Does God accept worship from some unbelievers?
1 Samuel 1:28 Therefore also I have lent him to the Lord; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the Lord. And he worshipped the Lord there.
1 Samuel 3:7 Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him.
A comparison of these two verses shows that Samuel as a young child was worshiping the Lord in the house of the Lord (cf. 1 Sam. 1:24) before he knew the Lord. Does this passage teach that God accepts worship from some unbelievers?
- 236 views
[RajeshG]I think Numbers 23:19 does give a rather strong rebuke to their attempts to get God to change His mind because of the sacrifices. “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” A response that says “This isn’t going to work” cannot be interpreted as a sign of acceptance of worship.Furthermore, God chose to put a word in Balaam’s mouth. God could have chosen not to meet Balaam at all. He could have chosen to reprove him strongly for trying to manipulate Him through those sacrifices, as you assert he did.
[RajeshG]Since my second sentence is based on my first sentence, do we also need to examine all the relevant passages to see if my first sentence is true?The only way that I know how to evaluate the validity of your second sentence is to keep studying all the relevant passages to see what we can learn. There is no valid way to predetermine what those reasons might be or whether that understanding of God’s default position is correct.
I specifically used the words “I’m thinking that . . ” in order to show that my mind hasn’t been made up yet. Depending on the extent of the “reasons for rejection” that we might discover, the default position might actually be the first one I listed earlier, that God actually rejects all worship from unbelievers. After all, unbelievers are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph 2:3) and they are “all as an unclean thing” (Is 64:6) and all their “righteousnesses are like filthy rags.” (Is 64:6) The inherent qualities of unbelievers need to be taken into account if we wish to discuss whether an unbeliever’s worship is accepted by God.
[RajeshG]I don’t see the “strong parallels” here. For one thing, Solomon was a believer and Balaam wasn’t. Balaam offered his sacrifices with the express purpose of trying to get a response from God, but Solomon did not have that purpose in mind. The only remote parallel I see is the multiple sacrifices, but the passages don’t show nearly the same number, so that isn’t even a parallel.I find some significant parallels between the account of Balaam in Num. 23:1-5 with the account of Solomon’s offering many sacrifices and the Lord appearing to him at night, etc.
2 Chronicles 1:6 And Solomon went up thither to the brasen altar before the LORD, which was at the tabernacle of the congregation, and offered a thousand burnt offerings upon it. 7 In that night did God appear unto Solomon, and said unto him, Ask what I shall give thee.
Because the Spirit has revealed both of these accounts to us with the strong parallels between them, we must account for these similarities in what we make of God’s dealings with Balaam concerning the sacrifices that he offered.
[Kevin Miller]No, because we know from explicit statements by God that your first sentence is true.Since my second sentence is based on my first sentence, do we also need to examine all the relevant passages to see if my first sentence is true?
I specifically used the words “I’m thinking that . . ” in order to show that my mind hasn’t been made up yet. Depending on the extent of the “reasons for rejection” that we might discover, the default position might actually be the first one I listed earlier, that God actually rejects all worship from unbelievers. After all, unbelievers are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph 2:3) and they are “all as an unclean thing” (Is 64:6) and all their “righteousnesses are like filthy rags.” (Is 64:6) The inherent qualities of unbelievers need to be taken into account if we wish to discuss whether an unbeliever’s worship is accepted by God.
No, the correct default position cannot be that God actually rejects all worship from unbelievers because we know with certainty from Acts 10-11 that He does not do so. There has been at least one unbeliever from whom He has accepted worship. Because God has revealed that He has done so, we cannot hold your first position to be the correct default position.
[Kevin Miller]I wonder if we have ever really grasped the significance of Balaam’s interactions with the true God. Balaam had a well-known reputation of being someone who did something that he would have been completely unable to do on his own:I think Numbers 23:19 does give a rather strong rebuke to their attempts to get God to change His mind because of the sacrifices. “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” A response that says “This isn’t going to work” cannot be interpreted as a sign of acceptance of worship.
Numbers 22:6 Come now therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite them, and that I may drive them out of the land: for I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed.
How was it possible for a wicked unbeliever like Balaam to do this? He could not have brought about either of these outcomes apart from God’s working through him. Because Balaam had such a reputation prior to any interactions with Balak, we know that Balaam had previous interactions with the true God in which He empowered(?)/directed Balaam to effectually bless people and curse people!
There isn’t any hint in the passage that Balaam was engaging in some new activity (offering sacrifices on altars to the true God) that he had never done before Balak’s seeking him out to curse the Israelites. Concerning those prior occasions of his sacrificing to the true God when He had directed Balaam to bless people, we have no basis to think that those sacrifices were used to manipulate God into doing so.
In other words, Balaam’s offering sacrifices on these occasions was in keeping with previous occasions on which he had also done so. The divine responsiveness to his sacrifices in his dealings with Balak does show divine acceptance of those sacrifices not in the sense that they benefited Balaam at all in his standing before God. Rather, it shows divine acceptance of those sacrifices such that Balaam fulfilled obligations to God that he knew he had to do in order to have any hope of interacting further with God and to be heard of Him.
