# Strange Fire



## blhowes (Aug 19, 2007)

I just finished reading a sermon called The Right Manner of Worship and Drawing Nigh Unto God by Jeremiah Burroughs. A very sobering sermon. He uses the account of Nadab and Abihu offering strange fire to show how important it is to worship God as its revealed in the scriptures.

Regarding the Nadab and Abihu, I was just wondering - exactly what did they do when they offered strange fire, what were they supposed to do, and how was what they did different from what was commanded?

In the account of Nadab and Abihu, and in other places in scripture, God clearly acts and shows His judgment/displeasure against false worship of Him. How does God show his judgment/displeasure now? Does the account of Nadab and Abihu serve "only" as a warning that false worship will be judged (ie., at the judgment), or are there ways that God demonstrates His judgment now?



> You see how severe God was to Nadab and Abihu for just taking other fire than that which God had appointed, though there was no direct command against it. If the Lord has spared you and not manifested any displeasure upon you, you have cause to acknowledge God's mercy, and to be humbled for all your false worship.


----------



## christiana (Aug 19, 2007)

Yes, I remember that is how Burroughs really got my attention in the beginning of his book Gospel Worship, by the account of Nadab and Abihu. Who knows? Whatever it was they did was not according to God's command! God has unlimited ways of showing His judgment and displeasure today and it behooves us to remain humble before Him.
Rather like those in 1 Cor that did not honor the Lord's Supper properly and then 'slept', is it not?
BTW I love reading Jeremiah Burroughts, including his The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 19, 2007)

I don't have a reference, but I think the fire for the censers was supposed to come from the altar.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 19, 2007)

christiana said:


> Yes, I remember that is how Burroughs really got my attention in the beginning of his book Gospel Worship, by the account of Nadab and Abihu. Who knows? Whatever it was they did was not according to God's command!


I was just curious. After such a certain judgment, if I were given the 'job' after Nadab and Abihu, those are questions I'd be very curious about before I proceeded.



christiana said:


> God has unlimited ways of showing His judgment and displeasure today and it behooves us to remain humble before Him.
> Rather like those in 1 Cor that did not honor the Lord's Supper properly and then 'slept', is it not?


That's another good example. Thanks.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 19, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I don't have a reference, but I think the fire for the censers was supposed to come from the altar.


Lev 16:11 And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself: 
Lev 16:12 And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail: 
Lev 16:13 And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not:​Is this the reference you were thinking of? 

I wonder if this is something Nadab and Abihu should have known and had previously been instructed about (this occurs in Lev 16, the strange fire happened in Lev 10). I'll have to look more closely at the beginning of Leviticus to see what their instructions were.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 19, 2007)

Yes; that's what I had in mind.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 19, 2007)

I believe Burroughs makes this point (see _Gospel Worship_):

What is indicated is that the men *should have inferred*, even if there were no explicit command, that they had no warrant to bring the "strange fire" into the tabernacle. The "fire" they should have brought in 10:1 should have been the fire lit off by God himself in 9:24. This was heavenly fire, a perpetually burning fire (sustained by ordinary means of adding fuel), never supposed to be put out. But even if it was OK that it needed to be relit, in THIS situation, anyway, clearly it was God-given fire that was present already.

And this is further proof of that RPW which we maintain is so vital to true worship. So what if God had yet to spell out (Lev. 16) in so many words the procedure for bringing fire into the Tabernacle? The men were destroyed for DOING something they had not been commanded, and something that was inferential, since God had provided said FIRE.

The notion that drunkenness was involved (v.9) is a possibility, but certainly requires further inference. One could just as easily see the injunction as a warning that the priest must _have all his mental faculties about him,_ i.e. *take seriously* his duties in worship. Wine would certainly be a "clouding" factor in judgment. But it is a leap to suppose that N&A must have been drunk, then.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 19, 2007)

Regarding how God displays His displeasure now, I believe 1 Corinthians gives an account where Paul states that some have "fallen asleep" for their carelessness in worship.

