|
Not Our Will, But Your Will O Lord This article is based on the sermon notes for the August 30th service at Cottonwood Community Church The expression of self-will in the worship of Yahweh or what is known as “will worship,” has plagued the church throughout her history. I refer to the desire by man to worship God according to his own dictates. In a very real sense the entirety of Scripture is a manual given us that we might know how to worship God. Even if we do not think of the Bible in this sense certainly we agree that there is specific ecclesiastical legislation provided that guides us in our worship of the Creator. For instance, in the old covenant administration, the children of Israel were told how to worship and how not to worship; they were specifically told they could not imitate the religious practices of the Canaanites nor continue in the cultic ritual of the Egyptians. Indeed, it seems that the children of Israel maintained an affection for the pagan practices of their forefathers “beyond the River” even until the days of Joshua. It is a serious issue when the people of God neglect his commands concerning how to worship him. It is an even greater problem when ecclesiastical leadership succumbs to the siren song of self-will and creates a form of worship that is not mandated by God. This is what we are going to look at today in our survey of Leviticus chapter 10. It is a sad tale of self-centeredness and disregard for the commands of God that ends in the death of two of Aaron’s sons. The events that are recorded in Leviticus chapter 10 take place on the very same day that the priestly ministry was established. In fact, all of the events of the day had not been completed before this disaster struck. We will see that although the sacrifices had been made the priestly family had not consumed the sacrifice of the people and so this event took place midway in the inaugural celebration. As Gordon Wenham has said “tragedy and triumph go hand in hand the bible and in life.” He is referring to this event recorded in Leviticus chapter 10 but he also has in mind the triumphal entry followed by the crucifixion; the healing of the lame man by the Apostles and the death of Ananias and Sapphira that followed. These kinds of events coupled together remind us that God is not a God of our own making. The majesty and the splendor of God is revealed in both types of events. Yes he is a God to be praised for his glory and his grace but he is also a God to be praised for his justice and for his desire to protect his glorious name. In Leviticus 10:1-3 we read; Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. And Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD spoke, saying: 'By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.' " So Aaron held his peace. In Leviticus chapter 10 we are going to look at the idea of self-will, God’s will and the broken will. Self-will Nadab and Abihu were privileged members of the tribe of Levi. They were sons of Aaron and had been among those who met with God at the mountain of Sinai, who ate in his presence, who participated in a covenant meal which established God’s covenant relationship with the people of Israel. They were the eldest sons of Aaron and had participated in the inaugural ceremonies of the priesthood up until the point that this event took place. They had heard and seen all of the elaborate ceremony designed to demonstrate the “otherness” of God and the need to treat him with tremendous respect. They were aware of God’s power and his might as had been displayed in his destruction of Egypt with the 10 plagues. They were there when the waters of the Red Sea were parted and the children of Israel walked through. They saw when the waters closed back upon the Egyptians and destroyed them. They were present at the covenant meal at Sinai as I have mentioned. In other words, Nadab and Abihu were fully acquainted with Yahweh and his power. They were completely familiar with God’s character as one who demands obedience. The ceremony of inauguration had acquainted them with their special position as those who were representing the people to God. Nevertheless they forsook all of that knowledge and experience and as the Scripture says “offered profane (or strange), fire before the Lord which he had not commanded them.” One of the first question we must ask is what exactly is this “profane fire?” What is this strange fire that they are bringing and which God had not commanded. Well, this is just one of the areas of debate that surrounds this event. There are those who suggest that it was incense kindled with fire other then the fire which burned on the altar of sacrifice. Whoever, this overlooks the fact that the only time the priest was supposed use a senser was on the day of atonement. In that case he was supposed to take fire from the altar before the Lord and then bring that inside the veil. He was then supposed to put the incense on the fire before the Lord that the cloud of incense may cover the mercy seat that is in the tabernacle (Leviticus 16:11–13). In this case the sensor, full of burning coals, was brought before the Lord and the incense was to be carried in the hand without a co-mingling to create a cloud of vaporized material until the priest (the high priests), was inside the tabernacle standing inside the veil. Thus it is not so much that Nadab and Abihu had kindled the incense with fire from a source other than the altar of sacrifice as much as it was the fact that they were doing this at all. We don’t know where the took the coals from. But we do know that they were not supposed to put the coals and the incense in the censer together and they were not supposed to burn incense in the company of a sensor (we might say), outside of the tabernacle. Moreover it was the high priest who had a responsibility