In fact, the simple reading of the text suggests a combination of these two interpretations. In taking "strange fire", i.e., fire that had not been taken from the divinely kindled flame on the altar (Leviticus 9. 24.), Nadab and Abihu had abused their priestly prerogative, making themselves the masters of the ritual of the sanctuary instead of its servants. But such a ritual transgression might have been forgiven were it not for the importance of the occasion, the consecration of the tabernacle, and for the dignity of their office which demanded that they be exceptionally circumspect in their conduct. Their punishment was, therefore, more severe than the offense would warrant in the case of any other than a consecrated person. Its severity was in proportion to the holiness of the sanctuary that had been violated and of the priestly office that had been profaned rather than to the heinousness of the offense in itself, and it expressed God's desire to impress upon the people the sanctity of the tabernacle and its ritual. In dealing with Nadab and Abihu God was acting in accordance with the rabbinic statement to the effect that "with the righteous God is exacting even to a hair's breadth," and the rabbis could, therefore, view the death of the Sons of Aaron somewhat in the light of martyrdom. The remaining incidents, with the exception of the prophesying of Eldad and Medad are, as we have already said, examples of rebellion and its punishment. They are interesting instances of the trials of Moses in his leadership of the people. Their moral is the duty of loyalty to legitimate authority. The punishment of the people at Kibroth-hattaavah is an excellent example of how inordinate desire brings its own punishment, and suggests, as one of the grounds for loyalty, submission and discipline, the fact that what we most desire is not always what is most beneficial for us, a very important moral for children.