I also believe, more broadly, Romans 1 provides a picture of descent into gross sin, which begins with idolatry. Reforming our hearts and minds about who God is should have profound implications about how we approach Him.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 23, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> What is indicated is that the men *should have inferred*, even if there were no explicit command, that they had no warrant to bring the "strange fire" into the tabernacle. The "fire" they should have brought in 10:1 should have been the fire lit off by God himself in 9:24.


I've never studied this before, and have a lot to learn about the duties of the priests. 

What time gap (if any) do you think there was between 9:24 and 10:1? Lev 9:24 And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which *when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces*.​Do you think those that saw the burnt offering consumed by fire also saw Nadab and Abihu punished by fire also? (probably no way of telling?)




Contra_Mundum said:


> This was heavenly fire, a perpetually burning fire (sustained by ordinary means of adding fuel), never supposed to be put out. But even if it was OK that it needed to be relit, in THIS situation, anyway, clearly it was God-given fire that was present already.


Why do you think God commanded the priests to keep the fire burning? Does it typify something? Since its not necessary to keep the fire going anymore, how was this fulfilled by Jesus?

Just curious. Have any/all of you heard sermons preached (at church) about Nadab and Abihu? I never have - don't know if I should feel jipped, but it seems like a pretty important passage to preach on.

Just curious, part 2. I listened to a very good sermon last night by Greg Price called "Regulative Principle of Worship in the Old Testament" which I really enjoyed. It says he's with Still Waters Revival Books, but doesn't say which church he's a pastor of. Just curious if anybody knew.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 23, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Just curious. Have any/all of you heard sermons preached (at church) about Nadab and Abihu? I never have - don't know if I should feel jipped, but it seems like a pretty important passage to preach on.
> 
> Just curious, part 2. I listened to a very good sermon last night by Greg Price called "Regulative Principle of Worship in the Old Testament" which I really enjoyed. It says he's with Still Waters Revival Books, but doesn't say which church he's a pastor of. Just curious if anybody knew.



I heard Sinclair Ferguson preach a sermon on this very passage at a Ligonier National Conference a few years ago. It was in relation to worship and was excellent. It was, in fact, my first introduction to the RPW. His point was that it didn't matter what the strange fire was, necessarily. What mattered is that they were doing something that they had not been commanded to do in worship. They were, in fact, being innovative.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 23, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Reforming our hearts and minds about who God is should have profound implications about how we approach Him.




I for one need my heart and mind reformed, for sure. So often I find myself thinking of God as He's often portrayed by a big part of Christianity today, instead of how He's revealed in the scriptures. This passage, and others like:Exo 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 
Exo 3:3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 
Exo 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 
Exo 3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, *for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground*. ​...are sobering reminders of what's often missing in worship.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 23, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> I heard Sinclair Ferguson preach a sermon on this very passage at a Ligonier National Conference a few years ago. It was in relation to worship and was excellent. It was, in fact, my first introduction to the RPW. His point was that it didn't matter what the strange fire was, necessarily. What mattered is that they were doing something that they had not been commanded to do in worship. They were, in fact, being innovative.


I wonder if its online somewhere (will search later).

As a pastor, did your introduction to the RPW later cause any need to change how your particular church worshipped? How did learning about the RPW impact you?


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 23, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > I heard Sinclair Ferguson preach a sermon on this very passage at a Ligonier National Conference a few years ago. It was in relation to worship and was excellent. It was, in fact, my first introduction to the RPW. His point was that it didn't matter what the strange fire was, necessarily. What mattered is that they were doing something that they had not been commanded to do in worship. They were, in fact, being innovative.
> ...



I haven't seen it online. I have the cd of it, but it is copyrighted material, so I can't copy it. It made a huge impact on how we worshipped. Incidentally, that conference was also the last shoe to fall in my travel to the dark side of Calvinism.

We used to be a completely contemporary church, Rick-Warrenish, if you will. Things have changed quite a bit in the last few years. My sermons got longer and more meatier (not sure how many people liked it). Our music changed from 7-11 choruses to hymns with some meaty modern choruses. We began partaking of communion every Sunday within the last year. We read a ton more Scripture in the service. We also pray a lot more (pastoral, prayers of confession, etc.). Our service is also much simpler than it used to be. We never really had all the flash of a Rick Warren, but we definitely don't have any now. There is less of a concern over performance and more of a concern for God.