to take the incense into the tabernacle on the Day of atonement and it was at that same altar that the priest was supposed to burn sweet incense every morning and every evening when he went into the tabernacle attend the lamps ( Exodus 30: 1–10). In the passage from Exodus God said that the priest should not ever offer “strange incense” on the altar (verse 9). We can assume that the strange incense was some sort of incense not made according to the standard given by God or that it was incense offered at the improper time. There is also a reference in Leviticus 16:1 to the death of Nadab and Abihu connected to a proper celebration of the Day of atonement. In other words, “the Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron when they offered profane fire before the Lord and died” and he told Moses how to properly present the incense before the veil on the day of atonement. This would seem to indicate that Nadab and Abihu attempted to enter the sanctuary with this incense. On the other hand, the Leviticus chapter 10 text indicates that the two men died outside of the tabernacle thus their impertinence took place “in front of the sanctuary” (Leviticus 10:4). One explanation for their behavior may be found in the prohibition of wine or strong drink for the priest who was on duty. The thought is that Nadab and Abihu were drinking wine as part of the celebration and in their besotted condition they concocted this new form of worship. Speculation is that they were drunk and they were unable to properly discern right from wrong and so went with the flow of the crowd’s emotion. This very well may be the case. It seems odd that the prohibition against the use of wine or other alcoholic beverage would be introduced at this particular point if there were not some specific reason for it. Remember, the events of chapter 9 and the events of Chapter 10 in the book of Leviticus all took place in the same day. This inaugural ceremony and the show of God’s power by consuming the sacrifice and the death of Nadab and Abihu along with the command to refrain from using alcoholic drink while on duty all took place on the same day. It is my opinion that this is in fact what happened. There’s no need to be dogmatic about this but I do think that Nadab and Abihu were making use of alcoholic beverages during on that inaugural day. Up to that point there was no specific prohibition against the use of alcohol while the priests were on duty and so the offence was not the use of wine but it was the offering of strange fire. We will return to the issue of alcohol in a moment but for our purpose at this point we merely want to acknowledge that Nadab and Abihu were guilty of innovation where no innovation was permitted. It seems likely that they did this while under the influence of alcohol but as we can see from the result that was no excuse whatsoever. To sum up, let me share with you what I think happened. I believe that when the fire of God consumed the sacrifice and the people saw it, shouted and fell on their faces before the Lord, the excitement which ran through the crowd affected already tipsy Nadab and Abihu to such a degree that they wanted to do something “special” in this day of celebration. For whatever reason they decided that they would show their excitement and devotion to the Lord by burning some incense there in front of the crowd outside of the sanctuary but in the tabernacle courtyard. Whether they used coals from the altar or not is really immaterial. The issue is not that they were improperly igniting the incense but that they were burning the incense at all. This was not something God commanded. This was something that they decided was a good idea. This alone is what made it “strange fire before the Lord.” Nadab and Abihu were exercising self well. They decided that they would worship God in a way that they thought was right. I do not think that they were shaking a fist in the face of God; they simply thought they knew enough to determine what would be a pleasing form of worship to God. They were caught up in the excitement of the day and as a response to the emotional cry of the crowd these two men stepped out of the will of God and became innovators in the way of worship. This was strictly forbidden. As we have read in Deuteronomy chapter 12 it is God who determines what is proper worship and what is improper worship. Thus, the self-will or the “will worship” of Nadab and Abihu cost them their lives. God’s will Immediately upon the death of Nadab and Abihu, Moses says to Aaron that the reason for the tragedy is found in the men’s disregard for God and his glory. Aaron and his sons had a tremendous privilege as those who would represent the people to God. They had the privilege of coming near to God as they ministered in close proximity to the tabernacle which represented his presence. Indeed, his presence would be manifest in a visible way there at the tabernacle when the cloud of his presence would descend or the fire of his presence would consume the sacrifice. To diminish the glory of God in any fashion was entirely unacceptable. These men, Nadab and Abihu, were called by God to represent the people but to also let the people know that Yahweh must be revered. The priest who ministered before the tabernacle had to understand that God was completely other then they. They had to understand that God’s word was not to be trifled with. They had to realize that there was no adding or subtracting from the commands of God. To do so would be to diminish the majesty of God in the eyes of the people. This is why (in part), Nadab and Abihu were struck dead for this seemingly inconsequential deviation from the norm. This punishment made it very clear that God could not be trifled with. If there had not been swift and sure retribution for this exhibition of self-will