[Kevin Miller]Regardless of what purpose(s) either of them had, neither of them had the ability to elicit responses by doing whatever they might have chosen to do. The fact that both offered sacrifices shows that they both knew that offering such sacrifices was necessary to elicit at least certain divine responses.I don’t see the “strong parallels” here. For one thing, Solomon was a believer and Balaam wasn’t. Balaam offered his sacrifices with the express purpose of trying to get a response from God, but Solomon did not have that purpose in mind. The only remote parallel I see is the multiple sacrifices, but the passages don’t show nearly the same number, so that isn’t even a parallel.
In addition, saying that one was a believer and the other wasn’t is not a valid basis for saying that the passages are not parallel because that’s the whole question that is being examined. Of course, it was true that one was a believer and the other one was not, but the passages do not show that for that reason God chose to respond to the one but not respond to the other.
[RajeshG]I’m not sure how you can make that definitive assessment without us having examined all the relevant data to see what we can learn.No, because we know from explicit statements by God that your first sentence is true.
No, the correct default position cannot be that God actually rejects all worship from unbelievers because we know with certainty from Acts 10-11 that He does not do so. There has been at least one unbeliever from whom He has accepted worship. Because God has revealed that He has done so, we cannot hold your first position to be the correct default position.
Earlier, you said, “For this study, I am examining any passages about unbelievers who engage in worship activities such that the passage itself either directly or indirectly reveals or suggests some level of divine responsiveness to those activities. You are clearly making the assumption that “divine responsiveness” is the same as acceptance of worship. Acts 10-11 does show God giving a response to Cornelius, but why do you thing such responsiveness is the same as acceptance of the worship? Perhaps God was responding to Cornelius’ “fear of the Lord” rather than to his worship. Cornelius is an example of someone who was in the transition period wherein people who had some knowledge of what God had revealed in the OT were then learning about God sending his Son. Perhaps God wanted this devout, God-fearing man to learn about Jesus so that his worship would then become acceptable.
[RajeshG]Considering the framework you are presenting in this post here, would you say the people in Matthew 7:22 had their worship accepted by God? That verse says, “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’” These people are acknowledging the Lord as Lord. They are prophesying and driving out demons and doing miracles. Is it possible for people to accomplish any of these outcomes without God working through them? Is this an example of people worshipping acceptably?I wonder if we have ever really grasped the significance of Balaam’s interactions with the true God. Balaam had a well-known reputation of being someone who did something that he would have been completely unable to do on his own:
Numbers 22:6 Come now therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite them, and that I may drive them out of the land: for I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed.
How was it possible for a wicked unbeliever like Balaam to do this? He could not have brought about either of these outcomes apart from God’s working through him. Because Balaam had such a reputation prior to any interactions with Balak, we know that Balaam had previous interactions with the true God in which He empowered(?)/directed Balaam to effectually bless people and curse people!
There isn’t any hint in the passage that Balaam was engaging in some new activity (offering sacrifices on altars to the true God) that he had never done before Balak’s seeking him out to curse the Israelites. Concerning those prior occasions of his sacrificing to the true God when He had directed Balaam to bless people, we have no basis to think that those sacrifices were used to manipulate God into doing so.
In other words, Balaam’s offering sacrifices on these occasions was in keeping with previous occasions on which he had also done so. The divine responsiveness to his sacrifices in his dealings with Balak does show divine acceptance of those sacrifices not in the sense that they benefited Balaam at all in his standing before God. Rather, it shows divine acceptance of those sacrifices such that Balaam fulfilled obligations to God that he knew he had to do in order to have any hope of interacting further with God and to be heard of Him.
As least by using this example of Balaam, you are giving me some of the definitions that I desired from you previously and which you told me you wouldn’t give me. I guess we just needed the right example to have you express them. You said that divine acceptance was “not in the sense that they benefited Balaam at all in his standing before God.” No, Balaam wasn’t benefited, but wouldn’t it be the case that acceptance of worship usually does contain a benefit of some sort in standing, such as in fellowship, with God. We’ll have to look at more examples to parse that out. If Balaam didn’t experience some sort of benefit, then perhaps his worship wasn’t accepted.
You then wrote, “Rather, it shows divine acceptance of those sacrifices such that Balaam fulfilled obligations to God that he knew he had to do in order to have any hope of interacting further with God and to be heard of Him.” Where do you get the idea that an unsaved person can perform worship activities as an “obligation to God” that then gets God to interact or listen to the unsaved person? God is not like a genie with the worship activities being the bottle that we rub.
[RajeshG]So the parallel was just that they both offered sacrifices? How would we learn anything from that parallel? It’s not like God always gives a response when someone offers a sacrifice, and sometimes God speaks to people when they haven’t even sacrificed.Regardless of what purpose(s) either of them had, neither of them had the ability to elicit responses by doing whatever they might have chosen to do. The fact that both offered sacrifices shows that they both knew that offering such sacrifices was necessary to elicit at least certain divine responses.