----------



## bradofshaw (Aug 23, 2007)

I have a question: 

What was (or was to be) signified in the fire that Nadab & Abihu offered? Was the offering of incense to be an offering of praise/thanksgiving or was it part of the sacrifice made for atonement from sins?


----------



## blhowes (Aug 23, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> I haven't seen it online. I have the cd of it, but it is copyrighted material, so I can't copy it. It made a huge impact on how we worshipped. Incidentally, that conference was also the last shoe to fall in my travel to the dark side of Calvinism.


The closest I could find was a sermon called "Worshipping God" listed here. Maybe I'll listen to it tonight.


Calvibaptist said:


> We used to be a completely contemporary church, Rick-Warrenish, if you will. Things have changed quite a bit in the last few years. My sermons got longer and more meatier (not sure how many people liked it). Our music changed from 7-11 choruses to hymns with some meaty modern choruses. We began partaking of communion every Sunday within the last year. We read a ton more Scripture in the service. We also pray a lot more (pastoral, prayers of confession, etc.). Our service is also much simpler than it used to be. We never really had all the flash of a Rick Warren, but we definitely don't have any now. There is less of a concern over performance and more of a concern for God.


That's a neat testimony. Praise the Lord!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 23, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Just curious, part 2. I listened to a very good sermon last night by Greg Price called "Regulative Principle of Worship in the Old Testament" which I really enjoyed. It says he's with Still Waters Revival Books, but doesn't say which church he's a pastor of. Just curious if anybody knew.



Greg Price is in the RPNA. He knows the RPW well, but his group is separatistic, so that is something to watch out for.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 23, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Just curious, part 2. I listened to a very good sermon last night by Greg Price called "Regulative Principle of Worship in the Old Testament" which I really enjoyed. It says he's with Still Waters Revival Books, but doesn't say which church he's a pastor of. Just curious if anybody knew.


Price is an RPNA pastor (I think "the sole" RPNA pastor?). Beware I say. Sounder men are better sources where the RPNA happens to be right on issues. Price and his REs have excommunicated a third or more of their membership in the last year or so. If you need to know more, see here and here.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 23, 2007)

Andrew/Chris,
Thanks for the warning.


----------



## dcomin (Aug 23, 2007)

Here is how I treated the account of Nadab & Abihu and it's application to worship in Worship From Genesis to Revelation...

Chapter 3
Worship in Leviticus​
The material we have examined from Genesis and Exodus has established that it was God’s revealed will from the very beginning that fallen men must only draw near to Him by the means that He Himself had appointed. The primary reason for God’s insistence on men approaching Him in His own prescribed manner is that sinful man’s approach to God is only possible through God’s provision of reconciliation in Christ. Man must never imagine that he can approach God on his own terms or in his own way. To do so is to ignore God’s sovereign work in redemption and attribute redemption to the works of one’s own hands. Any means designed by men apart from God’s commands is therefore condemned in the strongest terms. 

This “drawing near to God,” then, is primarily to be understood in terms of the redemptive work of Christ, foreshadowed in the altars and sacrifices of a “church under-age.” And yet it must never be thought that Christ’s redemptive work and the activities of worship are set apart from one another. Again and again in Genesis and Exodus we encounter examples of God’s displeasure at the inventiveness of men in worship precisely because worship was designed to picture Christ’s redemptive work.

Man’s “contribution” to the prescribed elements of worship serves only to cloud the truth that reconciliation, which allows men to draw near unto God, is His prerogative and His work alone. Such inventiveness is condemned by God as unacceptable and idolatrous in Genesis and Exodus, and as will-worship in the New Testament. God prescribes the activities of worship for the very purpose of illustrating the Savior’s atoning work. 

As we move into the book of Leviticus, God’s requirements for worship become more explicit. The title “Leviticus” literally means “about Levites.” The main concern of the book is to record God’s ordinances for the worship of His people, which are spelled out in great detail. In the midst of these details we find the striking historical account of Nadab and Abihu, two of Aaron’s sons.