then the majesty of God would have been greatly diminished in the eyes of the people. Moses explains this to Aaron and the Bible tells us that Aaron held his peace. What else could he do? His sons had just died by the direct and dramatic judgment of God. Because Aaron and his remaining sons were under the anointing oil of the priesthood they were not allowed to come near the dead bodies of Nadab and Abihu. Therefore, Moses called upon the cousins of Aaron to remove the two dead men and take him outside the camp to be buried. It is interesting to note that they were still in their “coats” meaning the fire of God that killed them did not burn them up. In fact, their priestly vestments remained intact and their second cousins took hold of these vestments as they carried the dead men out of the tabernacle court and to their burial. This tells us that the fire of God that struck Nadab and Abihu down was something more like lightning than a flame thrower. Whatever form it took it brought instant death but did not burn the bodies. At this point I want to interject something that we often overlook when we read of this kind of an event in the Bible. I think we often assume that Nadab and Abihu were not only struck physically dead but they were also sent directly to hell. There is nothing in the text that would cause us to believe this. Nonetheless, many Christians read the account of Nadab and Abihu or of other men who are suddenly cut off by death for some special sin and believe that the temporal judgment of physical death is necessarily followed by a judgment if eternal separation from God. Again, there is no reason to believe this. In fact, we could just as easily believe the opposite. For example, when Jeroboam - the man who reigned as the first king of the separate nation of Israel (separate from Judah the southern kingdom) - experienced the loss of his infant son it was because the baby was the only member of Jeroboam’s family in whom God found any good. In other words the untimely death of the infant was a show of God’s care for the child not his hand of displeasure upon him. Everyone else in the house of Jeroboam would die a violent and ignominious death. Thus the death of Jeroboam’s infant boy did not indicate his eternal separation from Almighty God. The apostle Paul speaks to this issue in his first letter to the church at Corinth when he says that some of those who were taking of the communion meal improperly, not discerning the body of Christ, had suffered early death because of their sin. He did not say that those people were then consigned to hell. Indeed, he indicates that they were chastened by the Lord that they would not be condemned with the world (1 Corinthians 11:32). In other words, God in his sovereignty saw fit to take those particular Corinthian believers out of the world that they would not fall into greater sin. There is no reason to reject that notion in the case of Nadab and Abihu. In other words, we should not assume that Nadab and Abihu were consigned to hell and eternal separation from God because of this sin of offering strange fire. Now, in addition to prohibiting Aaron and his remaining sons from going near the dead bodies of Nadab and Abihu, Moses also tells them that they cannot participate in typical displays of grief over the loss of these loved ones They were not too untidy their hair nor tear their garments nor go out from the door of the tabernacle of meeting. If they did any of these things Moses told them that they would die because the anointing oil the Lord was upon them. Moses assures Aaron and his remaining sons that their relatives would mourn the loss of Nadab and Abihu. In fact the entire nation would bewail the loss of Nadab and Abihu but the priestly family could not show grief. More than anything else this was supposed to show that God is more important than anything else in life. Aaron and his sons were prohibited from the customary show grief because they were required to identify themselves entirely with God’s viewpoint. They could not be allowed to do anything that would arouse the suspicion that they condoned the sin of their close relatives. Although Moses did not instruct them to abstain from an internal grief he did not allow them to show their sorrow externally lest they be tempted to cast blame upon God for Nadab’s and Abihu’s demise. All of this was necessary for a couple of reasons. Number one they (Aaron and his remaining sons), were required to show that their loyalty lay primarily with God. They were also supposed to display to the children of Israel their understanding of the responsibility that had been placed upon the Aaronic priesthood. To whom much is given much is required and the self-control required of Aaron and his sons would cement this truth in the minds of the children of Israel. Yes, the priesthood had a greater responsibility than the people but the people were likewise a kingdom of priests and they therefore had a greater responsibility than the pagan nations. The entire event would be a powerful reminder that the children of Israel were called to a level of responsibility far exceeding that of the other nations. It is immediately after Moses instructs Aaron and his remaining sons in this matter of how to respond to the death of Nadab and Abihu that God speaks directly to Aaron concerning wine and intoxicating drink. This is the only time in the book of Leviticus that the Lord God spoke directly to Aaron. And as I say it is interesting that it has to do with the issue of alcoholic beverage. This is why many commentators (myself included), believe that Nadab and Abihu were drunk when they offered profane fire before the Lord. What we need to understand is that this is not a prohibition against the use of alcohol. It has a very limited application. Indeed, the children of Israel were