Details

Hits: 1784

“Jeroboam’s wicked innovations in worship did not go unnoticed or unrebuked by the Lord. A prophet identified only as ‘a man of God,’ went forth by divine commission from Judah to Bethel. He was sent with the very explicit instructions to bring a message of judgment to Jeroboam, king of Israel. He told him that a king from the line of David, Josiah by name, would execute the false priests of Jeroboam’s idols. This prophecy would be fulfilled 300 years later. As a sign of the authenticity of his message, the man of God told Jeroboam that the altar standing next to him would split apart, and its ashes would pour out.

Jeroboam's initial reaction to this prophecy was not humble repentance. Instead, he stretched out his hand from the altar and commanded his men to arrest the prophet. But as he did so, to his horror the hand he stretched out withered before his eyes. Just then the altar split open, pouring its ashes on the ground at the startled King's feet. God now had Jeroboam’s attention. The king cried out for the prophet to pray to the Lord that his withered hand might be restored. The prophet interceded on behalf of Jeroboam and God mercifully restored the King's hand. Nevertheless, neither displays of wrath or mercy from the Lord turned the heart of Jeroboam away from his foolish design to reinvent devine worship, for the chapter concludes by telling us that for all of this the king did not turn from his evil way, to the eventual destruction of all his house.

In the midst of these events, we read of the sad demise of the prophet himself, who had received explicit instructions from the Lord to make no stops in his journey. Overjoyed and thankful for the healing of his hand, Jeroboam urged the prophet to return to the royal palace and receive a reward. But the man of God had strict instructions from the Lord. He was not to turn aside for refreshment, and he was not to return to Judah by the same path he had taken to Bethel. In obedience to his instructions, the prophet declined the King's invitation and set off towards home by another way.

So far, the steadfast resolve of the man of God to follow his divine commission is commendable. But now the story takes a sad turn. An old prophet who lived in Bethel had sons who apparently had witnessed the confrontation between the king and the man of God. These sons hurried home to tell their father what had happened. For reasons undisclosed in the passage, the old prophet determined to overtake the man of God and invite him to come back to his home for refreshments, even though he knew that the man of God had divine instructions not to turn aside to eat or drink. The indication from the context is that this old prophet had long ago forsaken the worship of the God of Israel and had turned aside to the worship of the idols set up by Jeroboam. Apparently, therefore, he felt it his duty to corrupt the young prophet from Judah, enticing him to disobey the orders he had received from the Lord.

It soothes the consciences of the disobedient to recruit others into their ranks, and the devil is always ready to use such methods against God's people. At first, the man of God refused the invitation of the old prophet, explaining to him that he had explicit instructions from the Lord not to eat or drink in this defiled place. Unwilling to be dissuaded, the old prophet resorted to the devil's favorite strategy... he lied.
‘I too am a prophet as you are,’ he said to the man of God, ‘and an angel spoke to me by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘Bring him back with you to your house that he may eat bread and drink water.’ The inspired writer of 1 Kings tells us bluntly at the end of verse 18, ‘He was lying to him.’ Most sad of all is the fact that the man of God believed the old man's lie and returned to Bethel to eat and drink in his house. His disobedience to the word of the Lord cost him his life, as the remainder of the chapter records. No sooner had he departed from the old man's house, but the man of God was overtaken by a lion and killed…

The experience of the man of God, who allowed himself to be turned from the way, was itself a sign to Jeroboam of the consequences of straying from the commandments of the Lord. God's definite commands are to be obeyed. No reason- whether a pragmatic consideration or a proposed counter- revelation-is sufficient to set aside the Divine Word. The man of God's disobedience was no different from that of Jeroboam. Both allowed themselves to be turned aside from the path of conformity to God's clearly revealed will, and both were judged as a result.”

‘He who keeps his command will experience nothing harmful (Eccl. 8:5) (Comin, 97-100)

Details

Hits: 1971

There are different types of song in Scripture (2 Sam. 1:17-27)

“The book of 2 Samuel is the story of David’s reign over Israel. It was during this glorious era of redemptive history that the form of worship in Israel took on the particular form that would remain in place throughout the remainder of the Old Testament.”

“David was a gifted musician whose abilities were employed according to the Lord's will. His musical talents were used in a variety of ways.

1) The therapeutic use of music. In 1 Samuel we learn that he played on the harp in order to calm the mind of King Saul when he was troubled by an evil spirit.

2) The national/commemorative use of music. Here, at the beginning of 2 Samuel, we find David using his musical gifts to compose a song of lament in commemoration of Saul and Jonathan.

3) The use of music in worship. Later, we will find David composing songs which would take a permanent place in the public worship of God's people.

