange Fire and an Odd Name,” 190–91.

[21] TDOT 4:55.

[22] David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis-Malachi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 80; Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 147.

[23] The subject of צוה (“to command”) in verse 1 is vague. The Greek Old Testament translates the relative clause as ὃ οὐ προσέταξεν κύριος αὐτοῖς(“which the Lord did not command them”) with YHWH as the subject of προσέταξεν(Heb: צוה). The subject of צוה is ultimately inconsequential because the main point is that Nadab and Abihu’s offering did not stem from YHWH’s or Moses’s instruction.

[24] Bibb, Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds in the Book of Leviticus, 121–22.

[25] Smith, “The Persuasive Intent of the Book of Leviticus,” 153; Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 512; Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord, 146; Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch, 256; Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 330; Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 94.

[26] Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 513.

[27] Michael B. Hundley, “Tabernacle or Tent of Meeting? The Dual Nature of the Sacred Tent in the Priestly Texts,” in Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond (Atlanta: SBL, 2015), 13.

[28] Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 596–98.

[29] Kenneth A. Matthews, Leviticus: Holy People, Holy God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009), 94; Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Leviticus, AOTC 3 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 179; Hartley, Leviticus, 131–32; Kleinig, Leviticus, 231.

[30] Sklar, Leviticus, 293–94.

[31] Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 512; Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 94.

[32] While Rendtorff does not argue that Nadab and Abihu transgressed the instruction of the bi-daily incense offering, he says, “Though the motivations of Nadab and Abihu are not explicated, one could imagine, as mentioned above, that they wanted to demonstrate their specific role as Aaron’s eldest sons, and thereby as next in the priestly hierarchy. They might have felt, like Korah and his followers, that Moses and Aaron elevated themselves too much, and therefore they wanted to claim privileges similar to their father’s” (Rendtorff, “Nadab and Abihu,” 363).

[33] Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 59.

[34] Bibb, Ritual Words and Narrative, 122 n. 4.

[35] Hartley, Leviticus, 132.

[36] Sklar, Leviticus, 293.

[37] Bibb, Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds, 125.

[38] Sklar, Leviticus, 303.

[39] Segal, “The Divine Verdict of Leviticus x 3,” 93.

[40] Many scholars have also observed verbal and thematic similarities between the Nadab and Abihu episode and the Golden Calf incident in Exodus 32 (Hess, “Leviticus 10:1,” 190n. 11; Douglas, Leviticus as Literature, 200–205; Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament, 78).

[41] Rendtorff, “Nadab and Abihu,” 360.

[42] Levine, Leviticus, 59; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 599–600.

[43] See HALOT 4:1412–13; TDOT 14:397–405; DCH 8:262–63.

[44] Levine, Leviticus, 59.

[45] Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 96; Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch, 257.

[46] Bibb, Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds, 124–25.

[47] Smith persuasively argues that Leviticus 10:3 thematically connects Leviticus 1–7 and Leviticus 11–15 and functions as the rhetorical lynchpin for Leviticus 1–16 (Smith, “The Persuasive Intent of the Book of Leviticus,” 146–57).

[48] For a short study on the theological and thematic overlap between Leviticus and Ezekiel, see Preston Sprinkle, “Law and Life: Leviticus 18.5 in the Literary Framework of Ezekiel,” JSOT 31 (2007): 275–93; Segal, “The Divine Verdict of Leviticus x 3,” 91–95.

 

---