commanded to use wine and strong drink in their celebrations before the Lord. There were likewise commanded to remain sober but we cannot look at Leviticus 10:9 and extrapolate a general prohibition against alcohol. Instead, this is a reminder that in the old covenant ministration God had a monopoly on the use of wine in worship. Remember, the sacrifices were often accompanied a drink offering that was poured out before the Lord. This would be a offering of wine that was “given” to Yahweh. The priests were not allowed to partake of this wine. Why is that? Because in the old covenant administration the people had not yet entered the Lord’s rest. Wine is a part of life that has to do with relaxing and resting. The new rule given to Aaron prohibiting the consumption of wine or intoxicating drink in the tabernacle pointed to the fact that the children of Israel had not yet entered the rest of Yahweh. Consumption of wine in moderation was allowed outside of the tabernacle but when one was in the presence of Almighty God he must acknowledge that he remained in subordination to the angelic and animal kingdoms. Wine is for the victor. Wine is for the celebrant who has completed his work. Wine is for the master or for the vice regent who relaxes after the work is complete and he looks over the extent of his domain with satisfaction. This state of affairs did not exist in the old covenant administration. Therefore, Aaron and his sons did not have the privilege of partaking of the drink offering in the presence of Yahweh. Thus the Lord says that Aaron and his offspring must not drink wine or intoxicating drink when they go to the tabernacle of meeting. They must remain clear of mind in order to distinguish between holy and unholy and between clean and unclean. Part of the job of the priest was to examine the sacrifice and to judge it a proper offering or to reject it. Part of the duty of the priest was to maintain the boundary between the common and the holy so that the worship of God would not be profaned. Part of the responsibility of the priest was to teach the children of Israel all the statues that the Lord had spoken to them by the hand of Moses and that required a clear mind. A drunken Priest would be a foolish priest meaning a priest who acted as if God did not matter or perhaps did not even exist. Thus, God commanded Aaron and his sons to refrain from the use of wine whenever they were fulfilling their duties as priest. At this point it seems that Moses attempts to bring order back to the inauguration Day ceremonies and does so by repeating the proper priestly conduct in the use of the sacrificial offerings. Versus 12 through 15 are simply a repetition of the proper use of the grain offering, the wave offering and the heave offering, a restatement of what remained to be done that day. As I say this seems to be an attempt to make sure that the ritual of the sacrifice is properly conducted even though this tragedy has taken place. We are reminded that God never takes a break from his Holiness. We are reminded that the material realm does not dictate truth nor determine reality in the spiritual realm. Indeed the opposite is true. Thereby, it is important even when things “go bad” that the people of God continue to walk in obedience before the Lord. The truth is, it was the failure to walk in obedience no matter what was happening around them that caused Nadab and Abihu to lose their lives. They were caught up in the emotion of the events and stepped out of line. Aaron and his remaining sons face a similar danger, caught up in the emotion of this dramatic loss there is every possibility that they might step out of line and fail to obey God’s clear commands. As Moses concludes his repetition of the necessary sequence of events he made careful inquiry about the goat of the sin offering and there was burned up (Leviticus 10:16). Suddenly it seems clear that Moses did the right thing when he took the time to restate the necessary ritual of the sacrificial ceremony. After all, here we find that the goat of the sin offering which had been sacrificed earlier in the day (Leviticus 9:15), was burned up when it was supposed to have been eaten. (Recall, whenever a sin offering was made and the blood was not taken into the tabernacle it was supposed to be eaten by the priests. The sin offering for the priest himself or for the congregation was to be burned up in a portion of its blood taken inside the holy place.) Suddenly we are confronted with what appears to be another example of self will or “will worship.” In other words, it appears that Aaron and his sons are making innovations in the ceremony just as Nadab and Abihu made innovations. However, instead of being an example of self will this is an example of a broken will. Broken will The goat that was sacrificed for the sin of the people was supposed to be eaten by the priests in a holy place so that the priests might “bear the guilt of the congregation, to make at home and for them before the Lord”(Leviticus 10:17). Any time a sin offering was made without the blood being brought inside the holy place it was supposed to be eaten. However on this occasion the goat that was supposed to have been eaten was burned up. It is interesting that this sacrifice for the people was a goat. In Leviticus chapter 4 we found that a sin offering - a purification offering - on behalf of the congregation was typically a bull. The goat was offered on behalf of an individual leader and its blood was not taken into the holy place and therefore it was given to the priests as part of their inheritance. We are not told why it is a goat that was offered rather than a bull on the inaugural day celebration. It would seem to make sense that the sacrifice presented on behalf of the people in this ceremony would be a bull. Nevertheless, it is a