In addition, saying that one was a believer and the other wasn’t is not a valid basis for saying that the passages are not parallel because that’s the whole question that is being examined. Of course, it was true that one was a believer and the other one was not, but the passages do not show that for that reason God chose to respond to the one but not respond to the other.
Considering God’s responsiveness, there was one time God responded in the middle of a sacrifice and stopped the person. When God stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, what did that response signify? Since it was a response, did that signify an acceptable sacrifice? Or, since it was a negative response, dd it mean Abraham was making an unacceptable sacrifice? But God had told him to do it in the first place, so it must have been acceptable. It seems to me that the acceptability depended upon God’s instructions. One wouldn’t normally think that sacrificing one’s own child is an acceptable sacrifice, but since God ordered it, then Abraham was determined to perform it as an acceptable sacrifice. When God told him to stop, then continuing on with it would have been unacceptable, since God’s instructions had changed.
So as we look at various examples of worship, we can try to determine if they follow or violate any of God’s previous instructions, and if they do, then we don’t need an actual blessing or reproof in the passage to tell us if the worship is acceptable or unacceptable. We just have to look at whether it has matched up to God’s instructions.
[Kevin Miller]The passage very clearly says that God responded to Cornelius’ worship:Earlier, you said, “For this study, I am examining any passages about unbelievers who engage in worship activities such that the passage itself either directly or indirectly reveals or suggests some level of divine responsiveness to those activities. You are clearly making the assumption that “divine responsiveness” is the same as acceptance of worship. Acts 10-11 does show God giving a response to Cornelius, but why do you thing such responsiveness is the same as acceptance of the worship? Perhaps God was responding to Cornelius’ “fear of the Lord” rather than to his worship. Cornelius is an example of someone who was in the transition period wherein people who had some knowledge of what God had revealed in the OT were then learning about God sending his Son. Perhaps God wanted this devout, God-fearing man to learn about Jesus so that his worship would then become acceptable.
Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, 2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. 3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. 4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
Acts 10:31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
What’s more, his praying to God regularly and giving much alms to the people were aspects of his fearing God. Acts 10-11 is not teaching that God responded to his fear but not to the specific aspects of his worship that are explicitly and repeatedly highlighted.
[RajeshG]Acts 10:34-35 clearly state that God was responding to both. 34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” So yeah, I can agree that the aspects of worship he practiced were tied directly to his fear of the Lord. We then need to determine if one can actually say that a person who fears the Lord and worships Him is living in unbelief. Job is described as someone who feared the Lord. It doesn’t seem like unbelief to me.What’s more, his praying to God regularly and giving much alms to the people were aspects of his fearing God. Acts 10-11 is not teaching that God responded to his fear but not to the specific aspects of his worship that are explicitly and repeatedly highlighted.
[Kevin Miller]Are you saying that you do not believe that Cornelius was an unbeliever?Acts 10:34-35 clearly state that God was responding to both. 34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” So yeah, I can agree that the aspects of worship he practiced were tied directly to his fear of the Lord. We then need to determine if one can actually say that a person who fears the Lord and worships Him is living in unbelief. Job is described as someone who feared the Lord. It doesn’t seem like unbelief to me.
[Kevin Miller]Worship is what created beings offer to God Himself. Doing ministry that is not directed primarily to God but is done for God, such as prophesying, casting out demons, doing miracles, etc. is not what the Scripture talks about when it speaks of worship.Considering the framework you are presenting in this post here, would you say the people in Matthew 7:22 had their worship accepted by God? That verse says, “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’” These people are acknowledging the Lord as Lord. They are prophesying and driving out demons and doing miracles. Is it possible for people to accomplish any of these outcomes without God working through them? Is this an example of people worshipping acceptably?
Balaam’s blessing and cursing people were not activities that he did in worshiping God. The offerings that he offered on those altars, however, were offered to God.
[Kevin Miller]The parallel was not just that they both offered sacrifices but also that God responded to both of their doing so. The fact that God does not always give a response is precisely why His responding repeatedly to Balaam’s sacrifices is evidence of His accepting those sacrifices.So the parallel was just that they both offered sacrifices? How would we learn anything from that parallel? It’s not like God always gives a response when someone offers a sacrifice, and sometimes God speaks to people when they haven’t even sacrificed.
Yes, God sometimes speaks to people when they haven’t even sacrificed but I do not see how that is relevant to the discussion about Balaam.
[RajeshG]I’m saying I’m up in the air about how much unbelief we can really say Cornelius had if “He and all his family were devout and God-fearing” as Acts 10:2 states. He certainly didn’t have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit yet until Peter came, but the passage never states something like “then Cornelius believed.” The passage simply says in verse 44, “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.” Peter even had started his message by saying ” You know the message God sent to the people of Israel” and “You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, … how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power.” So Cornelius had already known about Jesus and he was already “a righteous and God-fearing man.” (Acts 10:22) How would that be a description of an unbeliever?Are you saying that you do not believe that Cornelius was an unbeliever?
