Home » Posts tagged 'Israel' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: Israel
Eschatology and Political Activism from the Right and the Left
Living in the Last Days
If you travel in evangelical circles, you might hear language especially today that says, “We’re living in the last days.” Those words, “last days,” occur eight times in the King James Version. These are two prominent usages:
2 Timothy 3:1, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.”
2 Peter 3:3, :”Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts.”
“Last days” in the Bible is not very specific. When the Apostle Peter uses the words in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, he refers them to a partial fulfillment now over 2,000 years ago:
Acts 2:17, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”
The phrase, “living in the last days,” did not start appearing in written material until the middle of the nineteenth century, when men would write something like the following:
There are features of the last days of the last times, and they are characteristic of these days and these times; we are therefore, living in the last days of the last times, and, consequently, expect the speedy appearance of the coming of the Son of Man.
This was from an article, “Elements of Prophetical Interpretation,” by J. W. Brooks in a book, The Literalist, published in 1841. As popularly used, most refer these “last days” to a seemingly very short time before the rapture from the earth of the saints.
A Vision of the Reign of God on Earth
Many, many and from various factions oppose the literal approach to biblical prophecy and that everyone presently abides in the last days as such. They reject the concept that the world will degenerate until the return of Christ. If that be the case, political activism is of little point. On the other hand, if persistent human effort might bring the reign of God on earth, then reasons exist for lobbying, campaigning, protesting — violent or non-violent, community organizing, and political action.
Early Roman Catholicism by envisioning the church as New Testament Israel also saw the church as the kingdom of God on earth. Instead of circumcision as the entrance requirement to the kingdom, water baptism became that, a New Testament circumcision. A false form of millennialism, this position says the church is already God’s kingdom with a view toward its ultimate perfection on earth. Roman Catholic theologian Augustine in AD413 wrote in his City of God:
The Church is already now the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of heaven. Accordingly, even now His saints reign with Him. . . . It is then of this kingdom militant, in which conflict with the enemy is still maintained, and war carried on with warring lusts, or government laid upon them as they yield, until we come to that most peaceful kingdom in which we shall reign without an enemy.
Spiritualizing Old Testament Israel and finding in its Old Testament prophecies a fulfillment in the New Testament church subscribes to advocation of positions of power for realizing God’s kingdom on earth. According to this eschatological position, the church inherits Old Testament mandates for domination over the earth.
Postmillennial Liberation and Dominion Theologies
Mirroring Viewpoints
The left and the right both compete for power with the divine charge of liberation on the left and dominion on the right. These two mirroring viewpoints easily find support for the replacement of Israel. This might also adapt into justifiable eradication with an underlying disposition of antisemitism. Both acquire their ordination from a form of postmillennialism and a hermeneutic of spiritualization and allegorization, the latter the rationalization for Roman Catholicism.
The left and the right become strange bedfellows with relationship to Israel under the same umbrella of eschatology. Palestinian Liberation Theology buttresses a decolonization theme and advocates Palestinian freedom “from the river to the sea.” Thomas Ice writes then concerning postmillennial reconstructionism:
The danger lies in their misunderstanding of God’s plan concerning the future of the nation Israel. Reconstructionists advocate the replacement of Old Testament Israel with the church, often called the “New Israel.” They believe that Israel does not have a future different from any other nation.
Corrupted Views of Israel
Ice continues:
While Reconstructionists do believe that individual Jews will be converted to Christ in mass in the future, almost none of them believe that national Israel has a future and thus the Church has completely taken over the promises of national Israel. In contrast to the eventual faithfulness and empowerment by the Holy Spirit of the Church, Reconstructionist David Chilton said that “ethnic Israel was excommunicated for its apostasy and will never again be God’s Kingdom.”
John MacArthur also tied together these two theological ideologies, saying:
There is another kind of theology that’s existing today, it’s called Liberation Theology. It is a form of theology that says that the church is to take dominion over the institutions of the world. That’s another form of dominion theology or kingdom theology. And what it basically says is that the church’s mandate is to take over the institutions of the world. That’s the liberation theology side. And what dominion theology says is that we are to take over the powers of darkness.