goat and therefore its blood is poured out at the altar of sacrifice. When Moses discovers this mistake he grows angry at Eleazar and Ithamar the sons of Aaron who were left. After a lengthy dressing down Aaron replies and says, Look, this day they have offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD, and such things have befallen me! If I had eaten the sin offering today, would it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD? (Leviticus 10:19) In other words, “the burnt offering and the sin offering that have been sacrificed before the Lord God were acknowledgments of the People’s dependence upon Yahweh and their sin which separates them from the Lord. If I had eaten of that sin offering as if to say that I was worthy of the responsibility to represent the people before God would I not have been a hypocrite in light of all that has happened?” In other words, “I am no better than Nadab and Abihu. It could have been me rather than they, carried away by the excitement. It could have been me who transgressed God’s law and offered strange fire. I understand” says Aaron, “that I am no better than they. Indeed, I am no better than the people so how can I – especially on this day – eat of this sacrifice as if to say I am something special, a man without sin?” This is evidence of a broken will. Aaron and his sons had received such an impression of their own profound sinfulness that they did not consider themselves worthy of the task. They realized that they were fully capable of sin like unto that of Nadab and Abihu. And yet is this not another example of “will worship?” After I’ll, was not the failure to eat this sin offering an innovation which God had not allowed? As a matter of fact it was. However, there is one dramatic difference between this “innovation” and the offering of profane fire by Nadab and Abihu. To give us a bit of insight on this subject, let’s look at 2 Chronicles 30:18–20 which says, For a multitude of the people, many from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover contrary to what was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, "May the good LORD provide atonement for everyone who prepares his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he is not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary." And the LORD listened to Hezekiah and healed the people. The context is the Passover celebrated by Hezekiah and attended by people from all over the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel. This is long after the nation was split in two and the northern kingdom of Israel had fallen into apostasy with the worship of the golden calves made by Jeroboam. At this point in time Hezekiah has called upon all the followers of Yahweh throughout Judah and Israel to join him in a celebration of the Passover. It was the first time in generations that the Passover had been celebrated and many people attended who were not ceremonially clean. Normally this would result in their being “cut off from among the people” meaning God would see and judge accordingly. However, because the heart of the people was right, God responded with grace and mercy when Hezekiah prayed that Yahweh would accept the Passover sacrifice and celebration even though the letter of the law had not been kept. What we see is that a heart which seeks after God and longs to be submitted to the Lord will be forgiven indiscretions that would not be forgiven on the part of one who willfully deviates from God’s law. In Psalm 51:17 David says that The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart— These, O God, You will not despise. God looks upon the heart. God looked upon the hearts of the people who came to the celebration of the Passover initiated by Hezekiah and he saw broken and contrite hearts. God looked upon the heart of Aaron and his remaining sons and saw broken and contrite hearts. Their “innovation” was not that of a self will but of a heart full of sorrow before Yahweh. They understood their inability and their inadequacies and although they deviated from the letter of the law they strictly adhered to the spirit. In their brokeness they did not add to the law or the ceremony but simply refrained from exercising a portion of the ceremony that was their right to carry out. The result is that Moses heard their heart and was content. Application: self-will When we make application concerning this first point of our survey of Leviticus chapter 10 our initial concern should be with the responsibility that we have as a kingdom of priests. In other words, the first thing I want to draw our attention to is the fact that to whom much is given much is required. We may like to believe that God would not do something so harsh and dramatic in this day and age as to kill someone for violating his commands but we would be wrong to think so. I’m not going to try and convince you that God can and will do such a thing in this new covenant age: my aim at this point is to remind you of the tremendous responsibility we have before God as his chosen people. Those who are in Jesus Christ have been brought near the sanctuary in the Lord Jesus. Those two have been made a new creation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ have the privilege and the responsibility to live a life that is pleasing to the father in heaven. Jesus himself said that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more (Luke 12:47-48). Now, this was spoken in relationship to the first century Jewish mission. We have spent quite a bit of time looking at what Jesus had to say about that when he commissioned his apostles to participate in that mission during his ministry on Earth. But there is no reason to believe that this principle does not hold true in the age of the Son of Man. Again, I am not going to speculate about what it is God might do