Sunday Sermons
What It Means to Obey
What It Means to Obey
It is common to hear people say, “I follow the Bible”, but that claim can mean all sorts of things to different people. In this lesson we want to go back to the Old Testament, (which is written for our learning Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11), and to glean from the examples that God has selected for us and specifically to learn how He defines “obedience” and “rebellion”.
Genesis 4:3-7
Cain’s sacrifice was rejected because it failed to comply with God’s instructions (compare with Romans 10:17 and Hebrews 11:4). Here is a great opportunity for our student to begin learning how to put one Scripture with another and draw the necessary conclusion. We also learn here that God is not bound to accept everything that is deemed to be acceptable worship in the eyes of man. Cain is not given any credit for his sacrifice. Cain did believe in God, and he did offer God something, yet because Cain did not offer what God commanded, his works are called evil (1 John 3:12 “And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous”).
Leviticus 10:1-3
If you are reading the New King James Version, you will notice that Nadab and Abihu offered "profane" fire. The word "profane" means "common, not sanctified or set apart." The King James Version says "strange fire." Simply put, Nadab and Abihu offered a different kind of fire than what God commanded, fire that was not taken from the altar of burnt offering was profane. Observe that though Nadab and Abihu were offering worship to God, they were not accepted because they did not worship theway God had commanded. What lesson should this teach us about our worship? The New International Version renders the fire of this passage as being “unauthorized fire”. What made the fire “strange” was the fact that God had not commanded such. Note, they were not punished because God had specifically condemned such fire, but because they offered something God had not authorized. The whole point of the previous chapters has stressed that God expected the priests to obey the law promptly and exactly. From this example we must learn that God’s silence does not authorize a practice. The common line of thinking often heard today, “We can do such and such because the Bible does not specifically condemn it” is seen to be inaccurate as we look at this verse. “Simply put, most religious divisions arise, not from what the Bible does say, but out of what the Bible does not say. This is the result of two radically different attitudes toward the area of God's silence. One position is that silence is permissive and that we are free to do whatever we desire in silent teaching or activity. The second position is that silence is prohibitive and that we are to do what God did say. From these two hermeneutical perspectives arise two different worlds in religion” (Gospel Anchor. May 1991 p. 12). The same division existed during the Reformation Movement. “Luther desired to maintain in the Church all that was not expressly contrary to the Scriptures, and Zwingli (a Swiss reformer) to abolish all that could not be proved by them. The German reformer wished to remain united to the Church of the preceding ages, and was content to purify it of all that was opposed to the Word of God. The Zurich reformer passed over these ages, returned to the apostolic times, and, carrying out an entire transformation of the Church, endeavored to restore it to its primitive condition. Zwingli's reformation was therefore the more complete” (History Of The Reformation Of The Sixteenth Century. d'Aubigne, J.H.M. pp. 401-402). “Whatever reasoning they used for obtaining fire from another source is not given. They might have reasoned, ‘Fire is fire, and one burns as well as another’, or, ‘Well, after all, God didn't say not to use this other fire’. Whatever their reasoning was, it was not acceptable to God” (Jefferson David Tant). Maurice Barnett notes, “It was not that God had specifically forbidden the fire they used, but rather He had specified what fire they must use (Leviticus 16:12; Numbers 16:46). God did not have to go down a list of other sources of fire, specifically forbidding each source. Just to tell them what fire to use was enough”(Understanding Bible Authority p. 16). “Tragedy and triumph go hand in hand in the Bible and in life. On the first day of Aaron’s high-priestly ministry his two eldest sons died for infringing God’s law. In many parts of the Church the biblical view of divine judgment is conveniently forgotten or supposed to be something that passed away with the Old Testament. Heine’s famous last words, ‘God will forgive. That’s his job’, have become the unexpressed axiom of much modern theology. This short story (Leviticus 10) is therefore an affront to liberal thinkers” (Wenham p. 153). 10:3 God expects His priests and worshippers to treat Him as holy which means to treat Him with respect and honor. In the context, God is treated as holy when we precisely obey His will, this includes when we worship Him as He has specifically outlined for us in His word. God still feels the same way about additions or substitutions to His will (2 John 9; Galatians 1:6-9).
1 Samuel 15
15:1-3 “South of Israel in the Negev, large areas were occupied by a people well known for their vicious fighting ability. Shortly after Israel’s exodus from Egypt it was the Amalekites who attempted to prevent Israel from moving into the Sinai Peninsula (Exodus 17). The Lord had not forgotten that encounter (17:14; Deuteronomy 25:17-19)” (Davis p. 61). It had been over 400 years since Amalek had attacked Israel, but in the intervening centuries Amalek had shown no signs of national repentance.
