Using Strange Fire to Offer Worship
By Jonathan Mitchell
This essay is based in the incident recorded in Lev. 10:1-7, and will consider both ancient Jewish interpretations and the common Christian reading of this text. We begin with the brief telling of what happened:
"The sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, each took his firepan, put fire in them, placed incense on it, and came near before Yahweh with alien fire, such as He had not instructed them. And fire came forth from before Yahweh and devoured them, and they died before Yahweh."-(Lev. 10:1-2, Concordant Version)
The Greek translation (LXX) describes the fire that these two used as,
"of or belonging to another; foreign; strange; hostile; unfavorably disposed."
The Greek, for the last clause of vs. 1, reads,
"which [the] LORD did not prescribe (or: arrange-toward) for (or: to; with) them."
There seems to be two problems involved in their actions: the "strange; foreign" fire, and the aspect of their action not being prescribed by Yahweh. With most all ancient religious rituals, following the prescribed procedures was of great importance. Was this apparent infraction, of these two men, an error of not following the "rules of the game," or was it that they used fire that "belonged to another"? Was it an improperly performed ritual, or was it that they introduced something "hostile, unfavorably disposed, and foreign"? Perhaps both.
I recall an incident back in the 1950's. My father had been invited to speak/teach at a small Pentecostal church. Apparently, during the service, there were overt manifestations - whether spoken, or acted out, I do not know (I can't recall whether I was present in the service) - which my parents did not feel were "of God." They spoke of this activity as having been, "strange fire." That was my first encounter with this phrase, but I knew that they had viewed what had happened in a negative light. In later times, I would hear of such things as being "of the flesh."
Accordingly, through the years, Christian interpretations of the actions of Aaron's sons is that they were wrong, and thus were they instantly judged by Yahweh, and it cost them their lives. But this is not how the incident was always interpreted.
"[Nadab and Abihu] were taken up by a rush of fire unquenchable, by and undying splendor, since in sincerity they cast aside sloth and delay and consecrated their zeal, hot and fiery, flesh-consuming and swiftly moving, to piety. [This fire] was 'foreign' to earthly existence, since it belonged to the realm of God... Wafted by a favorable breeze and carried to the heights of heaven, they there passed away, like a wholly burn offering [from the tabernacle] into celestial splendor." (Philo, On Dreams 2:67, in The Bible As It Was, James L. Kugel, 1997 p 442, brackets original)
"It is thus that the priests Nadab and Abihu die in order that they might live, receiving an incorruptible life in exchange for mortal existence, and being transferred from the [domain of the] created to the uncreated. As an allusion to [this] 'before the Lord', which means they [really] came to life, since a dead body may not come into God's presence. And [hence it says] 'This is what the Lord has said, "I will be sanctified in those who draw near to me"' [Septuagint Lev. 10:3]" (Philo, On Flight and Finding, 59, ibid p 443, brackets original).
"And a flame of fire came forth from before the Lord with anger, and divided itself into four strands, and they entered their nostrils and burned their souls, but their bodies were not destroyed" (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Lev. 10:2-3, ibid p 444).
"'And the fire consumed them...' [Lev. 10:3]: their souls were burned but not their garments..." (Sifra, Shemini 34, ibid p 34)
When considering the contrast between the ancient Jewish interpretation of the text, and the Christian interpretation, we are reminded of the words of the Argentine poet and translator, Jorge Luis Borges, "The inspired reader appropriates the original as a point of departure for the resurrection of a kindred imagination" (Borges, as cited by Alastair Reid, Panel Discussion - Borges and Translation, American Society, YouTube, 2013).
And so, can we imagine even another layer of interpretation in the Lev. 10 text? Fire is a symbol, for the presence and/or activity of God, all through the Hebrew Bible and the NT.
"Our God is a consuming Fire" (Heb. 12:29).
All of the rituals and sacrifices of ancient Israel were symbolic in meaning. Could a "strange, or foreign" fire be a symbol of introducing a foreign god into Israel's cultus? Could the actions of these two priests be a figure of a work from their own human reasoning... a "work of the flesh"? Why was this story included in the history of Israel? In the OT, death was often the penalty for doing what was considered to be wrong. Even in the NT, death was viewed as a condition which was passed on from the disobedience of Adam (Rom. 5:12). The common human situation, before being raised up in Christ, was considered to be the "dead condition" of humanity (Eph. 2:1).
In discussing this topic with Lynda, she thought back to Uzzah touching the ark and being killed (2 Sam. 6:6-7). Next, she called to mind Ananias and Sapphira lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1-10), and the resultant death of both of them. But, in this NT text, their deaths are not actually attributed to God... yet this is often read into the text. The concept of death is in some texts literal and physical, while in other texts it is figurative and symbolic - although used to characterize an actual condition.
"What matters, in any age, is the reader" (Borges, ibid). Each culture, each religion, and every approach to any text, differs in how texts are read. We all, "live in language and linguistic reality, as well as in physical reality.... [and] a fundamental irony is the disparity between lived life and life put into words" (Alastair Reid, ibid).