[RajeshG]Wouldn’t prayer be a worship activity? Jesus said in John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.” The people in Matthew 7:22 were specific in that they did the miracles in the name of Jesus. Sure, the Bible doesn’t say they used the worship ritual of offering a sacrifice to get a response, but they would have used prayer to get their desired response. They wouldn’t have been able to do anything in the name of Jesus without asking IN PRAYER for the work to be done in the name of Jesus. So were these prayers in the name of Jesus accepted or not?Worship is what created beings offer to God Himself. Doing ministry that is not directed primarily to God but is done for God, such as prophesying, casting out demons, doing miracles, etc. is not what the Scripture talks about when it speaks of worship.
Balaam’s blessing and cursing people were not activities that he did in worshiping God. The offerings that he offered on those altars, however, were offered to God.
[Kevin Miller]We know with certainty that he was not a believer. God sent an angel to tell him that he had to hear a message from Peter by which he and his household would be saved:I’m saying I’m up in the air about how much unbelief we can really say Cornelius had if “He and all his family were devout and God-fearing” as Acts 10:2 states. He certainly didn’t have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit yet until Peter came, but the passage never states something like “then Cornelius believed.” The passage simply says in verse 44, “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.” Peter even had started his message by saying ” You know the message God sent to the people of Israel” and “You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, … how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power.” So Cornelius had already known about Jesus and he was already “a righteous and God-fearing man.” (Acts 10:22) How would that be a description of an unbeliever?
Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
When Peter recounted in Jerusalem what happened with Cornelius, those who heard him responded by glorifying God for granting them repentance:
Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
Cornelius had heard truth about Jesus beforehand and apparently had not savingly believed what he had heard previously about Jesus. When Peter preached to them, God granted him and everybody else that was with him repentance unto life. Cornelius and the rest had to repent and believe to be saved.
Later, at the Jerusalem Council, Peter again recounted what happened with Cornelius:
Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Prior to Peter’s coming and preaching the gospel to him, Cornelius was an unbeliever who yet feared God but had not repented of his unbelief in what he had previously heard about Jesus.
[Kevin Miller]It’s not at all clear that they engaged in prayer when they did those things. They may have, but the passage does not say that they did.Wouldn’t prayer be a worship activity? Jesus said in John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.” The people in Matthew 7:22 were specific in that they did the miracles in the name of Jesus. Sure, the Bible doesn’t say they used the worship ritual of offering a sacrifice to get a response, but they would have used prayer to get their desired response. They wouldn’t have been able to do anything in the name of Jesus without asking IN PRAYER for the work to be done in the name of Jesus. So were these prayers in the name of Jesus accepted or not?
The phrase “in thy name” in Matt. 7:22 does not necessarily communicate that someone has prayed to Jesus in order for what they would have done to be done in His name. Acts 19 records a striking account of some Jewish exorcists who attempted to exorcise a demon in the name of Jesus:
Acts 19:13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
In this instance, their attempted exorcism of the demon in Jesus’ name consisted of their saying to the demon that they adjured it by Jesus to come out; it did not consist of (as far as we know) their praying to Jesus before attempting the exorcism and asking Him to drive the demon out through what they would do.
[RajeshG]It’s relevant because it shows that God speaks to people if and when God chooses, and his personal messages are not directly tied in to whether a person has sacrificed or not. Just as God has spoken without people sacrificing, there have also been plenty of sacrifices performed in the Bible without any message from God as a “response.” Since there is no direct correlation between sacrifices and messages from God, one can’t use messages from God as an indication that any certain sacrifice is “acceptable” to God.The parallel was not just that they both offered sacrifices but also that God responded to both of their doing so. The fact that God does not always give a response is precisely why His responding repeatedly to Balaam’s sacrifices is evidence of His accepting those sacrifices.
Yes, God sometimes speaks to people when they haven’t even sacrificed but I do not see how that is relevant to the discussion about Balaam.
[RajeshG]*frantically searches for a way to counter Acts 19:13*It’s not at all clear that they engaged in prayer when they did those things. They may have, but the passage does not say that they did.
The phrase “in thy name” in Matt. 7:22 does not necessarily communicate that someone has prayed to Jesus in order for what they would have done to be done in His name. Acts 19 records a striking account of some Jewish exorcists who attempted to exorcise a demon in the name of Jesus:
Acts 19:13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
In this instance, their attempted exorcism of the demon in Jesus’ name consisted of their saying to the demon that they adjured it by Jesus to come out; it did not consist of (as far as we know) their praying to Jesus before attempting the exorcism and asking Him to drive the demon out through what they would do.
Okay, you make a good point. I appreciate you acknowledging that they may have prayed.
If they had prayed, would those prayers have been acceptable worship?
