God and Elephants

There are a number of versions of the old Indian fable “The Blind Men and the Elephant” that are often used to illustrate that objective truth is unknowable. A sample of this illustration might read something like this,

“The first blind man touched the side of the elephant and exclaimed, ‘how rough, an elephant is like a wall’. The second blind man touches the elephant’s trunk and exclaims, ‘No, an elephant is like a snake!’ The third blind man, sensing the rising tension, calmly offers, ‘I’m sorry, but you’re both wrong, an elephant is clearly like a tree’ after touching the elephant’s massive leg. Now a fourth blind man grabs hold of the tail and shouts, ‘An elephant is like a rope!’ An argument ensues amongst all the blind men. The king, hearing the commotion, looks down from his balcony and shouts, ‘The elephant is very large, you are all simply touching different parts of the animal.’” 

This fable is often used to silence proponents of absolute truth in favor of a more relativistic worldview in which no one is wrong, we are all simply possessors of limited truth. In short, “All roads lead to God.” There is no need to argue, for God will be pleased with any good effort. Let me offer a passage from the Old Testament book of Leviticus that weighs in on this sort of ‘any old effort will do‘ mentality.

“Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.” ~Leviticus 10:1-2 [1] 

The verses above are peculiar, both in their brevity, but also in the very decisive, seemingly harsh reaction from the LORD. Why was God so harsh? The answer, I believe, lies within the realm of historical and literary analysis. Though most of Leviticus falls within the genre of law, this particular passage might better be considered historical narrative or law narrative. A quick recounting of the events leading up to this strange event has Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (Aaron’s sons) consecrated to the priesthood. This takes place in Leviticus 8. God then accepts and confirms their sacrificial offering immediately preceding our text in Leviticus 9:24 by miraculously kindling His own fire and consuming the burnt offering. Immediately following the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, Moses speaks to Aaron, saying,

“It is what the LORD spoke, saying,

‘By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.’”

Moses then commands Mishael and Elzaphan, relatives of Nadab and Abihu to come and carry their dead relatives outside the camp. On the heels of this the LORD speaks to Aaron,

“Do not drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you come into the tent of meeting, so that you will not die–it is a perpetual statute throughout your generations– and so as to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean, and so as to teach the sons of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them through Moses.” 

These are the events immediately preceding and following the deaths of Nadab and Abihu at the hand of God. One interpretation of these events identifies the sin leading to God’s drastic action as one of intoxication while performing priestly duties or offering sacrifice to God. And there is merit for this. It seems plausible, indeed likely, that God’s response would be one of addressing the sin that was committed. Because God immediately communicates to Aaron that they must not drink wine when entering the tent of meeting, lest they die, it is likely that Nadab and Abihu had been drinking. However, if this were all that went on, the blind men and the elephant would remain completely irrelevant. But God says more than this. He speaks “to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean.” Back in Leviticus 10:1, we read of “strange fire” that had been offered, “which He had not commanded them.”

A governing interpretive principle to keep in mind whenever reading from sections of Old Testament law is that they are generally framed within the boundaries of a Covenant, meaning 1) a relationship with God, 2) initiated by God, 3) whereby God promises certain things and stipulations are placed upon the human side of the equation. Law can be thought of as these stipulations. In the case of Nadab and Abihu, the Covenant in view is the Mosaic Covenant, offered in Exodus 19:5-6 and accepted in 24:7-8 (Nadab and Abihu were present 24:1). God has promised Israel that they would be His people, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. To be holy was to be separated unto God. This meant many things, not least among them was that the Israelites were not to incorporate pagan religious practices. This is known as syncretism, or a mixing of religious belief systems. And this is at the heart of the sin committed by Nadab and Abihu. The “strange fire” offered by Nadab and Abihu was not strange in the sense that it was something other than actual fire, but that it was unauthorized. In other words, the fire was self-initiated, not God-initiated or God-prescribed. This was to mix the holy (God-prescribed) with the profane (human initiative and effort characteristic of pagan religions). The LORD had spoken and spoken very clearly. At stake was the
issue of atonement for sins and maintaining a right relationship with God. In Leviticus 9:7, Moses spoke to Aaron the words commanded by God,

“Come near to the altar and offer your sin offering and your burnt offering, that you may make atonement for yourself and for the people; then make the offering for the people, that you may make atonement for them, just as the Lord has commanded.” (emphasis mine)

God is not a beast without speech like an elephant which cannot tell the blind men groping it what it is truly like or what it desires. Man cannot grope after God. On this point, the parable is at least partially right. We are all like blind men, relying on God to tell us what He wants. And God had made Himself perfectly clear in terms of the offer of atonement He had extended to Israel for their sins. God is God, the creator of heaven and earth, the creator of man and of speech. He is therefore entitled to set the terms of His Covenant with His people. By choosing to offer “strange fire” Nadab and Abihu were in essence trying to approach God on their terms. To let this go would have been inviting of all sorts of pagan religious practices in the worship of God, and ultimately of replacing the worship of God with the worship of many false gods. This was an inaugural event and Nadab and Abihu were in positions of authority. Positions that would have been mimicked. This is why the reaction on the part of God was decisive and even harsh to our modern sensibilities. What sort of contemporary Christian application can be drawn from a book of law framed within the Mosaic Covenant? The first would be a caution to the many movements within the broad umbrella of Christendom that contend that salvation is by grace plus works. This passage from the book of Leviticus should serve as a stark reminder that the offer of salvation and reconciliation with God is wholly dependent upon the grace of God and not on anything of human initiative or creativity.Secondly, yet related, is that Christians today live under a New Covenant. Whereas the Israelites had a different means of atonement based on the Mosaic Covenant, we too are given in crystal clear fashion the means of our atonement. The means is stated plainly,

“that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” (Romans 10:9-10) and “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;” (Romans 3:23-25) 

Recalling the blind men and the elephant, stories such as this have enjoyed increased circulation in a world ever more intolerant of the notion of the absolute truth. As cute as such a parable is, it really is not all that clever, for it actually argues for our point of view. It attempts to communicate that absolute truth is unknowable because we all have the blinders of personal bias and personal religious experience securely fastened, but it unwittingly introduces a character into the narrative that does know the truth. The king is introduced into the narrative to clear up all the confusion.We contend that the King is God Himself and this changes everything. He has cleared things up. We are not left groping at elephants or anything else. He has revealed Himself to us in nature, His Word, and the Person of Jesus Christ. His offer is clear. It is not hateful, it is not exclusive. It is open to all who would accept it. And this is the loving, open message of the Gospel.

[1] All scripture taken from the New American Standard