Concerning Nadab, Abihu and ‘Strange Fire’

The conference was convened and a title found for it. Much was said by many, expressing deep concerns and calls made to various quarters, legitimately, I feel, to ‘clean up their act’. But I have heard equally concerned voices from within the charismatic/Pentecostal communities expressing dismay at the excesses of TV evangelists, prosperity gospel preachers, spurious ‘signs-and-wonders’ freakishness and other excesses and aberrations. Perhaps it is all too convenient to cast all such into one big pot and paint that pot very black, when they don’t all belong in there anyway.

A Fire, by Any Other Name …

There is another concern I have. Who thought to name the conference after that account in Leviticus 10 concerning the sons of Aaron and their inappropriate offering? The promotional videos which announced the conference, and the introduction to his book of the same name, yet to be released states:

“"The actual source from which they obtained their fire is not recorded. Nor is it important. The point is they used something other than the fire God Himself had ignited. This is a sobering and terrifying account, and it has obvious implications for the church in our time."”

Does it? So obvious? Or is it that the dire and sobering outcome of that Siniatic event serves to paint a picture which we can use to make our point, if we are of that mind. The question is, is that the point of the passage? And is it applicable in the way that John McArthur and co have asserted?

Who Were They?

Who were they – these two men who concocted their own unauthorised offering in their censers, and reaped fire which destroyed them because of their impertinence before a fearfully holy God? Well, we are told quite plainly that they were the oldest two sons of Aaron, the High Priest – the first High Priest. Therefore, they were Moses’ nephews. Exodus 24 tells us how, along with Moses, Aaron and seventy elders of Israel, God chose them to worship Him actually on the mountain, albeit at a distance. They saw God – and lived. Vs 9-11:

“Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.”

So they were no strangers to the fearsome, fierce and dreadful presence of the Holy One of Israel, and they knew what it meant to be in His presence. They understood the necessity of obeying His commands. 

Exodus 28 sees them prepared and anointed as priests:

“Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites, along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may serve me as priests.”

“After you put these clothes on your brother Aaron and his sons, anoint and ordain them. Consecrate them so they may serve me as priests.” (v41)

A part of the equipment God commands to be built for His tabernacle is the altar of incense. A special recipe is given for that purpose, and it is to be used nowhere else. God ignites the fire for the altar, and it is never to be allowed to go out, perpetually fuelled by the attendant priests. Yet Aarons two sons take it upon themselves to bring their own combination of fire – not from God’s altar – and incense into the very presence of God Himself. For this, they are consumed by His fire of judgment, and they perish.

The Heart of the Story

What is this about? One thing is very, very obvious. It is about priestly function. It is not about the worship of the people. And in our new covenant, we are told one thing with crystal clarity. All of our priestly function; the representation of sinners before the holy God, the sanctification of those who are to come into His presence – all of it, to the last smallest requirement is accomplished by one – the Great High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ. We have no need of any other.

The Perfect Priest

The story of Nadab and Abihu show us that this approach cannot be made by our deciding how it will be performed. They are careless and disobedient, self-willed and forgetful of the One to whom they come. He cannot, will not be trifled with. Holiness is dreadful to any but the holy. But our great High Priest perfectly obeys God. He is sent by the Father into the world, and He only does what He is given to do, and He performs that completely and in every detail. The lesson from this account is not to do with what we bring when we draw near, it is all about what Jesus brings which allows us to draw near. He has gone into the very Holy of Holies bearing His own blood. And the Holy fire He pours forth is the fire of His Spirit, who baptises everyone who believes in His Name. If we are in Him, we have no need to fear fires of retribution and wrath, however impure our worship is – I say that guardedly, because it is something we must care about deeply. But the application of the ‘Strange Fire’ story is not one of dire warning concerning modes of worship. It is an exaltation of the perfect priesthood of the Christ, and the declaration that what they did not do, He has done. Therefore, we CAN draw near, with boldness and full assurance. The curtain is torn and we may go in.