Let us return to the text of our investigation:
3. Then Moses said to Aaron: "That is what Yahweh spoke of, saying, 'Among those near Me shall I be hallowed, And in the presence of all the people shall I be glorified.'" Aaron was still;
4. and Moses called to Mishael and to Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziell, uncle of Aaron, and said to them, "Come near; carry your brothers from the presence of the holy place outside the camp."
5. So they came near and carried them, in their tunics (or: coats), outside the camp, just as Moses had spoken.
6. Then Moses said to Aaron and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons: "Do not dishevel your heads' hair, and do not rip your garments so that you may not die, lest He be wrathful with the whole congregation. Yet your brothers, all the house of Israel, they may lament over the burning which Yahweh has burned."
7. And from the opening of the tent of appointment you shall not come forth lest you die, for the anointing oil of Yahweh is on you. So they did according to the word of Moses. (Concordant)
Aaron and those mentioned in this passage were apparently expected to accept what happened as being the will of Yahweh, and so they were not to object, by lamenting in the usual cultural manner. Probably none of them, except perhaps Moses, understood why the fire had come. Aaron said nothing. But Moses connected the event to what Yahweh had said (vs. 3). What had happened was to hallow Yahweh and to bring glory (or, in the LXX: bring an assumed Appearance [i.e., Fire]) in the presence of the people.
So whether Nadab and Abihu did right or did wrong, in this context, is not specifically stated. Interpreters would later make judgments about their acts. Just before their acts, 9:23-24 (the end of the previous chapter) informs us that following Moses and Aaron blessing the people,
"the glory of Yahweh appeared unto all the people, and then there came a fire out from before Yahweh and consumed, upon the altar, the burnt offering and the fat..."
So there would have been coals of fire available for these two priests and their incense. Also, in the instructions to Aaron, in Ex. 30, we read concerning the altar of incense:
"You shall not set up on it an alien (or: strange) incense or an ascent offering or an approach present, and a libation (drink) you shall not libate (or: pour) upon it" (vs. 9).
So that which was alien or strange - perhaps meaning "common" or profane - was not to be involved with offering incense. And since we observe that Fire had just fallen on the burnt offering, the awareness of the presence of God, accompanied by His glory, should have made those two priests to be careful about how they were going to be offering up incense.
In Lev. 10:5, above, the detail was given that they,
"carried them, in their tunics (or: coats), outside the camp."
So, obviously the bodies of the two priests remained, not burned up, and had to be removed from among the living. But the question arose: "Whose coats were used to remove the bodies? .... Everyone knew that the wearing of priestly coats was an essential in the sanctuary (Ex. 28:40-43). Interpreters thus concluded that 'their' coats meant Nadab's and Abihu's. But if these two brothers had been burned, how could their coats have survived? Here, then, was another indication that the 'burning' did not mean that they were physically burned" (Kugel).
Philo explains:"Therefore, they did not lift them up in their own coats, but in those of Nadab and Abihu, who had been devoured by fire and taken up on high" (Allegorical Interpretations 2:57-58).
Two verse prior to the brothers being "devoured by fire," 9:24 informs us that fire from before Yahweh had consumed the offering on the bronze altar, which was in the same area where fire burned the priests. Yet their bodies were not burned up. No matter what we may conclude about the action of Nadab and Abihu, we can see that God controls His Fire, and it operates according to His will.
So what does this episode say to us? What does the Spirit want us to receive from this story? We might conclude with C.S. Lewis, that "Aslan is not a tame Lion" (The Chronicles of Narnia). With this same Fire purging His threshing floor (Mat. 3:12), and resting upon the heads of His apprentices (Acts 2), we believe that we can trust His Fire. It is obvious that folks in different ages have interpreted our text according to their own theological lenses, and it is not needful for us to give our own opinions on this. May the text speak to you both edification and insight.
Jonathan
John Gavazzoni has graciously added the following response to this essay:
"What I came away with from your "strange fire" study, more than anything else was, "The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this," as being an issue of great concern to God. I see this as a matter of high priority with God, i.e., that nothing but His zeal shall be credited with any and all performance in regarding to His purpose.
"When Paul wrote of works of wood, hay, and stubble being burned up, while the works of gold, silver and precious stones remain in the edifice of His construction, in the context, it's clear that the stuff to be burned up is not filthy things, but things men might think of appropriate as building material.
"Might we consider those works that miss the mark, while having been aimed at that mark in great zeal, were actually intended to hit the mark. The experience that ushered in my three and a half years of dreadful depression, full of the death of losing all consciousness of God in my life, came about by just such a full-on attempt to impress the Lord with my zeal for Him. I don't know how much of a corollary I should make of it, but like the sudden consuming of Aaron's sons, in an instant of time, all light left me and all I was left with was darkness.
"Believe me, after He delivered me by a vision of Himself, I became very wary of repeating any such presumptuous acts of impunity."
Return To Jonathan Mitchell's Page