Dovetailing of Leftist and Rightist Values
Harvey Cox writes in an article in The Atlantic:
By far the most striking discovery I made . . . was the remarkable similarity between the rhetoric . . . of liberation theology. Both (postmillennial dominion theology and liberation theology) focus on continuing the ministry and work of Jesus. Both place the concept of the Kingdom of God, albeit interpreted quite differently, at the center of their respective theologies.
Leftist and rightist values dovetail around eschatological belief. Neither provide a true and real solution for the present or for the future. Instead of depending on a plain reading of the text of scripture, they spiritualize it and read into it a false vision of the future. This then reflects on a relationship with Israel.
Judaizers followed the Apostle Paul into his churches after his first missionary journey and attempted to turn the churches of Galatia into a form of New Testament Israel. They removed required distinctions between the church and Israel to make the church into Israel. This confused the real solution for man’s problems found only in Jesus Christ. It corrupted the church. A kind of Judaizing continues perverting the church through its insidious false eschatological vision for the world. In so doing, it also assaults Israel and annuls the promises God will still fulfill for this chosen nation.
Israel through a Biblical Lens
A Biblical Lens to See Israel
Everyone should look at everything through a biblical lens. God’s Word is truth. I hear people make assessments of Israel without any reference to what the Bible says. On the other hand, some overshoot and use Israel as their prophetic pin cushion.
I see two perspectives to organize appraisal of Israel. One, treat Israel as the consummation of the Abrahamic Covenant, promises still unfulfilled. Two, reckon Israel according to biblical principles like any other nation.
God’s Promises to Israel
Romans 9-11
For number one, in Romans 11:1, the Apostle Paul asks a rhetorical question:
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Answer. No. Why even ask the question? Israel as a nation doesn’t believe (Romans 9). It’s Israel’s fault (Romans 10). Paul gives the answer in the strongest possible negative: “God forbid.”
Old Testament Teaching
“God forbid” corresponds to Old Testament teaching:
Psalm 94:14, “For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.”
1 Samuel 12:22, “For the LORD will not forsake his people for his great name’s sake: because it hath pleased the LORD to make you his people.”
Psalm 89:31-37 describes Israel with her unbelief, disobedience, and then God’s faithful implementation of His unilateral covenant:
31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;
32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.
33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.
The Old Testament says much more, making the same point and in different ways. God set aside Israel in a deliberate, limited way for His ultimate ends. When you look at Israel in the Middle East, you should understand that God has a plan for her still.
Biblical Principles for Judging Nations
For number two, Israel is a nation. According to biblical principles, God instituted nations. He also expects believers to judge between nations based on His Word and support a better nation or culture over another one based on those principles. We should do that with the United States too.
God separated men into distinct lands to preserve the good against the evil. It is not a cookie cutter clarity in these divisions as we analyze. I’ve been to Israel and I saw what was good and bad there. Even without the promises of God to Israel, Israel deserves the land. She is not beyond criticism, but she is exponentially better than the nations surrounding her.
Based on an accurate view of history, Zionism is historical. According to the Bible, it is biblical. In a philosophical way, Israel better represents the nationalistic purpose of God. Arab’s having lived on that land for centuries doesn’t negate Israel, any more than American Indians negate the United States.
At the same time, I can see the tribulation of Hamas upon Israel a possible means to God’s ends. It is not a sign, as some people characterize it. The signs are to come like Christmas is coming. For Christmas to come, Thanksgiving must first arrive. Occurrences before actual signs could lead to those signs like Thanksgiving leads to Christmas.
God and the Bible Are Dispensational (Part Six)
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five
History
One of the biggest criticisms aimed at dispensationalism is the scant historical evidence for this system of interpretation. Opponents call John Nelson Darby, 19th century Anglican clergy member from Ireland, the founder of dispensationalism. They say then the early 20th century evangelical Bible teacher, C. I. Scofield, popularized it in the notes of his Scofield Reference Bible.