It is important to note this variety because it demonstrates the fact that there are different kinds of music and different types of songs which are appropriate for different occasions. The so-called ‘song of the bow’ recorded in the first chapter of 2 Samuel is a case in point. David commanded that this song be taught to the children of Judah. We are also told that its contents are recorded in the book of Jasher which is no longer available…

“The ‘song of the bow’ was clearly a song that the people of Israel were encouraged to learn and to sing in remembrance of Saul and Jonathan, yet unlike other songs recorded in the historical books of Scripture, it did not find a place in the authorized book of praise to be used in religious worship. From this we learn an important truth relative to our consideration of worship: that there is a place for creative expression in the form of songs which celebrate the work of God and the lives of his servants, but which are not intended for or appropriate to be used in public worship.

All songs should glorify God, but only those specifically appointed by God for that purpose are to be sung in His worship. Why is it that certain songs are appropriate for use in public worship while other songs are not? What's the big deal? Let me suggest several reasons.

1) Because of the nature of worship which is to honor and glorify God. Even those who disagree with our position regarding the exclusive use of the psalms in worship would not accept any and every song as appropriate for use in the service of worship

2) Because of the nature of song which solidifies thoughts and ideas in the heart and mind through repetition.

3) Because of the nature of man, who, left to his own devices, would soon develop a catalogue of songs which emphasized those thoughts and doctrines he found most appealing, while excluding those less palpable to his natural sensitivities.

There is a time and place for the individual expression of musical creativity to the glory of God. Music, like every other area of life, is under the dominion of Christ and should be used for His glory. But this does not mean that music should be used indiscriminately any more than any other good gift of God. When it comes to the corporate worship of God's people His words stand firm: ‘Be careful to observe what I have commanded: you shall not add to it, nor take away from it.’” (Comin, 87-89)

Details

Hits: 1863

“During the reign of Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, the kingdom was divided. The 10 northern tribes (Israel) bound themselves to Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, while the two southern tribes (Judah) followed Rehoboam. Jerusalem and the temple belong to the territory of Judah. The division of the kingdom was occasioned by Rehoboam's wicked oppression of the people. God raised up Jeroboam and delivered the 10 northern tribes to him, but Jeroboam soon turned away from following the Lord and caused the people of Israel to sin. It thus became a measure of the wickedness of every succeeding king of Israel who departed from the ways of David that they ‘walked in the way of Jeroboam and in his sin by which he had made Israel sin.’

The sin of Jeroboam involved a series of innovations in worship. First, he changed the ordinances of worship, making two golden calves and presenting them to the people. Second, he changed the place of worship, from the temple in Jerusalem to two great high places in Dan and Bethel, at the northern and southern extremities of his Kingdom. Third, he changed the divinely appointed offices, appointing priests from every class of people, and not of the sons of Levi. Fourth, he changed the times of worship, ordaining a feast on a day and month which he ‘devised in his own heart.’

In all of this, Jeroboam usurped God's authority over His worship. The reason for these innovations was purely pragmatic. Jeroboam feared that if the people traveled to Jerusalem to worship, they would eventually reject him and return to Rehoboam, king of Judah. In order to protect his throne, he thought it necessary to undermine the uniformity of worship. Jeroboam’s sin teaches us that:

1) It is nothing but self-interest that motivates and seeks to maintain variety in worship

2) Men are not free to invent means of worship, ordain times of worship, or create officers in God's house apart from His command

3) Innovations in worship are always presented as good and necessary developments, rather than outright rebellion against the word of God” (Comin, 96-97)

Details

Hits: 1719

“Unfortunately, Saul's foolishness did not end with the incident recorded in chapter 13. A short time later, he was commanded to lead the Israelites in battle to utterly destroy the Amalekites, and all of their livestock. The Amalekites were defeated, but Saul spared their king Agag, and the best of the sheep, oxen, fatlings and lambs. Despite these obvious failures Saul proudly announced to Samuel, ‘I have performed the commandment of the Lord.’ Oblivious to Samuel’s efforts to convince Saul that the bleeding cattle and the captive king Agag were evidence of his disobedience to the Lord, Saul insisted that he had done right.

The obstinate self- justification of Saul rested on two presumptions. First, he had acted as king, and had exercised wise judgment (he thought) in the carrying out of his mission. Second, he had spared the livestock for religious purposes.

Far from praising him for this, Samuel rebuked Saul for his sins of pride and rebellion saying, ‘to obey is better than sacrifice.’ The message is clear: God does not take pleasure in offerings which He has not commanded. What pleases the Lord is humble conformity to His commands.

