Amazing Grace: Nadab and Abihu

Thanks to Kris’s comment, I’ve now listened to Dr. Rodney Plunkett’s excellent sermon on this subject. I’ve now added his thoughts to my own, thereby moving ever closer to the definitive debunking of the Nadab-and-Abihu argument.

For those not familiar with the Church of Christ argument that God damns those who worship in error, you can skip this. If you’ve already read my preceding post “Classes on Grace: Objections,” you just need to read the part starting after the underlined paragraph.

Nadab and Abihu were sons of Aaron and priests when the Law of Moses was first instituted. They offered “strange fire” and God killed them.

Going back to earliest Calvinism, this passage has been used to defend the Regulative Principle, which is the idea that anything added to the Bible’s instructions for how to worship is sin, and not just sin, but sin that damns.

First, we have to question any view that a particular sin damns. I mean, David wasn’t damned for adultery and murder–why would God damn for well-intentioned worship? To reach that conclusion, you must assume that God is more concerned with the ritual of worship than with day-to-day Christian living–which just isn’t so.

If we look at the story of Nadab and Abihu closely, we find that the account actually strongly supports the view that grace applies to worship just like the rest of our relationship with God.

Leviticus 10:9 strongly suggests that Nadab and Abihu were guilty of drunkenness, and this occasioned their mistake and offense.

(Lev. 10:9-10) “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. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. 10 You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the
clean … .”

Adam Clarke says in his commentary on Leviticus, “The cabalistic commentator, Baal Hatturim, and others, have supposed from the introduction of this command here, that Aaron’s sons had sinned through excess of wine, and they had attempted to celebrate the Divine service in a state of inebriation.”

Second, and more importantly, we must contrast this story with the immediately following account of Eleazar and Ithamar. These two men were appointed to replace Nadab and Abihu. However, in vv. 16-18, Moses finds that the two men had incorrectly handled the very next ceremony! Moses was very unhappy, to say the least.

Aaron defended their mistake:

(Lev. 10:19-20) Aaron replied to Moses, “Today they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD, but such things as this have happened to me. Would the LORD have been pleased if I had eaten the sin offering today?” 20 When Moses heard this, he was satisfied.

Aaron said that he too had made mistakes in the service. It was an accident. These things happen. And Eleazar and Ithamar were not punished.

As stated in G. J. Wenham, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, The Book of Leviticus, p. 30, “This suggests, perhaps, that God is more gracious to those who make mistakes because they fear him than to those who carelessly and impudently enter his presence as Nadab and Abihu did.”

The fact that the two stories are immediately juxtaposed as they are in Leviticus 10 is intended to make a point, and the point is surely that God overlooks honest mistakes (among those in grace, of course) but does not overlook willful disobedience.

Is authority required for worship? A better question, thus, is what the Old Testament says about whether an “act of worship” requires authority. And the best example is the use of instruments in the temple worship. Instruments are nowhere authorized in the Law of Moses. Indeed, the Law goes into great detail about the services are to be conducted and says nothing of instruments.

However, David had instruments played in the tabernacle (1 Chron. 15:16 ff; 25:6-7). And yet this worship was approved by God. The Psalms frequently refer to the use of musical instruments in the worship of God, and God approved Solomon’s temple, where the instrumental service was continued. And all this was without authority. Indeed, it’s hard to deny the observation that instrumental music was an addition to the Law of Moses. And God accepted the worship.

Another example of unauthorized acts of worship. Consider the evidence of Exodus 29. In this chapter, God lays out the ritual to be followed in the Tent of Meeting:

* Present a bull, two rams, bread made with oil, and cakes covered in oil.

* Wash Aaron and his two sons – Nadab and Abihu — with water.

* Dress Aaron with the ephod, a turban, and a diadem.

* Dress the sons in tunics, headbands, and sashes.

* Aaron and his sons should lay hands on the bull’s head and Moses should slaughter it.

However, Moses’ performance of this ceremony is recorded later in Leviticus 8–

(Lev. 8:6-14, 36) Then Moses brought Aaron and his sons forward and washed them with water. 7 He put the tunic on Aaron, tied the sash around him, clothed him with the robe and put the ephod on him. He also tied the ephod to him by its skillfully woven waistband; so it was fastened on him. 8 He placed the breastpiece on him and put the Urim and Thummim in the breastpiece. 9 Then he placed the turban on Aaron’s head and set the gold plate, the sacred diadem, on the front of it, as the LORD commanded Moses.

10 Then Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the tabernacle and everything in it, and so consecrated them. 11 He sprinkled some of the oil on the altar seven times, anointing the altar and all its utensils and the basin with its stand, to consecrate them. 12 He poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron’s head and anointed him to consecrate him.

13 Then he brought Aaron’s sons forward, put tunics on them, tied sashes around them and put headbands on them, as the LORD commanded Moses. 14 He then presented the bull for the sin offering, and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on its head. …

36 So Aaron and his sons did everything the LORD commanded through Moses.

Even on a casual reading, it’s obvious that this account varies from Exodus 29 in several particulars. The oil used to anoint the altar and the tabernacle wasn’t mentioned in Exodus 29. Neither was the giving of the Urim and Thummim and breastpiece. These appear to be “additions,” that is, ceremonial acts of worship that were outside the commands of God. Certainly, they appear appropriate to the occasion, and very respectful, but they appear to be of human invention. Nothing was subtracted from God’s commands, but these items were added.

And notice that the chapter ends with the declaration that they’d done all that God commanded–not that they’d done only what God had commanded.

What was the strange fire? The commentators speculate on several possibilities, but the language is simply too vague to permit a definite answer.

It seems probable that the reference is to Leviticus 16:12 , which requires that the incense be burned using coals from the altar. This fire was initially lit by God himself in Leviticus 9:24, and which was to be kept continuously burning. Leviticus 6:13.

The Regulative Principle argument would be that they died because they acted without authority, but the text seems to say that they violated an explicit command.

After all, if there was no authority to use fire, they couldn’t have burned the incense at all! Obviously, the command to use incense authorized the use of fire! The problem could not have been that they had no authority for fire. Rather, plainly the sin was in using the wrong fire or fire in the wrong way. Hence, they stand accused of violating an explicit command.

Conclusions

Therefore, we know a couple of things. First, that the sin wasn’t in acting without authority. It was acting contrary to commands. There’s a big difference, which we often ignore. This is not an example of an unauthorized addition.

Remember, the argument against instrumental music, clapping, and many other things is based on a lack of authority–not a violation of an explicit command. No one argues that God permits Christians to intentionally violate a command. But additions that do not violate a command are a much different question.

Second, although the use of strange fire was plainly sin, the clearest explanation for why God took such great offense is found in verses 9-10–the priests messed up the ceremony due to being drunk while handling God’s holy work, treating holy things as unholy. If this isn’t so, then it’s hard to see a reason for including these verses as part of this narrative. Why else would God address alcohol consumption now? After all, nowhere in the Law is alcohol spoken of as unclean or unholy.

Therefore, there is nothing here that should cause us to doubt the graciousness of God! Worship is not a special kind of thing that stands outside God’s gracious, loving nature. Rather, like all our relationship with God, we are certainly to obey God’s will, but Christians need not fear damnation from trying to do right but accidentally making a mistake.