If dispensationalism originated in the 19th century, I would find that troublesome. Yet, it’s not how I explain the history of dispensationalism. God intended literal interpretation of the Bible, which is premillennial. You can read that in the Bible itself. For that reason, I say that premillennialism started with the apostles. From there, you can read their influence on several early patristic writers. Irenaeus reports that Papias (AD 60-130) said that “there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.”
Systematization of Interpretation
Darby among others systematized premillennialism and a literal interpretation of scripture. Scofield and others picked up his mantle with their explanation. This could easily have been a counter to the systematization of amillennialism by covenant theology. The system of covenant theology preceded the system of dispensationalism, but premillennialism precedes amillennialism. Scripture doesn’t provide a system. However it is premillennial.
In the first century, no one spiritualized the Bible as a type of interpretation. A literal interpretation was the intention of Jesus and the Apostles. That’s what they did. Spiritualization, the warp and woof of covenant theology, didn’t occur until Roman Catholicism said that the church fulfilled Old Testament Israel.
Seven Dispensations?
Scofield introduced seven dispensations. I can agree with his seven divisions of the Bible and history. However, I would not characterize, explain, or label them the same as he did. One might add a few more divisions for clarity. As I wrote earlier, dispensations indicate the continuity and discontinuity of the workings of God in His world.
God Himself doesn’t change. That is continuity. Both out of His love and justice, He works in different manners during different periods. That is discontinuity.
As a description, I don’t like “age of grace,” speaking of the era in which we now live. Salvation always came and comes by grace. What Scofield called the age of grace, like others, I would call, the church age. God worked through Israel in the Old Testament age and in the church in the New Testament one, the latter from Christ to the rapture.
Bad Dispensationalism
Just because someone is a dispensationalist does not guarantee correct belief and practice or even right exegesis of passages. Dallas Theological Seminary probably did more to spread the system of dispensationalism than any other institution. It also though disseminated a weak or false gospel and doctrine of sanctification.
Dallas for the most part produced the free grace crowd that cheapens and distorts grace. This poses as a dispensationalist view because of its source. Cheap grace bled into independent fundamental Baptists and their anti-repentance and non-lordship teaching. They became more enamored with the soteriology of the free-gracers than historic Baptists. This fit nicely with their pragmatic church growth philosophy, pretending to be revival and the power of God.
Longtime president of Dallas, Lewis Sperry Chafer affected many with his eight volume Systematic Theology. He took his dispensationalism to an extreme, perhaps in reaction to covenant theology. He pushed his discontinuity too far. Chafer presented salvation by works in the Old Testament and by grace through faith in the New. He took Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount and applied it to Jews in the Millennial Kingdom.
Holding and Teaching a Right Interpretation of Scripture
Whatever bad influence Dallas had with classic dispensationalism, it does worse in recent many years. It doesn’t require dispensationalism of its faculty. Instead, it uses its clout to sway people away from inerrancy. Dallas once pumped out serious eschatology to build a pretribulational, premillennial belief in church leaders and their churches. Now it doesn’t care if you’re premill, amill, or postmill, promoting unity with any aberrant position of eschatology.
Biblical churches and pastors must preach and train in a literal interpretation of scripture. Spiritualization and allegorization are easy ways to conform the Bible to whatever someone wants it to say. Easily, the woke churches use the Bible to teach their critical race theory, employing these means. The Words are God’s Words, but what comes out in the teaching are man’s words. Satan was fine using the Word of God to teach his will (Genesis 3, Matthew 4).
Churches need evangelization, preaching a true gospel. They also must make disciples, teaching new converts to rightly divide the Word of Truth. This requires teaching them a literal, grammatical-historical, dispensational interpretation of scripture. God and the Bible are dispensational.
Suzerain-Vassal Treaties & the Books of Moses: Joshua Berman
I had the privilege of interviewing Jewish scholar Dr. Joshua Berman, professor of Hebrew Bible at Bar-Illan University in Israel, on the fact that the books of Moses, the Pentateuch, follow the late second Millennium BC format of a suzerain-vassal treaty. This fact strongly supports the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and, hence, the existence of genuine and unavoidable predictive prophecy in the Bible, and, thus, the Bible’s Divine authorship. Jehovah, the God of Israel, is the suzerain or great King, and Israel is the vassal, the subordinate dependent on the suzerain.
