The objective of this lesson: to stress that Nadab and Abihu's act was rebellion, not ignorance.
Leviticus makes a striking contrast in Israel between sin that is produced through the ignorance of the person [or people] and sin that is produced through the rebellion of the person [or people]. The striking contrast is NOT between the innocence of those who are ignorant and the guilt of those who are rebellious. Both are guilty. The striking contrast is this: (a) The Israelite who was ignorant could be forgiven if he/she responded properly when he/she learned that the act violated God's commandment. (b) The Israelite who knowingly rebelled against God's commandment faced God's wrath.
Point out to your class that the significance of Nadab and Abihu's action in the "strange fire" is to be seen in Leviticus' contrast between forgivable sins of ignorance and sins of rebellion which defied God and invited His wrath.
The KJV translation refers to a sin produced by a lack of knowledge as a sin of "ignorance." The NKJV and NIV translations refer to a sin produced by a lack of knowledge as an "unintentional" sin.
Acknowledge that both "ignorance" and "unintentional" convey Leviticus author's concept.
Consider several examples from Leviticus chapters 4 and 5. Leviticus 4:2 "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them. . .'" Following are instructions for sacrificially caring for this "unintentional sin." Leviticus 4:13 speaks of what was to occur if "the whole congregation of Israel" committed such sin. Leviticus 4:22 speaks of what was to occur if a "leader" committed such sin. Leviticus 4:27 speaks of what was to occur if a "common person" committed such a sin. Leviticus 5:1-6 speaks of some situations in which the "ignorant" or "unintentional" sin might occur--failure to be a witness; touching something unclean; touching human uncleanness; thoughtless oaths. The issue was not guilt. The issue was forgiveness.
Three things to emphasize from Leviticus 4 and 5: (a) The author's acknowledgment that sins produced by ignorance [that were not intended to be acts of rebellion against God] did exist; (b) The issue was not guilt; (c) The issue was God's forgiveness for the act [acts of rebellion commonly invited God to respond with wrath, not forgiveness].
In "ignorant" or "unintentional" sin the person either did not know he/she was sinning, or had no intention of defying God. The person did not realize when the act or behavior occurred that he/she did something God forbade Israel to do. When the act or behavior occurred, the Israelite person had no realization the deed involved loyalty to or trust in God. Yet, the act or behavior that occurred was a violation of God's commandment.
Be certain that your students have a clear understanding of the Leviticus concept of "ignorant" or "unintentional" sin.
The key was this: What did the person do when he/she ceased being ignorant? What was done when he/she became aware of the sin? Examine Leviticus 4:14; 4:23; 4:28; 5:5,6. Again, the issue is not guilt. Examine again 4:23; 4:28; 5:6; and 5:17. Even if the person did not know he/she had violated a commandment from God, he/she was still guilty of sin.
The question had to do with the Israelite's reaction when he/she understood that he/she had done something God said he/she should not do. The question did not have to do with guilt, but in his/her response to the discovery of guilt.
The issue was not, "Has he or she sinned?" The issue was, "Will he or she receive forgiveness or wrath?" Forgiveness was not cheap! If one chose to ignore an unintentional sin when it was discovered, it immediately became a sin of rebellion. If there was to be forgiveness, the matter had to be addressed at once. The appropriate sacrifice had to be offered immediately. There was no "I will care for this later when it is convenient." If the sin involved a "holy thing," full restitution must be given--plus a 20% penalty! (See Leviticus 5:16).
The question was not had the person sinned. His/her response to the discovery of his/her sin determined if God reacted in forgiveness or wrath. An Israelite who respected God would repent immediately and do those deeds repentance required. His/her repentance would not be cheap, but it would be genuine!
In our understanding of obedience, the incident involving Nadab and Abihu has been basic. In churches of Christ, Nadab and Abihu's rebellious act is fundamental to our basic concept of obedience.
The focus is on the concept of obedience: What incidents do we accept as the incidents that give God's definition of obedience? We do not define the concept; God defines the concept.