Conclusion

I am not making comment here on what was said at the conference. I merely question the use of that title in the way that it has been applied. Perhaps it misuses the Leviticus passage and thus becomes an inappropriate application of Scripture. Perhaps it is being used as a stick with which to beat. A grave outcome. A solemn warning. But does it truly apply here? Are we to be warned to be fearful concerning our worship in case we incur this same wrath? Or has the Son of God born all the wrath there is to bear just so that we can be free (not careless) and full of rejoicing in our worship of the living God, in His very presence? Is not the basic problem of those who are not Christians at all, or are concerned with money-making by exploitation, not that they pretend to have gifts and claim they are from God, but rather that they have corrupt, unbelieving hearts, and for that they are condemned? And is it not so that where there are true believers who are wrong in their understanding of what 'the gifts' are or how they function, that they will never have to fear the fierce anger of the God who promises their full forgiveness in the Saviour they now love and seek to serve?

Does “Charismatic” = “Wrong”

My first experience of ‘charismatics’ was in the town centre where I grew up. I had been a Christian a few years only when I became aware of something which was taking place each and every Saturday night. There were a group of Christians who would spend the evening in the town square talking and witnessing to youngsters, drug addicts, alcoholics – anyone who was there. Basically, sharing the Gospel – the message of salvation. This greatly impressed me. No other church in the town was thus engaged in outreach of this kind. I wanted to find out more about what made Christians want to witness in this vital and real way. Thus began my experience of the charismatic movement. So I cannot accept the allegation from any quarter that these believers aren’t really true Christians. That is so evidently not true, and those who assert such a thing should do more homework! These people preached the gospel of salvation, at cost to themselves, and took it right to the ears of the lost.

First Summary

So here is my first summary of ‘charismatics’ from way back then:
1. They knew Christ as their own Saviour

2. They based their beliefs squarely on the Bible and wanted passionately to see New Testament living as a reality.

3. They had a love for the lost which took them out of their own comfort zones into the streets.

4. They wanted other Christians to share and benefit in what they saw as a renewed, rediscovered vitality in Christian living which was available to every believer.

How does YOUR church’s mission statement shape up? Does it look anything like this, at least at its base level? To assert – if anyone has – that you can’t be a ‘charismatic’ and be a true Christian is patently ridiculous, and it is no wonder that thousands who love the Lord are hurt by such a comment. So let’s be careful what we say.

Seeing the Positives

The Cautious Cessationist View

Neither must we denigrate everything that has come from the charismatic quarter. Using the phrase coined by another dear brother, I am a 'cautious continuationist' (love that). That's because I cannot see that Scripture states anywhere that the 'gifts' will cease until we see Jesus face to face. And it seems to me that any argument to the contrary forces a kind of false dispensational-type of division on the times between Acts 2 and the day of His coming. But if we do that, we can't possibly know how much of what the New Testament teaches us pertains to the 'signs-and-wonders' Apostolic era, and how much spills over into our times. John McArthur regards this as a kind of sell-out, which fence-sits between the two positions. I cannot agree. There are those, like me, who cannot see that Scripture warrants a hard cessationist view. I guess I could, if pushed, also describe myself as a ‘cautious cessationist’. I wonder what he would make of that!

Legitimate Charismatic Emphases

So in as much as our 'charismatic' brethren have brought to life, legitimately, more of the ‘we are living in the days of Acts 2’ emphasis, I want to keep it. What do I mean? A few things (not an exhaustive list - just some of the things I have benefited from)

1. Vigorous and energetic worship. The expression of the praise of God in His presence, and the sheer joy of what it means to be a Christian, expressed in our meeting together. I have experienced this often in 'charismatic' worship, and it has stirred up my soul to bless His Name. Who could deny that that is what true praise should be.

2. Music and songs. Take away the tedious, repetitious, mantra-style songs, and the endless singing of the same phrase or chorus, which can numb the mind and be almost hypnotic(sometimes). But so many good songs and modern hymns have been penned by 'charismatic' believers.

3. Good preaching. Yes, undeniably, I have heard some excellent messages in these quarters. Hard-hitting application, soul-searching exhortation, and heart-comforting consolation from God's word.

4. Healings. I mean undeniable, legitimate working of the power of God, such as the healing of the paralysed man in Victory Church in Cwmbran back in April, and others since. Medically authenticated, unexplainable(in human and in medical terms) recoveries from serious illness or disability. And with the clear intention in the gospel-preaching church context in which this happened of giving all of the glory to Christ. I went over to check it out. Should we expect God to do signs and wonders today? Where, in the Bible, have we been told that we are not to?