When my wife and I visited Egypt last year as part of a faculty tour of Egypt led by evangelical scholar James Hoffmeier, we had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Berman in Luxor, Egypt, on the issue of suzerain-vassal treaties (he prefers to be called “Joshua.”) Joshua Berman explains the issue quite clearly and effectively, so if you find the terminology “suzerain vassal treaty” scary, watch the video below of the interview, and I suspect you will both understand the issue and see the value of it for Christian apologetics.
I have posted about apologetics videos recorded on this trip to Egypt in previous posts on this blog, such as this one on the famous Merneptah Stele.
Ironically, when I debated president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Dan Barker, on the Old Testament, Mr. Barker claimed that “The Israelis over in Israel … the archaeologists are throwing up their hands saying, ‘No, there’s nothing. None of these stories has any archaeological evidence at all.’” Barker’s assertion was always ridiculous, as was demonstrated within the debate itself, but the interview with Dr. Berman provides even more evidence for the foolishness of Mr. Barker’s argument.
After the interview with Dr. Joshua Berman, other scholars, including Kenneth Kitchen (On the Reliability of the Old Testament), James Hoffmeier (The Archaeology of the Bible), and Meredith Kline (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy) are also quoted. You can learn more about archaeological evidence for the Old Testament here.
So please watch the video below. You can watch the embed below, or view it on faithsaves.net here, or on Rumble by clicking here, or on YouTube by clicking here.
–TDR
The Essence of the Bondage Mentality or Worldview, Witnessed in Old Testament Israel and Reflected in the Democrat Party in the United States
The Israelites lived in bondage in Egypt. In this bondage, they ate a preferred variety of food without a threat of immediate death. If they went along, they could go along. However, God wanted Israel to leave the bondage of Egypt to the liberty of the land that He would give them. He raised up and then used Moses and Aaron to lead them out. God also hardened Pharoah’s heart to do his will. The Apostle Paul explains in Romans 9:17-18:
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Deuteronomy 4:20 communicates a similar purpose: “But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.” A very short while after Israel left Egypt, the people wanted back in Egypt in bondage. They could escape Egypt, but they could not escape their bondage mentality or worldview. They wanted back in bondage as seen in many passages in the Old Testament. Reacting to lesser food, they said (Numbers 11:1-7):
1 And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.
2 And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the LORD, the fire was quenched.
3 And he called the name of the place Taberah: because the fire of the LORD burnt among them.
4 And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?
5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:
6 But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.
Israel said in Numbers 20:5, “And wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in unto this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink.” They spoke another version in Numbers 21:5, “And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.” They would rather stay in bondage, because liberty meant manna, while bondage apparently brought fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlick.
A second group of passages repeat the words, “die in the wilderness” (Exodus 14, Numbers 21, 26), as in Exodus 14:11-12:
11 And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?
12 Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.
If the people of Israel trusted God, would they die in the wilderness? It seemed like it to them. They made decisions based on this worldview or mentality. You might call the bondage mindsight also a crybaby one, because everytime Israel chose bondage, they cried or complained like a baby to God.
Also reflecting the bondage or crybaby worldview or mentality was Israel’s desire for a king. God warned against having a king. 1 Samuel 8:1-18 (click to see this passage, while reading here) records what God thinks. Israel expressed the desire in verse 5: “And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” Their bondage mentality or worldview guided their desire. It displeased the Lord (verses 6-8) and it still does.