*God must not be worshipped by unauthorized means. (Leviticus 10:1-7)*

Nadab and Abihu, two of Aaron’s four sons, presumed to worship God with “strange fire, which He commanded them not.” This act of presumption was met with an immediate judgment as the fire of God’s wrath consumed the two brothers. The interpretation of this historical event is not difficult: God abhors carelessness in worship which presumes to offer what He has not commanded. 

John Calvin wrote on this passage: “A memorable circumstance is here recorded, from whence it appears how greatly God abominates all the sins whereby purity of religion is corrupted. Apparently it was a light transgression to use strange fire for burning incense; and again their thoughtlessness would seem inexcusable, for certainly Nadab and Abihu did not wantonly or intentionally desire to pollute the sacred things, when they were setting about them too eagerly, their precipitancy led them into error.”

Some readers react to this account with startled amazement, as if the punishment inflicted was far more severe than the offense deserved. Such a response, however, not only calls God’s perfect justice into question, but also fails to appreciate the seriousness of worship. Again, Calvin writes, “The severity of the punishment, therefore, would not please those arrogant people, who do not hesitate superciliously to criticize God’s judgments; but if we reflect how holy a thing God’s worship is, the enormity of the punishment will by no means offend us.” 

Besides this, there was a clear necessity, at the very beginning of the administration of Aaron’s sons over the ministry of worship, that there be no question in any mind either about the Divine requirements or the penalty for transgressing them. “It was necessary,” says Calvin, “that their religion should be sanctioned at its very commencement; for 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.”

The great Genevan Reformer draws this conclusion: “Let us learn, therefore, so to attend to God’s command as not to corrupt His worship by any strange inventions.”

In verse 3 of Leviticus 10, God reiterates the reason for His great jealousy for the purity of worship: “By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.” 

God’s worship must be governed by two chief considerations. First, God’s holiness must be duly regarded by those who come near to Him. Second, the exclusivity of God’s glory is given as a reason for His jealousy about worship.

The next section of Leviticus 10 (verses 4-7) demonstrates the priority and seriousness with which men are to regard the worship of the Holy God. Aaron and his surviving sons were forbidden to mourn the deaths of Nadab and Abihu while they were engaged in their priestly duties. God’s worship is to take priority over even the most natural and heartfelt inclinations of men. Even the natural love of a father and brother is not to invade the solemnity of God’s worship. Jesus stated this principle in similar form when He said, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:26). Nothing should be more important and urgent to us than the worship of God, and no other consideration, however seemingly moving, should interfere with our performance of His required worship or induce us to lay aside what He has commanded.

Note also that the rest of the house of Israel were commanded to “bewail the burning which the Lord has kindled.” They were to mourn, not so much for the tragic loss of their fellow Israelites, but for the offense which had been given to God, which had provoked His burning wrath. This command highlights the zeal that ought to be in the hearts of men for the glory of God, and the grief which ought to overwhelm every heart when God’s commands are set aside in favor of the presumptuous inventions of men.

How little of this mourning for giving offense to God exists among His people today! How little concern for the idea that what is done in the name of worship in so many churches has no warrant from the mouth of God! How little fear that man’s bold presumption in framing worship according to his own desires and interests kindles the wrath of the One who is to be regarded as holy and whose glory alone is to be magnified in the public assemblies of His people! Is it any wonder that the Church is so lifeless and impotent in the face of its enemies? She has forsaken her first and most urgent priority, and made the worship of the 
Holy God a mere show of the talents and ideas of men!

Surely the Church is under the judgment of God for its sins – chief among them being a disregard for the worship of God. If she is to be revived, and her glory restored, it must begin with bewailing the offenses she has given to God in worship. 

*God’s appointed shepherds must teach and guard the flock. (Leviticus 10:8-11)*

Immediately after the judgment of Nadab and Abihu, we read that God gave instructions to Aaron concerning the service of his house in the tabernacle. It is noteworthy that here God speaks directly to Aaron, where in almost every other case He speaks to Aaron through Moses. The commandment given, therefore, especially concerned Aaron’s administration in worship and was to be heard by him directly from the mouth of God. 