[Kevin Miller]I do not know because there is not enough information provided to know if what they will claim to have done in His name will be works that actually will have been done through Him or by Him or whether what they will claim that they have done will be akin to what the Jewish exorcists did in Acts 19.*frantically searches for a way to counter Acts 19:13*
Okay, you make a good point. I appreciate you acknowledging that they may have prayed.
If they had prayed, would those prayers have been acceptable worship?
[Kevin Miller]In both the cases of Balaam and Solomon, we are not told merely that God spoke to them. We are told three times that God came/met with Balaam (Num. 22:9; 22:20; 23:4) and spoke with him and each time we are also told that he had offered sacrifices beforehand.It’s relevant because it shows that God speaks to people if and when God chooses, and his personal messages are not directly tied in to whether a person has sacrificed or not. Just as God has spoken without people sacrificing, there have also been plenty of sacrifices performed in the Bible without any message from God as a “response.” Since there is no direct correlation between sacrifices and messages from God, one can’t use messages from God as an indication that any certain sacrifice is “acceptable” to God.
Similarly, both accounts of Solomon’s offering sacrifices on that specific occasion speak of the the Lord’s not just speaking to him but also of His appearing to him (1 Kings 3:5; 2 Chron. 1:7).
The Spirit has highlighted that each time that God came and met with Balaam and spoke to him, it was after he had offered sacrifices to God. We have to pay attention to what God has highlighted.
[RajeshG]But we also have to pay attention to the message God spoke to Balaam, in that God assured Balaam He was not a God who would be manipulated. You seem to be ignoring that message.In both the cases of Balaam and Solomon, we are not told merely that God spoke to them. We are told three times that God came/met with Balaam (Num. 22:9; 22:20; 23:4) and spoke with him and each time we are also told that he had offered sacrifices beforehand.
Similarly, both accounts of Solomon’s offering sacrifices on that specific occasion speak of the the Lord’s not just speaking to him but also of His appearing to him (1 Kings 3:5; 2 Chron. 1:7).
The Spirit has highlighted that each time that God came and met with Balaam and spoke to him, it was after he had offered sacrifices to God. We have to pay attention to what God has highlighted.
In your perspective here, do we also need to determine that since God highlighted the number 7 for the number of sacrifices, that at least 7 sacrifices had to take place for the sacrifices to be acceptable? Do we need to say, based on the passage, that 4 sacrifices would have been unacceptable? If not why not? Don’t we need to pay attention to what God has highlighted?
[RajeshG]I think there is plenty enough information in the passage. The very next verse, Matthew 7:23 says, “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” It doesn’t seem as if these people had any sort of acceptable interaction with God, since God never knew them. Based on the fact that they were workers of iniquity, we can know that their hearts were far from God.I do not know because there is not enough information provided to know if what they will claim to have done in His name will be works that actually will have been done through Him or by Him or whether what they will claim that they have done will be akin to what the Jewish exorcists did in Acts 19.
Even people who go through the motions of acceptable worship are not going to be recognized as practicing acceptable worship if their hearts are far from God. Matthew 15:8-9 says, “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.” Vain worship would be unacceptable worship, wouldn’t it? People whose hearts are far from God practice worship in vain. It’s worthless. From what we know of Balaam in the Bible, his heart was far from God, so any worship practices he may have engaged in were worthless. God may have decided to speak to Balaam, but that certainly wasn’t because of any of Balaam’s worthless worship practices.
[Kevin Miller]I agree that Matt. 7:23 is very important information about these people, but it may not be enough to be conclusive.I think there is plenty enough information in the passage. The very next verse, Matthew 7:23 says, “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” It doesn’t seem as if these people had any sort of acceptable interaction with God, since God never knew them. Based on the fact that they were workers of iniquity, we can know that their hearts were far from God.
Even people who go through the motions of acceptable worship are not going to be recognized as practicing acceptable worship if their hearts are far from God. Matthew 15:8-9 says, “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.” Vain worship would be unacceptable worship, wouldn’t it? People whose hearts are far from God practice worship in vain. It’s worthless. From what we know of Balaam in the Bible, his heart was far from God, so any worship practices he may have engaged in were worthless. God may have decided to speak to Balaam, but that certainly wasn’t because of any of Balaam’s worthless worship practices.
There is no comparison between what we know about these people and what we know about Balaam. We have multiple chapters about Balaam, and information about him is provided in several books of the Bible, including in both Testaments.
Moreover, Balaam was well-known for doing things that only someone whom God genuinely worked through could have done. We have to decide what significance we think that there is to the information provided to us about his offering sacrifices and God’s coming to Him.
I cannot yet explain what we are to make of them, but I do not think that his offering those sacrifices should be regarded as being worthless.
[RajeshG]I have made a serious error in misstating some information about the passages about Balaam. Looking back at them this morning, the text does not say that he offered sacrifices prior to God’s meeting him on the first two occasions (Num. 22:9, 20). It does say that God met him after he had offered sacrifices on the next occasion (Num. 23:4).In both the cases of Balaam and Solomon, we are not told merely that God spoke to them. We are told three times that God came/met with Balaam (Num. 22:9; 22:20; 23:4) and spoke with him and each time we are also told that he had offered sacrifices beforehand.