King Saul maintained that it was the sacrifice itself which was really important, and he assumed that his sincerity of heart in wanting to present the best of the flocks to God excused his disregard for the commandment of the Lord. Conformity with God's commands, in other words, could be set aside as long as the worshipper believed that he had a good reason for doing things his own way. Thus in Saul’s mind, it was the will of the worshipper-not the will of God-that determined what would be acceptable worship. For this the Kingdom was stripped from him and given to David, a man after God's own heart, who would be the Lord's chosen instrument for the further development of the Church’s ordinances of worship and the introduction of several new elements by God's command.” (Comin, 85)

Details

Hits: 1935

With greater light comes greater responsibility (1 Kings 3:1-4; Deut. 12:5-14)

“The division of the kingdom after the reign of Solomon into Northern (Israel) and Southern (Judah) is soon made into an excuse for innovations in worship, which God condemns in the strongest terms and which ultimately lead to judgment and captivity.”

“…Solomon’s reign was followed by the division of Israel into a northern and southern kingdom, with 10 of the 12 tribes dwelling apart from Jerusalem and the holy Temple. This division ultimately led to the corruption of worship and the judgment of both kingdoms. But the beginnings of the later corruption can be seen even in the practice of Solomon, as summarized by the author of 1 Kings in the first four verses of chapter three.

“Solomon’s carelessness with regard to the place of God’s worship is clearly condemned in the Biblical record of his reign, though he himself is accepted as one who loved the Lord. Because he lived in a time of transition, when the permanent place of God’s worship was not yet established, his error of innovation is not condemned as strongly as those who would come after the central place of the temple was established, yet it is condemned nevertheless. Neither is his love for the Lord discounted, though he committed sin with regard to the manner of worship. From this we learn:

1) that where there is greater light, there is greater duty and accountability

2) that God plainly condemns innovations in His worship

3) that God may, and does, reject impure worship while not necessarily rejecting the heart of the worshipper-yet with greater light comes greater responsibility.” (Comin, 95-96)

Details

Hits: 1920

“After Saul’s appointment as king over Israel, Samuel instructed him to go to Gilgal and wait for seven days. Samuel promised to come at that time and offer sacrifices, which was right and duty as a priest. While Saul waited the situation grew tense. The Philistines were ready to attack and Saul’s troops began to disperse. It was then that Saul took matters into his own hands and offered the sacrifices himself. For this he had no warrant from God.

It should be carefully noted that this was not a case of disobedience to a clear prohibition in the law of God. Nowhere is it written ‘a king shall not offer sacrifices before Me.’ The law of God merely mandated that the offerings were to be performed by the priests. It did not explicitly forbid their being offered by a king or by anyone else. This was clearly a case of Saul going beyond the prescribed will of God in worship and it could not be excused on the ground that as long as something is not clearly forbidden it is permissible.

No sooner had he completed the offering then Samuel arrived and required an explanation for what Saul had done. The king was at a loss for excuses.

a. He justified his actions on the grounds of necessity. The people were scattering while the enemy was advancing and something had to be done.
b. He justified his actions on the grounds of Samuel’s failure to arrive in a timely manner.
c. He justified his actions on the ground of piety, claiming that he dared not enter into battle without first seeking the Lord.

Yet all these reasons were merely pragmatic, based on circumstances and not on the authoritative Word of God. Samuel’s pronouncement of judgment highlights the condemnation of Saul for putting pragmatism ahead of principle: ‘You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which He commanded you.’

Brian Schwertley writes: ‘The story of Saul’s improvising in worship and God's displeasure at such an act is important because almost all the innovations that are occurring in our day in worship… are based solely upon pragmatic considerations. When people say, ‘But look at the number of people that are being saved; look at the wonderful church growth we are achieving,’ we must respond by asking for scriptural warrant.

The question that God asks is not pragmatic but principial: ‘Who has required this from your hand. ‘(Isaiah 1:12)”
(Comin, 83-84)

Details

Hits: 1936

“The second half of 2 Samuel 6 records the removal of the ark to Israel in observance of the ‘proper order.’ The Levites carried it, according to the commandment of the Lord, and we are also told that David in his enthusiasm ‘danced before the Lord with all his might.’ This dancing, combined with the fact that David discarded his kingly robes and stripped down to a linen ephod for the occasion, incurred the scorn of his wife, Michal, who chided him for his indignity. David responded to her contempt by pointing out that he danced and played ‘before the Lord.’

There are some who cite this passage as a justification for the use of all kinds of musical instruments in the worship of God, since David says, ‘I will play before the Lord.’ A few observations, however, show this argument to be without merit.

1) The word ‘play’ used here does not necessarily require musical instruments. It simply means ‘to laugh; or, to make sport,’ and is an apt description of David's joy.