The thrust of the statute was that Aaron and his sons were forbidden from drinking wine or strong drink while they were active in the functions of their office. Some have sought to use this passage as a basis for a requirement of total abstinence from alcoholic beverages on the part of ministers. It is clear, however, that God’s command to Aaron was limited to the time in which he and his sons were engaged in the actual activities of their office in the tabernacle. Further, the larger context shows that what was of greatest concern here was that the judgment of the priests was not to be clouded in any way while they were carrying out the prescribed worship of the Lord. The reason given is two-fold. 

First, they must be sober-minded so that they can rightly “distinguish between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean.” The word translated “distinguish” is the Hebrew word for “divide.” It is the same word used throughout the creation account of Genesis 1, when God “divided” light from darkness (vs. 4), the waters from the waters (vss. 6-7), and day from night (vs. 14). This same word is used of the veil in the tabernacle, which formed a “divider” between the holy place and the most holy place. It is a word that has to do with separation. The task of Aaron and his sons was to carefully separate, divide, and distinguish between what was holy and what was profane. 

We have already seen throughout our study on worship up to this point that God defines what is “holy” as that which He has commanded and what is “profane” as that which is introduced by the caprice of men apart from divine warrant. Distinguishing between the holy and the profane is precisely what Nadab and Abihu had failed to do, and thus the necessity for this command.

It is not necessary to conclude, as some have done, that Nadab and Abihu committed their particular sin under the influence of wine or strong drink. This may or may not have been the case. What is clear is that this raised an issue of sound judgment, and God immediately introduced this law as a safeguard.

Second, the priests must be sober-minded so that they “may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by the hand of Moses” with clarity. Strong drink would dull their senses, and put them in jeopardy of misrepresenting God’s commands to the people. 

From this command and its immediate context we learn that God charges His appointed ministers with the awesome task of instructing His people in the requirements of His law regarding worship and exercising careful judgment over what they present to Him in their assemblies. This is the principle of accountability: God holds most accountable those whom He has appointed as stewards of His truth. When worship is corrupted, through a failure to distinguish between the holy and the profane, God lays it to the charge of the ministers of His house. Likewise, if the people are ignorant of His commands, and are thus permitted, or even encouraged to offer profane worship, it is the minister who is most culpable. “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1).

When God announced His impending judgment upon Israel through the prophet Ezekiel, it was precisely on these grounds that He testified against them: “Her priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them” (Ezekiel 22:26).

But there is yet another principle to be gleaned from Levitcus 10…

*What God commands must not be left undone. (Leviticus 10:12-20)*

The remainder of Leviticus 10 records what happened after Nadab and Abihu had been judged, and God had charged Aaron with the seriousness of his role as priest. Once again we find the sons of Aaron falling short with regard to God’s commands for worship. 
The two remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, incurred the anger of Moses because they refrained from eating the meat of the sin offering as God had clearly commanded. Their error, unlike that of their recently deceased brothers, was not one of wicked presumption, but fearful timidity. They were afraid to eat the burnt offering, as Aaron explained, because God’s zealous judgment against Nadab and Abihu’s sin made them think that He would not accept their service either. They had taken the fear of the Lord to an extreme, and despaired of being accepted in His sight because His holy jealousy was too awesome. 

Moses’ acceptance of the explanation does not mean that Aaron and his sons had done rightly, but only that God overlooked their oversight for the sake of their fear, as well as to preserve the priesthood from being completely annihilated in a day. The initial anger of Moses indicates that Eleazar and Ithamar’s sin of omission was regarded as an offense against God’s command, just as Nadab and Abihu’s sin of commission had been. Care must be taken in the worship of God not only to avoid adding to God’s commands, but also to be careful to detract nothing from them. 

*The holiness of God forbids presumption in His worship. (Leviticus 16:1-3)*

These verses record the specific instruction given to Aaron as High Priest concerning his entrance into the most holy place. The introduction in verse 1 is clearly intended to tie this command to the holiness of God, which had been profaned by Nadab and Abihu’s “creative” worship. The emphasis here is once again upon the fact that God may be approached only on His own terms. Aaron is therefore told in no uncertain terms, “not to come at just any time into the Holy Place inside the veil.” He must come only at the time of God’s appointment. 