Thomas Ross writes about 1 Samuel 8 and chronicles the given reasons God opposes the bondage worldview, what he calls “big government” mentality. He exposes the following arguments:
- Loss of freedom of association (verses 10-13)
- Loss of freedom in a military draft (verses 11-12) [in contrast to God’s will, Deuteronomy 20:1-9]
- Loss of freedom of occupation (verses 11-13)
- Weakening of the private sector for the public sector (verses 11-13)
- Loss of Freedom of Property (verses 14-16)
- Loss of freedom and protection for physical property through “redistribution” (verse 14)
- Loss of freedom and protection for growth in wealth and income through 10% taxation (verse 15)
- Loss of freedom and protection for human “property” (verse 16)
In the end, Israel would regret its bondage or crybaby mentality or worldview (verse 18). Thomas Ross lists reasons in the text for taking this false view of the world:
- Rejection of the Word of God (verse 19)
- A Desire to Follow the Ungodly (verse 20a)
- Abdication of Responsibility (verse 20b)
- Faithlessness (verse 20a and c)
When Israel finally went into captivity, Israel also wanted to stay, similarly to returning to Egypt. Daniel begrudges this and God prophesies the chastisement (Daniel 9-12).
The Democrat Party of the United States reflects the bondage and crybaby mentality. I call it bondage rather than slave even though the latter works, if expounded. The Bible says everyone is a slave, either to righteousness or unrighteousness, so it seems unescapable. The Democrats keep people in bondage to government, which is bondage to unrighteousness according to God. Slavery to God isn’t bondage, but liberty. With liberty comes responsibility.
Going back to Egypt meant dependence on Egypt. Israel could rest in the world system, following along with its ways, never breaking from its position or direction. The Democrats sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate. They encourage everyone to live a temporal life.
Late in his life, Booker T. Washington visited Washington DC from Tuskegee and on his way, he witnessed and then criticized African Americans for moving to and crowding near Washington DC to obtain their means to live. This became Booker T. Washington’s debate with socialist African American leader W.E.B. Dubois, offering different trajectories for the future. Dubois’s view won out. This became the strategy of the Democrat Party, especially represented by Woodrow Wilson and then Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Victor David Hansen on June 29 wrote a piece titled “The Cry Baby Leftist Mind.” This agrees with what I’m writing here. The overturning of Roe v. Wade brought out further crying. What will women do now? How will they survive? Democrat California says, “We will pay for your abortion.” Even Republican governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota reacts by saying, “We must do what we can to help women in crisis,” as a beginning comment. She further said, “We will continue helping women navigate pregnancies they did not plan.” That is better than paying for the abortion, but it panders to a bondage and crybaby mindset.
God does not approve of the bondage and crybaby mindset. It will not succeed in a nation. People will not be better. They will be worse. Let us oppose it together.
Why Do Jews Get Special Favor from True Christians?
Based on what’s committed against the United States and people’s talk about Islamophobia, one might think Moslems would receive more crimes against them for their religion. They don’t. The FBI reports 227 Moslem victims in its last report in 2019 and 1,032 Jewish victims. Jews themselves also know that antisemitism grows rapidly.
For most of my life (born 1962), evangelical Christians were a very reliable ally of Jewish people and especially Israel. Yet, by far I hear and read among evangelicals more anti-Jewish language and writing than I’ve ever heard. I did not grow up around Jewish people and don’t ever remember even meeting a Jew until I was in college, but I still heard on a very regular basis, “The Jews are God’s chosen people.” I thought that too.
What Is Worldly Worship?
At least twenty years ago, from scripture I came to the following as a definition of worship. It is my definition, but I believe it reflects what the Bible says. “Worship is acknowledging or recognizing God for Who He is according to His Word and giving Him what He says that He wants.” If I were going to add a secondary important aspect, “worship necessitates coming to the right God and in the right way.” You aren’t worshiping God if He isn’t actually God and then you’re not worshiping Him if you are doing it your way. God doesn’t accept just anything.
I googled the two terms “worldly worship” and it produced 12,300 results. Those were not all articles written by me, although I found I had used that terminology in some online writings. It is a known concept though, worship that is worldly that is not acceptable to God, which is of the nature of the world system and not the nature of God. I went ahead and googled “syncretistic worship” too, because I think it’s a related concept. That showed up 6,060 times.
