Amazing Grace: Objections (revised, again)

We’re not through laying out a theology of grace, but this is a good time to pause and respond to the obvious objections to what’s been taught thus far.

Nadab and Abihu

Nadab and Abihu were sons of Aaron and priests when the Law of Moses was first instituted. They offered “strange fire” and God killed them.

Going back to earliest Calvinism, this passage has been used to defend the Regulative Principle, which is the idea that any thing added to the Bible’s instructions for how to worship is sin, and not just sin, but sin that damns.

First, we have to question any view that a particular sin damns. I mean, David wasn’t damned for adultery and murder — why would God damn for well-intentioned worship? To reach that conclusion, you must assume that God is more concerned with the ritual of worship than with day-to-day Christian living — which just isn’t so.

If we look at the story of Nadab and Abihu closely, we find that the account actually strongly supports the view that grace applies to worship just like the rest of our relationship with God.

Leviticus 10:9-11 strongly suggests that Nadab and Abihu were guilty of drunkenness, and this occasioned their mistake and offense. Immediately follow the sin of these two men, God said,

(Lev 10:9-11)  “You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. 10 You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean, 11 and you must teach the Israelites all the decrees the LORD has given them through Moses.”

Adam Clarke says in his commentary on Leviticus, “The cabalistic commentator, Baal Hatturim, and others, have supposed from the introduction of this command here, that Aaron’s sons had sinned through excess of wine, and they had attempted to celebrate the Divine service in a state of inebriation.”

Second, and more importantly, we must contrast this story with the immediately following account of Eleazar and Ithamar. These two men were appointed to replace Nadab and Abihu. However, in vv. 16-18, Moses finds that the two men had incorrectly handled the very next ceremony! Moses was very unhappy, to say the least.

Aaron defended their mistake:

(Lev. 10:19-20) Aaron replied to Moses, “Today they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD, but such things as this have happened to me. Would the LORD have been pleased if I had eaten the sin offering today?” 20 When Moses heard this, he was satisfied.

Aaron said that he too had made mistakes in the service. It was an accident. These things happen. And Eleazar and Ithamar were not punished.

As stated in G. J. Wenham, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, The Book of Leviticus, p. 30, “This suggests, perhaps, that God is more gracious to those who make mistakes because they fear him than to those who carelessly and impudently enter his presence as Nadab and Abihu did.”

The fact that the two stories are immediately juxtaposed as they are in Leviticus 10 is intended to make a point, and the point is surely that God overlooks honest mistakes (among those in grace, of course) but does not overlook willful disobedience.

Is authority required for worship? A better question, thus, is what the Old Testament says about whether an “act of worship” requires authority. Consider the evidence of Exodus 29. In this chapter, God lays out the ritual to be followed in the Tent of Meeting:

* Present a bull, two rams, bread made with oil, and cakes covered in oil.

* Wash Aaron and his two sons – Nadab and Abihu — with water.

* Dress Aaron with the ephod, a turban, and a diadem.

* Dress the sons in tunics, headbands, and sashes.

* Aaron and his sons should lay hands on the bull’s head and Moses should slaughter it.

However, Moses’ performance of this ceremony is recorded later in Leviticus 8–

(Lev. 8:6-14, 36) Then Moses brought Aaron and his sons forward and washed them with water. 7 He put the tunic on Aaron, tied the sash around him, clothed him with the robe and put the ephod on him. He also tied the ephod to him by its skillfully woven waistband; so it was fastened on him. 8 He placed the breastpiece on him and put the Urim and Thummim in the breastpiece. 9 Then he placed the turban on Aaron’s head and set the gold plate, the sacred diadem, on the front of it, as the LORD commanded Moses.

10 Then Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the tabernacle and everything in it, and so consecrated them. 11 He sprinkled some of the oil on the altar seven times, anointing the altar and all its utensils and the basin with its stand, to consecrate them. 12 He poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron’s head and anointed him to consecrate him.

13 Then he brought Aaron’s sons forward, put tunics on them, tied sashes around them and put headbands on them, as the LORD commanded Moses. 14 He then presented the bull for the sin offering, and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on its head. …

36 So Aaron and his sons did everything the LORD commanded through Moses.

Even on a casual reading, it’s obvious that this account varies from Exodus 29 in several particulars. The oil used to anoint the altar and the tabernacle wasn’t mentioned in Exodus 29. Neither was the giving of the Urim and Thummim and breastpiece. These appear to be “additions,” that is, ceremonial acts of worship that were outside the commands of God. Certainly, they appear appropriate to the occasion, and very respectful, but they appear to be of human invention. Nothing was subtracted from God’s commands, but these items were added.

And notice that the chapter ends with the declaration that they’d done all that God commanded – not that they’d done only what God had commanded.

What was the strange fire? It seems probable that the reference is to Leviticus 16:12 , which requires that the incense be burned using coals from the altar.

(Lev 16:12-13) He is to take a censer full of burning coals from the altar before the LORD and two handfuls of finely ground fragrant incense and take them behind the curtain. 13 He is to put the incense on the fire before the LORD, and the smoke of the incense will conceal the atonement cover above the Testimony, so that he will not die.