in order to beat someone with many stripes because they failed to obey the Lord even though they know how they are supposed to act. I simply want to remind you that we have the responsibility as part of this kingdom of priests in Jesus Christ to do our very best to walk even as Jesus walked. Now, this principle applies most specifically in the area of corporate worship. That’s what Nadab and Abihu were involved in when this incident took place. They were participating in a certain ceremony of corporate worship. True, it was the inauguration of the priestly work but it was part of a worship service which involved sacrifice and the other prescribed ritual. Therefore, we would do well to recognize that this event teaches us that we cannot worship God in any fashion that we choose. In the Savoy Declaration Chapter 22 we read, The light of nature shows that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is just, good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture. This is what is known as the regulatory principle. The best way to understand what is being said in this section of the Savoy declaration (which is a parallel to the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 21), is to understand the difference between elements of worship and circumstance of worship. I don’t remember where I first read about the “elements” and “circumstance” of worship but I find it a convenient way to discuss this issue and so I’ll stick with it. An element of worship would be the preaching of the Word. A service conducted in the city park where a message is preached would be a circumstance of worship. Baptism and the Lord’s supper are elements of worship. Baptism down at the river and the Lord’s supper on the banks of the stream would be a circumstance of worship. The point I want to make is that the Bible provides for us certain elements of worship and these elements of worship must be present in order for the worship to be sound. Obviously we will not have all elements of worship in every service; we don’t have baptisms every Sunday. Nonetheless, the basic elements of worship must be present as proscribed in order for us to worship God as he wants us to worship him. This means that we should not be too quick to introduce innovations into worship. We need to search the Scripture to understand what it is that is an element of worship and therefore unchangeable. When we read the New Testament we realized that there is much freedom in the circumstance of worship as long as the elements are not tampered with. For instance, the Bible does not tell us what style of music we should utilize in worship. We do know, however, that worship in song is an element of worship. We know this because it was part of the old covenant administration, it was the practice of Jesus and his disciples and it was part of the worship in the New Testament Church. Yet, it does not say in the Bible that we should use only certain instruments or sing only certain types of songs. Indeed, the Bible refers to a wide variety of instruments and provides for us a large catalog of “styles.” Therefore, respectful worship in song is an element that we should not tamper with but the style of the music is merely a circumstance of worship. The overriding principle is simply this: if we do not find an element of worship in the Bible then it should not be part of our regular worship service either. If we do find an element of worship in the Scripture than we may utilize that elements in whatever (respectful and God honoring), circumstance we see fit. Undergirding all of this must be a sober and respectful approach to the subject. There is something else I want to touch on in relationship to this principle. When we move beyond the organized corporate worship – which is what we normally mean when we say worship – we began to talk about a lifestyle of worship. This is what we’ve been talking about over the last several years here at Cottonwood Community Church. We talk about cultivating the new creation and then manifesting that rule of Jesus Christ in our arena of activity. This must be done according to God’s Word. We could even say that we are to look at the elements of a godly lifestyle and express those elements in the circumstances which God has given us. The problem arises when people begin to make innovations in the elements. President Barak Obama has suggested that religious leaders preach sermons claiming that Christians should support the establishment of a State run national healthcare system. Well, the idea that we should establish a national healthcare system and the insistence that this is a biblical point of view is an innovation which is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Now, I’m not sure that God is going to strike anyone dead for introducing this false element of lifestyle worship but I do know that he is displeased when amateur theologians and career politicians attempt to support their ungodly belief system with the Bible. In any case, when we are faced with obvious problems in the realm of corporate worship or lifestyle worship we need to look to the only source of our answers which is the holy Bible, the repository of God’s will, the written word. Application: God’s will If we are uncertain about the elements of worship we need to turn to the text in order to discover what it is that God expects of us. Just as Moses reviewed the law concerning the sacrifice and ceremony after the discovery of ungodly innovation, when we are concerned that we have introduced elemental innovations into our corporate worship we need to redouble our efforts to understand God’s word on the subject. One thing we do know is that in this new covenant age the use of wine in worship has been allowed the kingdom of priests. Those who suggest otherwise are attempting to introduce an elemental