Aaron had been entrusted with a special office. As High Priest, he represented God to the people, and the people before God. But even this position of privilege and responsibility did not give him license to come and go into the presence of God as he pleased. The fact that God had favored him with a special honor was not to be seen as an excuse for familiarity with God. 

Even in earthly kingdoms, those granted the special favor of rulers and entrusted with positions of honor by them do not presume to stroll into the throne room as uninvited guests. To do so would be an insult to the majesty of the monarch. It is true that believers in the New Covenant era have gained access to the throne of grace through Jesus Christ, who has torn the veil of the temple in two and made a way for us to draw near to God. It would be a great error, however, to conclude from this fact that God has now given us carte blanche to determine for ourselves when and how we will approach Him. 

Has His holiness and majesty been diminished? Does His love for us excuse us from obedience? Privilege, even in Christ, must never lead us to presumption.

*Only what is perfect may be offered to God in worship. (Leviticus 22:21-25)*

We come here to a consideration of the kinds of offerings that were acceptable to God in the worship of His people. Leviticus 22:21-25 provides an important principle for our own worship, though we no longer bring animals to be burned on an altar. God’s will regarding what His people offer to Him is expressed in these words: “it must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it.” 

Of course, this particular requirement in the context of the ceremonial sacrifices was designed to point to God’s unblemished Lamb. Yet once again the principle is abiding, even among those who worship the Lamb who has been revealed. Christ deserves nothing less than what is perfect. Therefore He is to be worshipped, not with the innovations of men, which cannot help but be defective, but according to God’s own truth and through His own appointed means, which have no imperfections in themselves. 

Again, when God judged Israel, this commandment was also cited: “You also say, 'Oh, what a weariness!' And you sneer at it,” Says the LORD of hosts. “And you bring the stolen, the lame, and the sick; Thus you bring an offering! Should I accept this from your hand?” Says the LORD. “But cursed be the deceiver Who has in his flock a male, And takes a vow, But sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished -- For I am a great King,” Says the LORD of hosts, “And My name is to be feared among the nations.” (Malachi 1:13-14)

It is clear from this condemnation that the people who were guilty of this offense had in their possession that which was perfect and unblemished, but they made a conscious decision to offer instead what was defective, or less than perfect. This was considered a high offense against God. 

It is not without significance for the application of this principle that the worship of Christians in the New Testament is described as in terms of a sacrifice: “Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name” (Hebrews 13:15). And shall we, while possessing that which is perfect and without blemish in the compendium of songs which have been committed to the Church by divine inspiration, offer a sacrifice of praise which cannot but be defective, because it has been written by sinful men without the direct inspiration of the Spirit of Truth? 

We must never make a decision to displace God’s perfect ordinances with a man-made invention. God’s abiding principle is this: The sacrifice that you offer me “must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## blhowes (Aug 23, 2007)

dcomin said:


> Here is how I treated the account of Nadab & Abihu and it's application to worship in Worship From Genesis to Revelation...


Doug,
Thanks. That was excellent. 


dcomin said:


> *What God commands must not be left undone. (Leviticus 10:12-20)*
> 
> The remainder of Leviticus 10 records what happened after Nadab and Abihu had been judged, and God had charged Aaron with the seriousness of his role as priest. Once again we find the sons of Aaron falling short with regard to God’s commands for worship.
> The two remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, incurred the anger of Moses because they refrained from eating the meat of the sin offering as God had clearly commanded. Their error, unlike that of their recently deceased brothers, was not one of wicked presumption, but fearful timidity. *They were afraid to eat the burnt offering, as Aaron explained, because God’s zealous judgment against Nadab and Abihu’s sin made them think that He would not accept their service either.* They had taken the fear of the Lord to an extreme, and despaired of being accepted in His sight because His holy jealousy was too awesome.


They erred, but it sure is understandable, especially after seeing God's fire consume the offering, then judge their brothers.


----------