2) There is a contrast in the chapter itself between the employment of ‘all kinds of instruments’ (verse 5) during the first unsuccessful attempt to move the ark, and the simple ‘sounding of the trumpet’ (verse 15), presumably by the priests in accordance with Numbers 10 on this occasion.

3) The argument proves too much, since it would also require the people of God to ‘dance with abandon’ in public worship in their skivvies, of which there is no hint of approval in all of the Scriptures.

The point to be taken from David’s dancing is that his enthusiasm was the natural expression of the joy that filled his heart at the sight of the return of God's ark to its rightful place.” (Comin, 90-91)

Details

Hits: 1864

“Since our concern in this series is the nature and practice of worship as it is revealed in Scripture, we must give attention to a particular mention in the book of 1 Samuel to the use of musical instruments by a group of prophets. This unique situation took place in connection with Saul’s appointment by Samuel to the office of king in Israel. Specifically, Saul was told that he would meet ‘a group of prophets coming down from the high place with a stringed instrument, a tambourine, a flute, and a harp before them; as they will be prophesying.’

Some have cited this instance as proof that the use of musical instruments in the public worship of God is approved in Scripture, but let us examine the case more closely. First, it should be noted that these prophets were not engaged in the public worship of God in the presence of his gathered people. They were traveling along the road, and were more like a band of minstrels than a body of solemn worshippers. This is clearly not an example of the normative practice of a public worship assembly and therefore cannot be used to draw conclusions relating to such a setting.

Secondly, the use of musical instruments on this occasion was directly related to the activity of prophesying. Thus Brian Schwertley rightly concludes, ‘if this unusual instance did justify the use of musical instruments in public worship, it would only authorize their use in accordance with prophecy or direct revelation. Since the prophetic office ceased with the close of the New Testament canon, [sic] this passage is not applicable to the new covenant church.’

Third, the authorized use of musical instruments in the public worship assembly was restricted to priests and Levites. It is clear that the Jews never understood this passage as an authorization of the free use of musical instruments in the appointed services of God. There is nothing in this example which supports the contention of some that God permits or desires the use of instrumental music as an accompaniment to the singing of praise in public worship.

Musical instruments did come to have a particular place in the worship assemblies of Israel under the administration of David, and we will consider this in greater detail when we come to the institution of these ordinances, but that notwithstanding, the playing of instruments by this band of prophets is not an example from which we may conclude that God has commanded instruments to be played in the worship services of the Church. His fundamental law of worship stands: ‘Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not act to it nor take away from it.’” (Comin 82-83)

Details

Hits: 1760

“In the 6th chapter of 2 Samuel we read of the disastrous attempt by David to bring back the ark of the covenant to Israel. The ark is introduced in verse 2 as ‘the ark of God, whose name is called by the Name the LORD of hosts who dwells between the cherubim.’ The emphasis here is upon the holy nature of the ark as the representation of God's holy presence among His people. Sadly, in disregard of God's holiness, David and his men placed the ark on a cart drawn by oxen, and two men were appointed to drive the team along the bumpy roads. When the oxen stumbled, one of these men, Uzzah, reached out his hand to steady the ark. The result was immediate death from the wrath of God…

… James Glasgow wrote ‘David proceeded irregularly, because he was without scriptural authority. Thus, instead of consulting the priests and Levites to whose custody the ark belonged, he ‘consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and every leader,’ (according to 1 Chronicles 13:1), that is, with political and military advisers… The result in David's case implies a permanent inhibition of introducing any religious observance without divine authority. If David could not do this, how can it, without sinful responsibility, be done by men in the 19th century? Instead of allowing the ark to be borne by the Levites, he had it placed on a cart-which he doubtlessly thought was done ‘decently and in order.’ This, however, was not appointed and therefore he erred in doing it.’

Michael Bushell gets to the root of the matter when he writes ‘The heart of Uzzah’s transgression lies in the fact that according to Numbers 4, the ark was… ‘to be moved only by means of the staves on the side of the ark, on the shoulders of the Levites, and not on a cart.
Instead of following these instructions, they followed the example of the Philistines who sometime earlier had sent the ark back by cart. The Lord's command as to how the ark was to be moved excluded every other means. What was not commanded was forbidden, however much the circumstances may have suggested otherwise.’

The dramatic death of Uzzah underscores the fact that God is in earnest regarding the conformity of His people to His commandments, when they draw near to Him in worship. That David recognized this is clear from his instruction to the Levites recorded in 1 Chronicles 15: 12-13, when the ark was later successfully transported to Israel: ‘sanctify yourselves, you and your brethren, that you may bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel to the place I have prepared for it. For because you did not do it the first time, the Lord our God broke out against us, because we did not consult Him about the proper order.’”
(Comin 89-90)