innovation into the corporate worship of the Church. In the same way that an insistence on seventh day worship is a denial of the establishment of the messianic kingdom likewise pharisetical rejection of wine in the worship service at the Lord’s table - or as a means of relaxation at the end of the workday - reveals a fundamental misunderstanding concerning the nature of the kingdom. We live in the age of the Son of Man and in Christ are given the authority to rule in our arena of activity under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. We are no longer under the dominion of angels or animals and therefore we have the right to partake of the Lord’s cup in our worship and in the celebration of our extending the kingdom through our daily lifestyle worship. Moreover, the sacrificial system is complete in Christ and there is no longer the need to judge between the clean and the unclean sacrifice. We are in the age of rest and the age of victory. In the realm of the corporate worship we are free to express the elements of worship in whatever circumstance we desire as long as it is honoring and respectful to our Lord God. We do not have the right to develop a man centered corporate worship but we have the responsibility to take the elements of worship and express them in a way that is relevant to our culture. I do not mean by this that we should attempt to be politically correct or to somehow connect with our culture in a way that diminishes the message of the kingdom. Indeed, we must identify with God and his law in every way. Just as Aaron and his remaining sons were required to abstain from grief in order to show their solidarity with God we must abstain from any form of compromise with the world. I believe that this has pertinence to our situation here at Cottonwood Community Church. We live in a particular place and at a particular time in history and therefore we must work at presenting the elements of corporate worship and the principles of kingdom living to our community in a way that is appropriate for our place and time. Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about. Obviously, we would not want to attempt to minister to this community in the same fashion that a missionary would bring the ministry of the gospel to a primitive tribal people in South America. Certainly the elements in the principles of the kingdom do not change but they must be presented in a way that is pertinent to the targeted society. We must come to understand that in our day and age we are no longer dealing with a Christian culture. Yes, there are pockets of Victorian morality or “American Christianity” here and there in the land but for the most part this is a post-Christian nation. Yes we have the Christian heritage to draw upon but for the most part the man in the street knows nothing about Christianity. We have got to figure out how we can reach those people. However, if we hope to be wise as serpents and as harmless as doves – if we hope to think like God thinks – then we cannot allow a tradition or personal prejudice to keep us from discovering new circumstance or relevant circumstance for the expression of the elements of worship. Again, the key is a thorough knowledge of the Bible and the doctrines contained therein. In addition to this knowledge of Scripture is very important that we approach the whole issue of corporate worship (and lifestyle worship for that matter), with a broken and contrite heart. Application: Broken will Although the Lord God will not overlook willful disobedience that results in a rejection of the biblical elements of worship I do believe that he has mercy on those two love him deeply and are seeking to obey the Lord God in every area of life. You see, part of our obedience is the development of “harmless wisdom.” Part of our obedience is discovering ways to bring the gospel into the society and culture in which we live. Once again this is something that requires understanding and wisdom. It is not something that we should embark upon without careful study of the Bible and much prayer. Even then we may find that we have misunderstood the proper way to apply the principles to our culture. However, if we approach the endeavor with a broken and contrite heart, a broken will before God, then I believe that he will have mercy on us and bring us back to the proper path rather than take us out of the fight. Moreover, a broken will is one that is willing to immediately change in order to conform to God’s will. We can kid ourselves and say that we have a broken and contrite heart, but if we are unwilling to quickly and decisively change when we are confronted with the clear witness of scripture, then our “broken will” is merely a sham. Conclusion Nadab and Abihu lost their lives because they failed to understand the need to obey God in every jot and tittle of the law. Jesus Christ has saved our lives because he did obey Almighty God in every jot and tittle of the law. Because of the work of Jesus Christ we are now living in an age wherein we participate in the sanctuary worship in an even more intimate fashion then the priest of the old covenant administration. They stood in the presence of God as it was revealed in the earthly tabernacle. We stand in the presence of God in Jesus Christ in the heavenly tabernacle. Just as our privilege is far greater our responsibility is much more severe in this age as well. We cannot ignore God’s Word but must diligently seek his face as we study the Bible to understand how we are to exercise corporate worship and live a lifestyle of worship that is pleasing to him. As we do so may our hearts be tender before him. May we always be humble and ready to hear correction. May we always be contrite and ready to do whatever it is the Lord would call us to do in expressing his rule and reign in our life. |