Such a destruction was to be complete (15:3). “Such a command was not an encouragement to the barbaric slaughter of ‘innocent people’ as some have argued, but represents a fully justified act on the part of a holy God who reserves the right to judge sin at any point in history” (Davis p. 61). This culture had been given 400 years of mercy and grace, they had been given time to change! (Compare with other cultures which God judged, Genesis 15:16). “The soldiers were not to profit from their assignment through the acquisition of slaves or booty” (Bergen p. 168). “And lest someone worry that descendants are suffering for their ancestor’s sins, 1 Samuel 15 indicates that Amalek had not changed over the years, note that Samuel refers to the current generation of Amalekites as ‘sinners’ (v. 18). It is precisely in God’s vengeance that His people find comfort! Yahweh does not forget how His enemies have hated, trampled, and crushed His people. To hear, ‘See! Your God will come with vengeance!” (Isaiah 35:4) is to hear good news, for that means that God will put down and overthrow all who strangle and oppress His people” [1]
15:8-9 Saul violates what was a very clear command (15:3). 15:10-11 God takes it personally when we violate His will. God was truly disappointed in Saul, especially in light of all the providential and miraculous assistance that He had given Saul. This verse really challenges the concept that God always has warm feelings towards us—no matter what we do or don’t do. Be impressed that Samuel takes no pleasure in Saul’s failure nor in the task that now confronts him. 15:13-16 Saul argues that he has carried out God’s command, Samuel counters, “What about all this racket I am hearing from captured Amalekite flocks and herds” (14). “The people, Saul avers, spared that good livestock to sacrifice to Yahweh; but there was compliance—the rest they totally destroyed” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 15). Many people today would agree with Saul’s reasoning, that is, doing something that looks “spiritual” (offering these animals as a sacrifice to God), makes up for not really obeying what God has said. “How can it be a sin—when it makes people feel so spiritual, when it appears to do so much good?” Also note Saul’s excuse, “It only looks like a violation, while the animals weren’t killed in the heat of battle, technically they were, because they will eventually be killed when we offer them in sacrifice”. “The shift in pronouns is an obvious example of the ancient (and modern) art of ‘passing the buck’. Saul attempted to justify the deeds of the people on the grounds that their intentions were good. In other words, the end had fully justified the means. He assumed that any sacrifice, whether prepared in disobedience or obedience, would be acceptable to God” (Davis pp. 62-63).
15:20-21 Saul utterly disagrees with Samuel. Like many people, Saul cannot see or will not see how partial obedience does not even count. He is arguing like people who say, “Yea, that’s not what God commands, but I can’t see what harm there is in..?” Saul is stumbling over exactly what prevents so many people today from obeying the truth. They may have never been baptized for the remission of their sins—yet they will read Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38 and protest that they have fulfilled those passages.
15:22-23 This is God’s view of partial obedience and that good intentions make up for obedience. “It is rebellion. It is arrogance. It is idolatry” (Dale Ralph Davis p. 17). Performing something “religious” does not make up for a failure to obey.
2 Samuel 6:1-7
Unfortunately David did not take the time to research the proper manner of transporting the ark. Placing the ark on a cart, even though it was new, was a violation of the Law. The Old Testament required that the ark be carried by the sons of Kohath(Exodus 25:14-15; Numbers 3:30-31; 4:5-8 7:9). “In fact, David’s actions in this manner were more like those of the spiritually ignorant Philistines (cf. 1 Samuel 6:7,10)” (Bergen p. 329). But when the oxen and the ark passed over the rough, rocky threshing floor of Nachon (NAY kon), Uzzah put forth his hand to steady the Ark. The text says that Uzzah was struck dead by God because of his “irreverence”. Some believe that good or sincere motives can make up for violating God’s will, but this text clearly proves the opposite. We are never justified in violating a command of God, regardless of the circumstances or the most sincere and well meaning of motives. Uzzah was not a priest, and touching the ark was a violation of the Law (Numbers 4:15). “Because of His holiness, God’s laws cannot be violated no matter how reasonable it would seem in a particular situation” (Laney p. 96). This text is an excellent place to demonstrate that every law of God is important. God commanded the death penalty against murderers and adulterers, and then personally executed Uzzah for a violation of what some would call a ceremonial law. Yet God does not make a distinction between moral law and ceremonial law, rather every law that He has given is equally important, simply because He is the author of that law. John H. Stek observes that the fate of Uzzah brings to mind the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, Leviticus 10:1-2; Achan, Joshua 7; and Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5:1-11; all of whom failed to take Yahweh’s rule seriously” (Gaebelein pp. 871-872).
Mark 7:6-9
The reason for this set of passages is to demonstrate that God has not changed His expectations. In the New Testament, God still expects people to obey His will and not add or subtract from it. Jesus is talking to the Jews who were very religious. What did Jesus call their worship? He calls it “vain”. What were they doing wrong to cause Jesus to call their worship this? Do religions of the world today do the same thing in their worship as did these Jews? What will Jesus think of our worship if we do this?
Mark Dunagan/Beaverton Church of Christ/503-644-9017
www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net/mdunagan@easystreet.com