There must be a caveat here. I don’t mean what I would term psycho-physical complaints like headaches or back pain, which perceptibly improve when prayed for and are then heralded as miracles. There may well be a benefit to the sufferer during or following prayer for such a condition. But having been involved in the pain-relief equipment market(I sold electro equipment for physiotherapists, pain clinics etc), and having had a background of understanding of the body’s marvellous inbuilt pain relief systems, I am aware that all kind of things legitimately affect pain levels, their perception, and the effects that pain will have on mobility. I would strongly suggest that recovery from such ailments does not stand on the same level as the ‘quality’ of miracle described in the New Testament, for example, when the blind receive their sight. And to exaggerate these stories and escalate them because we want to be convinced of the reality of miraculous healing is, essentially, less than honest and/or less than real.

These things are not associated with charismatic claims par se, but they do flow from a particular mind-set, which covets real experience and demonstration of the presence of God in the lives of His children. I have no quarrel with that. We ought to be learning how to enjoy God, and our lives should be transformed by that joy. These things don’t just belong to the ‘charismatics’. They belong to the church.

‘Ere – What’s Your Problem?

So 'what is my problem'? I won't accept that I have to swallow the whole package because these things, which I regard as valuable and Biblical are in that 'environment'. Praise God that He uses and works in and through imperfect churches with non-100% accurate theology - where would any of us be if that were otherwise? But that does not licence us to smile and nod and just walk past obvious discrepancies with Scripture. That's a dangerous approach to Christian and church living.

And again I will re-iterate, I find a fundamental logic problem in the assertion that these 'gifts'(by which I mean the 'speaking' gifts) are authentic and from the Spirit of God. Here is my laying out of that.

“This is that”

1. These gifts were undoubtedly given by the Spirit, first on the Day of Pentecost, then continually to the churches of the New Testament. And when Peter is present at the house of Cornelius, he observes they are given to Gentiles who come to faith in Christ too ( - even to GENTILES!). He reports back to the others "The same thing happened to them as happened to us". He could do that because he had been present and had observed and been a part of both occasions.

So let's state something which is blindingly obvious:

Due to the passage of time, no-one in our day can have seen what transpired then - how these gifts operated in a church - and what is happening now. So that method of authentication is not possible.

Apostolic Authority

2. The second strand of authentication we see in Acts is the Apostolic one. These men had been appointed by Jesus Himself and equipped with Scripture-writing authority and the Spirit in order to be the foundation of the church of Christ. And at every point, as the church expanded, they were there as the Spirit was given. They regarded the signs of the outpouring of the Spirit upon Samaritans and Gentiles as God’s confirmation that their experience was equivalent to that of the Apostles themselves, and this was a fundamentally important emphasis for the Gospel. So it was that the Apostolic seal was placed on what was happening as it happened.

Again, we do not have Jesus-direct-appointed Apostles with us today. They were foundational, and in their place we have the Apostolic writings - our New Testament. So we cannot go to an Apostle with the question 'are these 'gifts' truly the gifts of the Spirit?'

Down the Timeline

3. Now, a historical observation. What happened to these gifts? As the Apostolic, foundational beginnings of the church took their place in the past, these functional ‘speaking’ gifts died out. And there has been a significant passage of time since.

Logical Conclusion

So my ‘logic’ argument is that that impenetrable time barrier prevents us from stating categorically that ‘this’ is ‘that’. We neither have the Apostolic witness nor the Apostolic authority to justify the claim. And there is insufficient detail in the pages of the New Testament to allow us to get a full picture of what these gifts looked like or how they operated. We get glimpses.

Neither ‘Caught’ nor ‘Taught’ – Given by the Spirit

There is another thing to add. The circles which seek to teach people (for example) how to speak in tongues, or which encourage people to copy how others do are not in line with Scripture. Neither of those practices are seen anywhere in our Bibles. And they indicate that so-called gifts which are passed on in this way are humanly manufactured, not given by the Spirit of God. The whole point of a miraculous gift is that it is both miraculous and it is a gift. It comes complete and intact from its source – the Holy Spirit. It doesn't need manipulation or development on our part for it to function.