This fire was initially lit by God himself in Leviticus 9:24 and was to be kept continuously burning. Leviticus 6:13.

The Regulative Principle argument is that they died because they acted without authority, but they actually violated an explicit command by using the wrong fire. “Strange” (zuwr in the Hebrew) is also used to refer to “strange gods,” that is, gods other than the right God (e.g., Deut. 32:16).

There’s a huge difference between using the wrong fire and acting where God has been entirely silent. God specified the fire to be used, they didn’t use it, and so they violated an explicit command. The question of silence or lack of authority is utterly foreign to the passage.

Conclusions

Therefore, we know a couple of things. First, that the sin wasn’t in acting without authority. It was acting contrary to commands. There’s a big difference, which we often ignore. This is not an example of an unauthorized addition.

Remember, the argument against instrumental music, clapping, and many other things is based on a lack of authority – not a violation of an explicit command. No one argues that God permits Christians to intentionally violate a command. But additions that do not violate a command are a much different question.

Second, although the use of strange fire was plainly sin, the clearest explanation for why God took such great offense is found in verses 9-10 – the priests messed up the ceremony due to being drunk while handling God’s holy work, treating holy things as unholy. If this isn’t so, then it’s hard to see a reason for including these verses as part of this narrative. Why else would God address alcohol consumption now? After all, nowhere in the Law is alcohol spoken of as unclean or unholy.

Therefore, there is nothing here that should cause us to doubt the graciousness of God! Worship is not a special kind of thing that stands outside God’s gracious, loving nature. Rather, like all our relationship with God, we are certainly to obey God’s will, but Christians need not fear damnation from trying to do right but accidentally making a mistake.

Uzzah

David had the ark of the covenant transported to Jerusalem on a cart pulled by oxen. When the ark appeared to topple, Uzzah reached out to steady it with his hand, and God struck him dead.

Many have argued that this account proves that even innocent error in worshiping God damns. But this was no worship service. It didn’t take place in the tabernacle. It was simply relocating the ark. Of course, it led to worship as the Jews celebrated the move, but it wasn’t an act of worship. Not at all.

The problem was that the ark was supposed to be carried by priests with rods run through rings on the top corners of the ark, making for a very stable transport and avoiding the need for human hands to touch the ark.

David later explained what happened:

(1 Chr. 15:11-13) Then David summoned Zadok and Abiathar the priests, and Uriel, Asaiah, Joel, Shemaiah, Eliel and Amminadab the Levites. 12 He said to them, “You are the heads of the Levitical families; you and your fellow Levites are to consecrate yourselves and bring up the ark of the LORD, the God of Israel, to the place I have prepared for it. 13 It was because you, the Levites, did not bring it up the first time that the LORD our God broke out in anger against us. We did not inquire of him about how to do it in the prescribed way.”

Now, it’s troubling to the modern mind to picture God killing Uzzah, a man unlearned in the Law of Moses, in order to punish David and the other leaders for failing to consult the Law’s commands for how to move the ark. Therefore, we assume that God was punishing Uzzah.

However, God sometimes does take the life of the innocent to punish the guilty. When David sinned with Bathsheba and ordered her husband murdered, God took the life of David’s newborn son at the age of 8 days. He couldn’t have been more innocent, and yet God killed him!

Now, it would certainly be sin if you or I acted this way, killing an innocent, but God is subject to a different standard. When God takes a life, he has at least two advantages over us. First, he can take that soul directly to heaven, so the person he killed suffers no pain, only joy. Second, God knows the impact of his decision on all of history. He knows whether his decision will lead to greater obedience to the Law of Moses and how it will change David. He also knows what will happen if he doesn’t take Uzzah’s life. And he knows the impact of every other option available to him. God can perfectly make the best decision for the flow of human history.

However, we have none of these advantages. The person we kill may well wind up in hell when he might have later come to Jesus but for our actions. The death may well bring great harm to countless others down the road. We don’t know. Therefore, we are commanded not to kill. That is God’s prerogative.

The story of Uzzah certainly demonstrates that God expects his commands regarding how to move the ark of the covenant obeyed. God is unhappy when we don’t even look into his word to follow his instructions. But it doesn’t mean that there’s no grace for mistakes made in worship.

Simon Magus

Acts 6 contains the story of the conversion of the Samaritans.

(Acts 8:14-24) When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

When Simon [Magus] saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”

Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have
said may happen to me.”

Peter tells Simon, “Pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.” Does this mean that whenever you or I sin we are unforgiven until we repent and ask for forgiveness, and even then, that God will only “perhaps” forgive us? Do we really believe that this is the Good News? Note these points—

First, we should not read into the passage more than is there. Peter said, “Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord.” He did not say, “Pray for forgiveness.” The instruction to repent and to pray is entirely sound and good advice to any convert. The difficulty is, therefore, in Peter’s saying that God will “perhaps” forgive Simon.

