Harper II.2
James Dodson
CHAPTER II.
CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE RADICAL DOCTRINE AS TO THE LAW OF WORSHIP.
The Radical view of the law of worship may be successfully vindicated, both directly from the word of God, and indirectly from the consequences which logically flow from any of the rival views.
We start with this general principle, that in Old Testament times, the lawful mode of worshipping God was instituted by himself. It was not left to the ingenuity of men to devise ceremonies of religion, but the mode of worship was prescribed, and that even in minute details by God himself. Into the vexed question about the origin of sacrifice it may be prudent not to enter; but this may be said, that several considerations, among which one is the analogy of God’s procedure in later times in regard to his worship, justify the belief that the rite of sacrifice originated in a divine appointment.
In the preparation of the tabernacle and its furniture, how frequently was Moses charged to make them according to the pattern shown to him in the Mount! In the Mosaic arrangements, the vestments of the priests, the various kinds of offerings, the ceremonies to be observed in offering, and the sacred seasons, were all particularly prescribed by God himself. Nor was deviation from the appointed ritual admissible in that economy, unless in cases in which the same supreme authority who had instituted the ordinances, was pleased to relax them. In every case of lawful deviation we may not find an express statement to the effect that God himself had authorized the departure, but elsewhere in similar cases this is made abundantly clear. Changes not thus sanctioned were reckoned illicit. In
Page 11
other words, the authority of God was counted necessary to warrant any alterations in the instituted forms of worship. In illustration of this, and in proof of it, I might refer to the law for the observance of the Passover. It was commanded by God that this ordinance should be observed on the fourteenth day of the first month. But it was found that some of the people were, by reason of ceremonial defilement, disqualified for a legal participation of the Passover at the prescribed time; whereupon those concerned appealed to Moses for some relaxation of the law in their case. There were two ways in which the relief sought might have been granted, namely, either by waiving the requirement, that the partakers of the Passover should be ceremonially clean, and allowing them to join in the feast, defiled as they were by the touch of a dead body, or by permitting them to observe the ordinance after they had purified themselves, although at a later than the regular time. High in position as Moses was, he did not feel at liberty to afford to those men relief in either way, until he had consulted God and obtained divine direction. “Stand still,” said he, “and I will hear what the Lord will command concerning you.” Numb. 9:8.
Now let it be noted, that in enjoining the observance of the Passover, God had not expressly forbidden the Israelites to keep it in any other month than the first. He had simply said, “In the fourteenth day of the first month, ye shall keep it.” But Moses understood, and God administered to him no rebuke for such understanding, that the positive prescription amounted to a prohibition of any change in the law, till he who had ordained, should signify that a change might be made. And coming down to a later time, we find it mentioned as one of the sins of Jeroboam, that he presumed to appoint a feast for his people on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, in imitation, it would seem, of the feast of tabernacles, which God had commanded the Israelites to observe on the fifteenth day of the seventh month. Mark how the sacred writer emphasizes the presumption of Jeroboam, (1 Kings, 12:33):—“So he offered on the altar which he had made in Bethel, the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel.” If any of his people were bold enough to remonstrate with him on the adoption of the eighth, in room of the seventh month, Jeroboam may have replied in the strain of his modern imitators, that God had not forbidden the observance in the eighth month, and therefore that the change was allowable, the substance of the ordinance being still the same. But the inspired writer stigmatizes him for devising “of his own heart” another time for the feast than had originally been prescribed.
In like manner we have in the family of Aaron, and that also during his lifetime, a memorable proof that a positive appointment by God in a matter of worship, amounts to a prohibition of any departure from it. Nadab and Abihu, as we learn from Leviticus, 10:1, 2, were smitten dead for presuming to offer strange fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded. In this passage our excellent English version is not as free from ambiguity as the original. The clause, “Which the Lord commanded them not,” which stands in our version, might be deemed elliptical and as equivalent to this, “Which the Lord commanded them
Page 12
not to do,” that is, which he forbade them to do. But in the Hebrew, the adverb translated, “not,” is placed before the verb rendered, “commanded;” so that the exact translation is, “Which the Lord did not command them,” that is, to do which, he had given them no direction.
Those young men may have erred in different respects, but the point in their conduct which the spirit of God has seen fit to single out for explicit condemnation, is their presumption in taking fire, which the Lord had not commanded, wherewith to burn incense before him. We know from Lev. 16:12, and Numb. 16:46, that it was enjoined by God, that the fire for the burning of incense was to be taken from the altar of burnt offering, and it can hardly be doubted, that the same law was in force at the time when Nadab and Abihu were cut off. There is certainly no evidence that God had forbidden expressly the use of any other fire for the end in question. In some way he, no doubt, had signified his mind that fire from the altar should be employed in this service, and in not conforming to this indication, the sons of Aaron sinned. They offered “strange” fire, an expression which is explained in the subjoined clause, to mean fire which the Lord had not commanded. What had not been prescribed was “strange” and unlawful. To merit the epithet, “strange,” it did not need to be fire expressly forbidden, but simply fire not appointed for the end in view.
Should any one take the ground that God had not yet signified with what fire incense should be burned, our argument would be in no degree weakened, for on that supposition, it would appear that those young men sinned in venturing to use fire at all, without a divine command or warrant. On the supposition that no direction had been given, they could not be charged with violating any express law. The only way in which, on this assumption, they can have erred, was in their acting in the matter at all without a direction.
But if, as I suppose, a certain mode of procedure in the offering of incense had been indicated by God, the sons of Aaron were guilty because they used another kind of fire than that which had been appointed. The appointment of one kind was held to be a prohibition of every other not appointed.
Those young men may have been among the advanced thinkers of their day, the patrons of progress who chafed under the rigor of law, and fancied that a dash of liberalism would greatly improve the arrangements of the tabernacle; but the penalty of their presumption was instant death. A beacon was thus set up which sends its lurid light athwart the centuries, as a warning against all tampering with divine ordinances in the way of subtracting, supplementing, or supplanting by mere human authority. Beyond reasonable doubt, the spirit of Old Testament legislation in reference to worship is adverse to the principle that men may acceptably worship God in a way not prescribed by himself. This view is embodied in the words of Moses, speaking as the representative of God, Deut. 4:2, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you.” The same principle is inculcated in Deut. 12:32, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”
Page 13
An evasion of the force of our argument has been attempted. The particularity, it is alleged, with which God laid down the rites and ceremonies of the ancient worship, was owing to the fact that the services prescribed were typical or symbolical; important doctrines in regard to the way of salvation being wrapped up and set forth in them; whereas, it is contended, that in the worship of the New Dispensation, there is not a like necessity for express directions, and for literal adherence to prescribed forms. This line of reasoning has been pursued by at least one professed adherent to the Westminster formularies.
In exposure of this evasion it may be observed, that certain parts of the worship of the Israelites were no more typical or ceremonial than ours is; that the law forbidding modifications of the divine ritual applied equally to all parts of the worship of the Israelites, as appears from the texts last quoted, Deut. 4:2; 12:32; that the evasion under criticism rests on a very precarious assumption, namely, that the didactic is more important than the directly devotional element of worship. But the second commandment, which relates to the mode of worship, makes no special reference to the doctrines of grace, while it stringently forbids the worshipping of God in certain ways specified and suggested. Nor is there a single hint given in that precept, or elsewhere in the Old Testament, to the effect that while the Israelites must adhere closely to prescription in all the typical services enjoined, they might in other departments of worship, as for instance in prayer, take greater liberty and introduce devices of their own. The comprehensive charge embodied in texts already cited, covers no less the permanent, than the typical and transient forms of worship.