So, all in all, I find the call for clarity, and for disengagement from everything that is at best dubious, at worst, just not Biblical, a refreshing one. And I think it must be accompanied by a re-engagement with every believer, every group who can be found to be wanting to identify with the foundations of Scripture upon which we have been building all along.

In closing, I found this paragraph from Mike Riccardi's summary particularly honest:
"I do love my Reformed charismatic brethren, but when I look at the spiritual fruit they have borne and the truly edifying things I have learned from them, I have to say that none of the good, valid, healthy fruit I see is rooted in their Charismatic distinctives. The true, edifying fruit produced in their ministries stems from their devotion to Christ, their love of gospel, and their commitment to the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture. Their charismatic beliefs actually undermine and often conflict with what they say they believe about the sufficiency of Scripture, and that, in my view, is to the detriment of their ministries. And I think it would be unloving of me not to say so. And I have said so in every venue I can, and I intend to continue saying so. Because the fruit of their charismatic teaching, even from the best of these teachers, is confusion, chaos, or worse."

That is a call for clarification. It comes from a proper concern for truth and a heart of love. It must be responded to in kind.

After The Fire

Why ‘Charismania’?

In the aftermath of the ‘Strange Fire conference, sides will be taken and there will be reactions a-plenty. Although some of the things said at the conference were sweeping and appeared harsh, I cannot conclude that it was wrong for these real and deep concerns to be voices, and a challenge given to the ‘charismatic world’ to get their act together and clear out aberrant practice and preaching. Perhaps as well as critiquing modern day claims to supernatural gifts, we should also stop to ask ‘why do so many think and feel they are so important?’

What does it offer to have to have explicit demonstrations of God’s power? I would suggest there are various answers to that, including the obvious ones. Proponents would argue that this is what God intends in His church, and that we settle for less than His fullness if we do not seek it too. I wonder. If, on the other hand, the desire for captivating ‘spiritual gifts’ results in our actually manufacturing them if they are not present, whether intentionally or otherwise, then convincing ourselves and others that they are authentic, what would drive us to do such a thing? I have some questions:

Evidence of Presence

1.       Do we seek tangible evidence of God’s presence in a Biblical way? Or do we have to have the spectacular to assure us that He is with us? And are we thus growing our dependence on such things so that we feel let down if they don’t happen? Are we becoming ‘experience junkies’? Let me put it another way. In meetings where there is often, if not always, tongues-speaking, prophecy, claims to healings etc., do people feel let down if these things don’t occur, and the meeting goes ‘quiet’? Is the ‘spiritual temperature’ gauged solely by the number or intensity of ‘inspired’ happenings? What was it that Jesus said would show to the world that we are His? Was it signs and wonders? Or was it our love for each other?

Demonstrations of Power

2.       Do we equate demonstrations of God’s power almost completely in terms of these ‘gifts’? And again, is this a Biblical measure? Is God not at work mightily in the convicting of sinners and the bringing to new life of those who are dead in sin? Is not the ministry of the living word of God to hungry hearts an ongoing work of power? What of the daily transformation of wicked hearts into the very likeness of Christ Himself? Do we value these things any less because they are silent, unseen, yet very real, works of God in our very midst. Oh, they don’t stand up and shout, or grasp us in a way which takes our breath. But don’t our Bibles assure us they are being effected by the work of the Spirit within us all the time. What of the amazing way God unites believers in love? Is that not a work of power?

 Principles of Guidance

3.       Are we looking to ‘gifts’ for guidance? Do we expect the prophetic to light our way for us? There is a very serious question here. Is not this way of thinking a reverting  back to the old covenant, where, when the people needed to hear God’s voice on something, they sought out a prophet? And does not the new covenant promise, as one of its distinctives, that every individual believer would know God, from the least to the greatest, irrespective of category – slave or free, man or woman, young or old? Isn’t that precisely what the Day of Pentecost brings?