Similarly, both accounts of Solomon’s offering sacrifices on that specific occasion speak of the the Lord’s not just speaking to him but also of His appearing to him (1 Kings 3:5; 2 Chron. 1:7).
The Spirit has highlighted that each time that God came and met with Balaam and spoke to him, it was after he had offered sacrifices to God. We have to pay attention to what God has highlighted.
On the last occasion, the text seems to say that only Balak was the one who offered the sacrifices (Num. 23:14) before God met Balaam again (Num. 23:16). Perhaps 23:14 implies that Balaam was also involved, but I’ll have to study it further.
Sorry for this serious but unintentional error. I will have to go back and reread the passages to see if I have made any other errors.
[RajeshG]Having carefully reread Numbers 22-25 twice, I do not think that I have made any other errors in what I have said from these passages concerning Balaam.I have made a serious error in misstating some information about the passages about Balaam. Looking back at them this morning, the text does not say that he offered sacrifices prior to God’s meeting him on the first two occasions (Num. 22:9, 20). It does say that God met him after he had offered sacrifices on the next occasion (Num. 23:4).
On the last occasion, the text seems to say that only Balak was the one who offered the sacrifices (Num. 23:14) before God met Balaam again (Num. 23:16). Perhaps 23:14 implies that Balaam was also involved, but I’ll have to study it further.
Sorry for this serious but unintentional error. I will have to go back and reread the passages to see if I have made any other errors.
[Kevin Miller]I do not think that Balaam was trying to manipulate God by offering those sacrifices. I believe that he was obeying in doing what he knew he had to do in order to approach God with the hope of hearing from Him.But we also have to pay attention to the message God spoke to Balaam, in that God assured Balaam He was not a God who would be manipulated. You seem to be ignoring that message.
[Kevin Miller]In your perspective here, do we also need to determine that since God highlighted the number 7 for the number of sacrifices, that at least 7 sacrifices had to take place for the sacrifices to be acceptable? Do we need to say, based on the passage, that 4 sacrifices would have been unacceptable? If not why not? Don’t we need to pay attention to what God has highlighted?
I cannot explain why Balaam had Balak offer 7 sacrifices on 7 altars on three separate occasions, versus offering some other number. I do not believe that information is just “filler.” I do not see in any way that my not being able to explain the significance of the number of sacrifices offered means that the number has no significance or that the sacrifices themselves were of no significance.
God is sovereign over when He chooses to illumine our understanding of His revelation. He is also sovereign over how much illumination He grants, and to whom He grants it. I believe emphatically that my not knowing or not being able to explain at this time why God has revealed certain things that He has revealed in these passages (or any other passages) does not mean that what He has revealed in them is of no significance.
Jude 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
This passage in combination with others (1 Cor. 10:1-5, etc.) shows that there were many unbelievers among those that God delivered out of Egypt.
Every Israelite that He delivered had to have kept the Passover (Exod. 12:12-13; 12:23) in order to have been spared by the destroying angel.
Offering and eating the Passover sacrifice according to the directives given by God was an act of worship. In fact, the people worshiped even prior to observing that Passover:
Exodus 12:27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD’S passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.
28 And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.
God accepted this worship from numerous unbelievers who observed the Passover but were later destroyed because of their unbelief.
[RajeshG]It seems odd to me that you would think the use of divination to contact God would be an acceptable way to approach God. We know Balaam used divination the first two times the 7 sacrifices were made because Numbers 24:1 tells us he didn’t use it after the third time. “Now when Balaam saw that it pleased the Lord to bless Israel, he did not resort to divination as at other times, but turned his face toward the wilderness.” Furthermore, God’s message after the second set tells us that divination was not going to work at changing His mind. Numbers 23:23 says, “There is no divination against Jacob, no evil omens against Israel.” God specifically told Balaam that divination wouldn’t work against Israel because Balaam was trying to use divination against Israel.I do not think that Balaam was trying to manipulate God by offering those sacrifices. I believe that he was obeying in doing what he knew he had to do in order to approach God with the hope of hearing from Him.
[RajeshG]Rajesh, wouldn’t the observance of the Passover have been a demonstration of belief? Those who prepared the sacrifice and put the blood on their doorposts had to have believed that the angel of death was coming and they had to believe that putting the blood on the doorposts would save them.Jude 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
This passage in combination with others (1 Cor. 10:1-5, etc.) shows that there were many unbelievers among those that God delivered out of Egypt.
Every Israelite that He delivered had to have kept the Passover (Exod. 12:12-13; 12:23) in order to have been spared by the destroying angel.
Offering and eating the Passover sacrifice according to the directives given by God was an act of worship. In fact, the people worshiped even prior to observing that Passover:
Exodus 12:27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD’S passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.