Those who teach that salvation can be lost and regained do not believe that God will only “perhaps” forgive those who repent and ask for forgiveness. Under any view, the “perhaps” cannot be because God only perhaps forgives penitent Christians. No one teaches that.

Thus, the “perhaps” must be on Simon’s side of the matter. Peter is expressing his very justified doubts that Simon is truly penitent. History may be of some benefit here. Church history tells us that Simon never returned to the church but instead became a vigorous opponent.

While Simon “believed and was baptized,” he must have been an example of the “rocky soil” that Jesus spoke of in the Parable of the Sower. Peter saw through inspiration that Simon would not remain a Christian long and was urging him to get in or get out—knowing, perhaps by inspiration, that the stern rebuke would force Simon to leave the church and no longer be a wicked influence from within.

Jesus himself on occasion gave an exaggerated rebuke to test the faith of his hearers. Matthew 15:21-28 recounts the request of a Canaanite woman that Jesus heal her daughter of demon possession. Jesus said to her, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”

This very stern rebuke did not deter the woman, and Jesus ultimately healed her daughter, saying, “Woman, you have great faith!” Certainly, we would not conclude from this rebuke that all Gentiles are “dogs” in the eyes of our Lord, but rather we take the rebuke as a test of faith.

The Canaanite woman passed the test. Simon evidently did not.

If the gospel message is to be based on our traditional interpretation of this passage, we must teach the whole passage. We cannot pick and choose willy nilly. If this passage is to be the basis of our doctrine of salvation, we must conclude that sins are not forgiven until repented of (specifically) and forgiveness is asked for through prayer, and that even if we do these things, God’s forgiveness will only “perhaps” (and not certainly) occur.

While there would be similarities here to the traditional teaching of many Church of Christ believers, there are key distinctions from what is normally taught. We believe that God hears our prayers and truly forgives those who repent. While we may “perhaps” repent, God does not “perhaps” forgive. He forgives.

Even if you believe that this passage does not support the interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 and chapters 9 and 10 that I am arguing for, it does not support any alternative view of scripture that I’ve ever heard. Nowhere else does the Bible make a prayer requesting forgiveness a condition to the forgiveness of a Christian. Certainly nowhere else does the Bible suggest that a Christian who repents and prays for forgiveness will only “perhaps” be forgiven. If either of these ideas is the truth, why is the rest of the New Testament strangely silent on this critical doctrine?

Consider Galatians 2:

(Gal. 2:9-14) James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

Thus, even late in his ministry, Peter made mistakes that were clearly not inspired. The scriptures dealing with these matters are inspired, but the actions of the people and words said by them (while they really did and said what the scriptures say) are not necessarily inspired. Peter was not inspired when he improperly discriminated against Gentiles.

Therefore, it might be argued that Peter’s comments to Simon were more the product of Peter’s anger at Simon than a discourse on theology. This view may be uncomfortable to some readers. However, this is the view of J. W. McGarvey, one of the great scholars of the Restoration Movement. His commentary on Acts, published in 1863, is included as part of the Gospel Advocate commentary series that has served as a standard reference set among the Churches of Christ since its re-publication in 1961.

McGarvey states that no definite conclusions can be drawn from this conversation. McGarvey explains Peter’s comments as follows:

Nothing could be more abhorrent to the feelings of an apostle than such a proposition [by Simon Magus]. It was well calculated to arouse the impulsive spirit of Peter, and his response is marked by his characteristic vehemence. … Whether we are to suppose that Simon’s destitute and miserable condition was the result of having forfeited the favor of God by falling into sin after his immersion, or that his confession and immersion had been insincere, so that he had never been pardoned, is not to be determined, as many suppose, by the grossness of his present conception concerning the Holy Spirit. … That he was a believer is asserted by Luke; but whether he was to such a degree penitent as to receive pardon when he was immersed, is not certainly determined by the text. For aught that is affirmed of him, he may either have been influenced by sinister motives in confessing his faith, or have been truly penitent at the time, and afterward, and under spur of the temptation which the splendid gifts bestowed by Peter were the occasion of, have yielded to the sudden impulse of his ruling passion.

Ultimately, we must remember that it is very dangerous to too readily generalize from the accounts in Acts. After all, our Baptist friends will readily argue from Acts’ account of Pentecost that the apostles did not have to be baptized to be saved and from the account of the conversion of Cornelius that he and his household received the Spirit before baptism, and therefore were saved before baptism. Our Pentecostal friends will use the story of Pentecost to argue for a tarrying meeting and will use the accounts of the Samaritans in Acts 8 and the Ephesians in Acts 19 to support their belief in tongues.

We very correctly rebut these arguments by pointing out the other scriptures, primarily in the epistles, that deal more particularly with these subjects. We warn our friends to base their beliefs on the entire Bible, not just those portions of Acts that might suit their traditions. We should take the same advice with regard to building a system of salvation based on Peter’s heated comments to Simon Magus.

Did the conversation really happen? Most certainly. Did Peter respond with an accurate statement of how the saved receive forgiveness? We have to look at the rest of the New Testament to make that determination.