Nadab and Abihu were the two oldest sons of Aaron. Aaron was appointed by God to be Israel's first high priest and his sons were to assist him (Exodus 28:1,2; Leviticus 8). The seriousness of the appointment was evident from the beginning! Upon appointment, they were not to leave the tabernacle for seven days (a week!). If they did, they would die! (See Leviticus 8:33-35.)
Make certain your students realize the seriousness of the appointment.
The primary point we made in the past concerning Nadab and Abihu's rebellious act is fundamental to our concept of obedience: Obeying God is doing precisely what God says do. A failure to do precisely as God has said is disobedience.
We often have oversimplified the concept of obedience by failing to note all the information given concerning obedience. Often this is done (a) to obligate God to honor our system; (b) to make it possible for us to place our confidence in our human acts rather than in God; (c) to create a human system that says, "Okay, God I did x, y, and z --so You owe me--after all, You must honor my obedience." Too often we look upon obedience as a contract that can be used to bind God--"I did this, so You must do that!" For examples, "I was baptized, so You must forgive me!" or "I did the right things in worship, so You must save me!"
That point is true, but we have abused it. When God specifically directs us to do a specific thing in a specific way, we better do precisely as God commands. However, when we "put words in God's mouth" and declare God was specific about matters He did not speak specifically about, we make a serious mistake. God is not our puppet to champion our preferences! We are always God's servants!
The problem lies in our emphasizing matters [in the name of obedience] that God did not emphasize. We consistently were told God emphasized those things, so we accepted as fact that He had that emphasis.
The primary point is seen in the contrast between unintentional sin in Leviticus chapters 4 and 5, and rebellious sin [even if it occurred among priests!] in Leviticus 10:1, 2 Nadab and Abihu had been commanded where to get the fire for their firepans. They had been commanded how to present acceptable incense to the Lord. For an unexplained reason, these two men refused to do what they knew to do. The seriousness of their rebellion cost them their lives.
The point made was determined by Leviticus, not by us. The primary point is seen in Leviticus' contrast between unintentional sin and rebellious sin. One could be forgiven. The other could expect prompt divine wrath.
Though their act played a basic role in the formulation of our concept of obedience, the incident is mentioned only in the two verses of Leviticus 10:1, 2. This incident does not have some unique value in building God's concept of obedience. Their strange fire which incurred God's wrath is only mentioned in Numbers 3:4 and 26:61.
There is not a huge stress in scripture on Nadab and Abihu's rebellion.
The classic commentary on the significance of rebellion is found in Samuel's response to King Saul when Saul failed to implement God's specific instructions regarding the Amalekites. The statement is found in 1 Samuel 15:22, 23: Samuel said, "Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He has also rejected you from being king." Paraphrased: Worship is no substitute for obedience. God sees rebellion as He sees witchcraft, evil, and idolatry. The heart of rebellion is insubordination to the God who deserves loyalty and trust.
This is a classic commentary on rebellion for these reasons: (a) God was specific in His instructions--1 Samuel 15:1-3; (b) King Saul by choice failed to complete God's instructions--1 Samuel 15:12-21; (c) God's revulsion by rebellious is stated clearly--1 Samuel 15:11; (c) the impact of human rebellion on God is declared clearly--1 Samuel 15:22, 23; (d) the consequences of rebellion are shown clearly--1 Samuel 15:24-31.
Rebellion cost Saul his kingdom and Samuel's help. Nothing is more serious than rebelling against God!
People rarely see human rebellion against God through God's eyes.
For Thought and Discussion
Contrast the religious approach of (a) religion by rules and regulations and (b) commitment through a profound respect for God.
Religion by rules can [and too often does] exist without faith in God. Religion by rules can [and often is] focused in faith in "me" and faith in "my" deeds. Commitment through profound respect is based on a relationship of genuine human respect. Such a relationship trusts God even when the human may not understand God's immediate actions.
Do you think Nadab and Abihu respected God? Explain your
answer. The author's opinion: Nadab and Abihu did not respect
God. They placed their desires above God's instruction. Rather than doing as
God instructed, they did as they thought was best.