OLD TESTAMENT ARTICLE
FIRE IS FIRE!
Leviticus 10
That's what Nadab and Abihu thought and they paid for their mistake with their lives. We are told they offered "strange fire... And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them." (Lev. 10:1-2). Though we may not be able to explain why this fire was considered strange, we CAN learn some valuable lessons in reference to our service unto the Lord.
"Fire is fire." Nadab and Abihu offered a fire God had not commanded them and thus it was rejected. "Wouldn't the fire they used, burn incense just as well as the fire God had commanded?" Sure, but that's not the point. God said, "This fire" and they offered "That fire." They added to what God had said and did not respect the command of God. This was Moses' point to Aaron when he reminded him that God had said, "By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored." They had dishonored God and profaned His worship. It appears Aaron was about to complain when Moses reminded him of the seriousness of their crime, "So Aaron, therefore, kept silent." (Lev. 10:3).
There are some today who attempt to dishonor God and profane His worship by introducing "strange fire." After all, "Music is Music." True enough. EXCEPT, when God says, "This music." We can read in the new testament where God commands singing, (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). That's the only type of music He commands, thus the only type we can use in worship unto Him. "But using instruments really puts me in the proper frame of mind to worship God." That may be, BUT that's also not the point. God didn't say, "You can worship me in whatever way puts you in the right frame of mind." He said, SING. So to offer another kind would be considered "strange" music. And we've just learned what God thinks about "strange" things added to His worship.
"So what's the big deal?" "What's all the fuss about?" "Why make such a big stink over it?" It's a matter of treating God as holy and honoring His commands. Nadab and Abihu learned this lesson the hard way, must we?
NEW TESTAMENT ARTICLE
A POWERLESS PREJUDICE
Acts 10 and 11
Peter went from "By no means, Lord" (Acts 10:14) to "who was I that I could stand in God's way" (Acts 11:17). "Those who were circumcised" (Acts 11:2) went from a "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them" (Acts 11:3) to "God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life." (Acts 11:18). In both cases those under consideration started with one attitude yet ended with a very different one.
For Peter it came by way of several things. First he saw a vision like a great sheet with all types of animals and having been told to rise and eat Peter refused, to which a voice said, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy and unclean." (Acts 10:16) Next Peter is told to accompany three men. However, these three men were messengers from a Gentile sent by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:20). Finally, Peter arrives at the house and after asking why he was sent for is told by Cornelius that he was simply following the instructions of an angel which had appeared to him (Acts 10:39.33). This led Peter to state, "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him" (Acts 10:34-35).
It appears, however, the six brethren (Acts 11:12) traveling with Peter were not yet convinced of Peter's statement. So as Peter was speaking to Cornelius' household, the Holy Spirit fell on them as it had the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. This caused Peter to exclaim, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy spirit just as we did, can he" (Acts 10:47) No doubt a question aimed at the Joppa brethren.
Peter upon entering Jerusalem was immediately questioned by "those who were circumcised." After recounting the story these same people completely change their tune. Why? In both cases it was a matter of open-mindedness. Sure the evidence was overwhelming but the very nature of prejudice is not to yield even when the evidence demands such. So because of an objective open-minded view of the evidence their prejudice was rendered powerless. This was no easy admission to make, yet the evidence demanded such. What about us? Are we open-minded enough to abandon long held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence? Or are we so steeped in prejudice that to objectively view the situation would be impossible?