28 And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.
God accepted this worship from numerous unbelievers who observed the Passover but were later destroyed because of their unbelief.
[Kevin Miller]Of course, it showed belief to some degree. Many of them, however, did not believe to the eternal saving of their souls. We know with certainty that was true of them because both Testaments tell us that was the case.Rajesh, wouldn’t the observance of the Passover have been a demonstration of belief? Those who prepared the sacrifice and put the blood on their doorposts had to have believed that the angel of death was coming and they had to believe that putting the blood on the doorposts would save them.
At some point, you are going to have to let the Bible determine what you believe. Scripture provides undeniable evidence that you apparently have not yet accepted fully that Cornelius was an unbeliever who yet feared God and whose worship God did accept prior to his salvation.
Similarly, there were numerous unbelievers who came out of Egypt who yet observed the Passover and worshiped God acceptably in their doing so. They were spared from physical destruction that they would certainly have suffered had they refused to worship God in that way.
Moreover, in one of the earlier plagues, there were even some Egyptians who feared the Lord enough to bring inside their servants and their cattle and thereby their servants and cattle were spared from physical destruction:
Exodus 9:20 He that feared the word of the LORD among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses: 21 And he that regarded not the word of the LORD left his servants and his cattle in the field.
The ensuing storm devastated the servants and cattle of all those who refused to fear the Lord:
Exodus 9:24 So there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous, such as there was none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation. 25 And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field.
Strikingly, even after they had observed and experienced that remarkable deliverance, God said the following of Pharaoh and his servants, which in the flow of thought included those who feared God enough to bring in their servants and cattle:
Exodus 9:29 And Moses said unto him, As soon as I am gone out of the city, I will spread abroad my hands unto the LORD; and the thunder shall cease, neither shall there be any more hail; that thou mayest know how that the earth is the LORD’S. 30 But as for thee and thy servants, I know that ye will not yet fear the LORD God.
This passage shows that some of Pharaoh’s servants feared the Lord enough to experience physical deliverance from that particular judgment but they still did not fear the Lord as they were supposed to fear Him!
Although their experiencing that deliverance was not an act of worship, it shows the reality of the spiritual dynamic of people who fear the Lord to some extent but do not fear Him fully, as He requires all humanity to fear Him.
[Kevin Miller]Yes, Numbers 23:23 and 24:1 are challenging to understand. I do not believe that they show that he used divination to contact God. I believe that they show that he wanted and sought authorization and empowerment on those two previous occasions from God to use some type of supernatural abilities to curse Israel but God did not grant him what he sought.It seems odd to me that you would think the use of divination to contact God would be an acceptable way to approach God. We know Balaam used divination the first two times the 7 sacrifices were made because Numbers 24:1 tells us he didn’t use it after the third time. “Now when Balaam saw that it pleased the Lord to bless Israel, he did not resort to divination as at other times, but turned his face toward the wilderness.” Furthermore, God’s message after the second set tells us that divination was not going to work at changing His mind. Numbers 23:23 says, “There is no divination against Jacob, no evil omens against Israel.” God specifically told Balaam that divination wouldn’t work against Israel because Balaam was trying to use divination against Israel.
His offering of those sacrifices was not divination that he used to contact God. The sacrifices were necessary for him to seek God in any manner.
In his second unsuccessful attempt to receive those things, God did definitively refuse to grant them to him (communicated indirectly to him in Num. 23:19), but it is vital to note that God did not direct those words directly to Balaam; He had Balaam speak them to Balak:
Numbers 23:18 And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor.
Num. 23:23 is God’s speaking through Balaam to Balak to inform him that no one would be able to use any enchantments or divination successfully against His people Israel.
When Balak persisted in yet seeking to have Israel cursed, Balaam again did what he knew that he had to do to approach God even though he knew that he would not receive the authorization/empowerment that would be necessary to curse Israel. On this third occasion, Balaam refused to go to seek the Lord’s response to the offerings (23:3; 15), as he had done previously, and God arrested him by the Spirit’s coming upon him so that he would climactically proclaim God’s truth about the glorious future of Israel (23:2-9).
[RajeshG]So God accepts worship that is done in conjunction with divination, as long as it’s done to seek authorization from God for supernatural power? Is that what you’re saying?Yes, Numbers 23:23 and 24:1 are challenging to understand. I do not believe that they show that he used divination to contact God. I believe that they show that he wanted and sought authorization and empowerment on those two previous occasions from God to use some type of supernatural abilities to curse Israel but God did not grant him what he sought.
[Kevin Miller]The sacrifices that he offered were necessary for him to have an audience with God, regardless of what his intentions and motivations were. They were acceptable to the extent that he was fulfilling an obligation to God.So God accepts worship that is done in conjunction with divination, as long as it’s done to seek authorization from God for supernatural power? Is that what you’re saying?
I see a parallel to what even the high priest of Israel had to do when he went into the Holy of Holies. He could only enter into the presence of God through the offering of sacrifices (Heb. 9:7). Whether he was personally right with God in his heart was a separate matter; even when he was not right with God in his heart, he had to obey what God had ordained be done.