Syncretize means: to “attempt to amalgamate or reconcile (differing things, especially religious beliefs, cultural elements, or schools of thought).” When referring to syncretism in worship, many have pointed to the practice in Israel of bringing aspects of the worship of paganism into the worship of God, mixing the two. Many examples of syncretism are seen in the nation Israel (Exodus 32:1-8; Leviticus 10:1-7; Deuteronomy 12:30-31; 1 Kings 3:5-10; etc.). The way Israel syncretized is not the only way to syncretize. Mixing something impure with purity makes it impure.
Speaking of worship, Paul commands, “be not conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2). Because God accepts only holy worship, not profane, then it can’t be conformed to this world system, the spirit of the age. Obviously, everything we do occurs in this world or on this planet, on earth. The world system clashes with God. It is represented by darkness and all the characteristics described in scripture as seen in many places, one of which as an example is James 3:15: “earthly, sensual, and devilish.” There are many more. One should assume that all of these can be understood and applied.
The world is attractive to sinful flesh. Satan shapes the world system to lure people away from God. Because the world is a lure, it also works when a church uses it. Satan designs it as a lure and if a church takes that lure and uses it, it’s still a lure. That’s the temptation of using anything worldly.
Varied aspects of this world are filled with meaning. Many of those meanings are not congruent with God. One should even expect that they are not. Whatever it is that will please God has already been around. One should question any new style or method, especially that has proceeded from worldly lust, which Titus 2:11-12 says that the grace of God teaches us to deny. I contend that rather than denying worldly lust, most churches today promote it. They might argue that this new way is neutral, neither good or bad. God’s people didn’t originate it, actually rejected it, and then after a period of time, accepted it, then used it, arguing now that God also wants it.
Someone may ask, what basis do I have that churches are using worldly music? I haven’t been in all these churches, so how do I know? Not only have I been all over the country, but I’ve looked at websites of churches all over. I know enough.
Every church and their leaders should want accountability as to whether they are using worldly worship. They should look for constructive criticism. People are deceived in many different ways as they relate to God. The broad road to destruction has many religious people on it. When I read the materials of the church growth movement used as a model for thousands of churches, they encourage worldly worship as means of church growth.
God doesn’t accept worldly worship, so why would churches still do it? Why would Nadab and Abihu offer strange fire to the Lord? I would contend that the strange fire of Nadab and Abihu is a lesser perversion of worship than most worldly worship, and God killed them for offering it. They were still offering incense. They just changed the recipe. They offered something God didn’t say that He didn’t like. They offered something different than what God said He wanted. It seems that Nadab and Abihu just didn’t take God seriously, what could be called, not fearing God. We know what they did was bad and wrong and sinful, but it was still not something that God had said was wrong.
Worldly worship we know God doesn’t want. There are two obvious motives for giving God something He doesn’t want, and they are seen in scripture. First, the one offering it likes it. This is the serving the creature of Romans 1. He’s not really even giving to God as much as he’s doing something for himself that he likes. I’ve seen this again and again in churches I’ve visited. It can happen anywhere. Second, other people will like it too, so it will make the church more popular. The people wanting that worship don’t like what God likes, but they either convince themselves or are just deceived into thinking that God will accept it. A third reason is deceit. The feeling the worldliness causes often is mistaken for a spiritual experience.
Worldly worship parallels with a worldly life. The world offers what the flesh desires. There were times in church history that a wide chasm existed between the worship of the Lord in the churches and the world. That gap has shrunk to where there isn’t much difference. It’s worse that that. The churches like the world and they expect God to like it too. It shows an amazing lack of understanding of God and what He wants.
As you have read this, reader, perhaps you wanted to know more specifics. “Give me a specific of worldly worship.” I could say, using the world’s music in worship. To get more specific, I could go further, using rock music in worship. There are many other specific examples. It’s better to start with the principles for discerning what is worldly and that God doesn’t want something worldly.
To accommodate worldliness, I have heard evangelicals give a very narrow understanding of worldliness as internal only, that nothing external is worldly. However, Paul wrote, “Be not conformed to this world.” There is internal worldliness, the love of the world in the heart, but conforming by definition must be external. God doesn’t want something we can see and hear is worldly. He rejects it.
Recent Comments