 The Still, Small Voice

Yes, God can and does act in power, which awes the puny, small efforts and minds of man and silences their voices before Him. But I am reminded of the story of Elijah on Horeb, hidden in his cave, waiting for God. Mighty, noise-filled, powerful displays; three of them, are paraded across the mouth of that cavern. Yet God is not ‘in’ any of them. Because God does not need the spectacular to reassure us of His presence. Even when the fire dies, the wind abates and the earth no longer moves, He is with us. And we know His presence by His word – the still, small voice of His Spirit in our hearts. Sometimes it is we, not He who are making the noise which dwarfs it.

"The Promise is For You!"

In the progressive, ongoing revelation and application of redemption history as brought to us in God’s word, the highest point – the complete ‘game changer’ is not the cross, or even the resurrection. It is the pouring out of God’s Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. I invite you to explore this with me

Even as I say that, I can feel myself mentally holding my breath. It seems as though it plays down the cosmic event which is the crucifixion, and all of the astounding things which Christ accomplishes there. It sounds as though I am reducing the world-changing, joy-bringing, truth-vindicating explosion which is the resurrection to an also-ran. I am doing neither. Both are essential to the incredible story of what God is about at the centre of time, the crux of history, the pivotal point of all things. So what on earth(and in heaven) do I mean?

I propose that without Pentecost, the Incarnation, the cross and the resurrection have no value whatsoever for the believer. Jesus tells His disciples to wait in Jerusalem – not to even attempt to begin their world-wide evangelism until they have received power from on high. Quite plainly, He saw that His work was not complete in making those men and women what they must be until that day had come when Joel’s prophecy would be fulfilled. He had promised ‘He(the Holy Spirit) is with you – but He will be IN YOU’. Consider. All that they had done at Jesus’ direction – the preaching, the healings, the casting out of demons – had been accomplished through the Spirit’s power, because He had been with them. But Pentecost would forever change the relationship, the association that any and every believer has with the Spirit of God. He would, from that moment on, actually indwell them and they would be His temple.

Without Pentecost, we do not have an ‘Immanuel’

Why? Because on the other side – ‘their’ side - of Acts 2, Jesus came and was born, but He went away again. He ascended. He left His disciples to be without Him. And if that is how it had remained, we could not say “God is WITH us”. We would have a wonderful story of how the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God Himself came to save us from our sins and died and rose to make it so, but we would then be left with a promise ‘afar off’. The whole point of the imminence of God would be lost to us. Whatever difference it would have made would be shadowed by the mere fact that He is no longer here – He is back at the Father’s right hand. Our Gospel becomes not “God is with us” but only “God has visited us”.

Without Pentecost, the cross has not achieved God’s intended purpose

      What was that purpose? The forgiveness of sins for those God calls and gives to the Son? Certainly. But, as John Piper says, “Forgiven sinners would not stand for an instant in the presence of the holy God. They would be incinerated. They must be declared righteous”. And even that is not the full story. What God does in all this is to make holy vessels of us. Why? Because He is going to pour His Holy Spirit into us, and unclean vessels cannot suit that purpose. Pentecost requires a cross, the blood sacrifice which actually removes sin and sinfulness. Not merely as an outward cleansing, but as an inner rebirth. The cross is the means whereby God prepares His new temples – living, saved human beings – for this indwelling. All flesh – all nations – qualify, but only if they are sanctified by the Lamb of God.

Without Pentecost, the resurrection falls short

      A risen Saviour, death defeated, complete and utter victory over all of the assault of the evil one – all of this is proclaimed by His rising. But predominantly, He rises to ascend, to return to the majesty on high. And if He never arrives, bearing and pleading His own blood, the Spirit cannot come. Why? Because the Spirit must be sent. And the only one whose authority can bring forth that commission is the one who died and is risen. And the purpose of His ‘triumphal entry’ into the very courts of heaven is so that He can pour out what they saw and heard on the Day of Pentecost. Acts 2 vs 33:-
“Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.”

And the Gospel – good news for the hearers is the Acts 2 assertion:-
“The promise is for you!”

Welcome to my new blog!

I chose 'White-erings' because it will be me 'witterring' - get it?
The idea is mainly to avoid visiting extensive posts upon the long-suffering 'friends' in discussion posts, as I have been doing. And it's a way of collecting my wise-or-otherwise thoughts somewhere I can refer back to them. What good this will be for anyone else remains to be seen. Anyway ...

Off we go!