[RajeshG]The last reference in this comment should be 24:2-9 instead of 23:2-9.Yes, Numbers 23:23 and 24:1 are challenging to understand. I do not believe that they show that he used divination to contact God. I believe that they show that he wanted and sought authorization and empowerment on those two previous occasions from God to use some type of supernatural abilities to curse Israel but God did not grant him what he sought.
His offering of those sacrifices was not divination that he used to contact God. The sacrifices were necessary for him to seek God in any manner.
In his second unsuccessful attempt to receive those things, God did definitively refuse to grant them to him (communicated indirectly to him in Num. 23:19), but it is vital to note that God did not direct those words directly to Balaam; He had Balaam speak them to Balak:
Numbers 23:18 And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor.
Num. 23:23 is God’s speaking through Balaam to Balak to inform him that no one would be able to use any enchantments or divination successfully against His people Israel.
When Balak persisted in yet seeking to have Israel cursed, Balaam again did what he knew that he had to do to approach God even though he knew that he would not receive the authorization/empowerment that would be necessary to curse Israel. On this third occasion, Balaam refused to go to seek the Lord’s response to the offerings (23:3; 15), as he had done previously, and God arrested him by the Spirit’s coming upon him so that he would climactically proclaim God’s truth about the glorious future of Israel (23:2-9).
[RajeshG]Another parallel is in what Paul wrote of the Philippians:The sacrifices that he offered were necessary for him to have an audience with God, regardless of what his intentions and motivations were. They were acceptable to the extent that he was fulfilling an obligation to God.
I see a parallel to what even the high priest of Israel had to do when he went into the Holy of Holies. He could only enter into the presence of God through the offering of sacrifices (Heb. 9:7). Whether he was personally right with God in his heart was a separate matter; even when he was not right with God in his heart, he had to obey what God had ordained be done.
Philippians 1:14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. 15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
In this passage, Paul speaks of believers who were preaching Christ of envy, strife, and contention, and they were doing so insincerely with a desire to increase Paul’s affliction in his bonds, and they were doing so in pretence. They certainly will not be rewarded by God for what they did, but Paul rejoiced that Christ was still being preached in spite of their wickedness in their doing so.
Although it is not a direct parallel, I believe that it is analogous in showing that what someone does externally may be acceptable (at least to some extent) to God (by implication of its being acceptable to His apostle, albeit in a limited sense) in spite of the wickedness of certain aspects of those who were doing that activity.
[RajeshG]Okay, then it seems for the purposes of this thread, we are talking about two different categories of unbelievers. There are unbelievers who are totally rebellious against God, and unbelievers who show “belief to some degree.” Neither one of them “believe to the eternal saving of their souls.” As we look at examples of unbelievers worshipping, we have to examine which category of unbeliever they belong to because it seems to make a difference in regards to whether God accepts their worship.Of course, it showed belief to some degree. Many of them, however, did not believe to the eternal saving of their souls. We know with certainty that was true of them because both Testaments tell us that was the case.
At some point, you are going to have to let the Bible determine what you believe. Scripture provides undeniable evidence that you apparently have not yet accepted fully that Cornelius was an unbeliever who yet feared God and whose worship God did accept prior to his salvation.Have I not been using the Bible in my responses to you? I even had to get after you earlier for using encyclopedias to determine what you believe rather than the Bible.
My point about Cornelius is that he certainly seemed to have “belief to some degree.” If people have the fear of the Lord “as they were supposed to fear Him,” wouldn’t that be an indication of “belief to some degree.” You seem to think that a “response” from God is “undeniable evidence” that God has accepted worship, but you haven’t provided the Scriptural support that “response” is actually an indication of God’s pleasure. Nor have you shown that when God speaks to someone, the message is inseparably tied to a preceding worship experience that is being “responded” to..
Similarly, there were numerous unbelievers who came out of Egypt who yet observed the Passover and worshiped God acceptably in their doing so. They were spared from physical destruction that they would certainly have suffered had they refused to worship God in that way.Since their deliverance was not an act of worship, then I don’t see how this example is relevant. Besides, you are assuming that the people mentioned in verse 30 who didn’t fear the Lord would include those mentioned in verse 20 who did fear the word of the Lord. I’m not convinced they are the same groups, but I can certainly see the point. People can fear the Lord in terms of fearing judgment, but that doesn’t mean they fear Him in terms of following Him, which is the way people are supposed to fear Him. There is even a passage in 2 Kings, I believe, in which people fear the Lord because He was sending punishment in the form of lions, but then the passage also says they didn’t fear the Lord because they were continuing to worship other gods. I don’t think God is pleased when people mix worship of Him with worship of other gods, so people with that mixed worship would not be worshipping acceptably even if they are correctly afraid of God’s punishment.Moreover, in one of the earlier plagues, there were even some Egyptians who feared the Lord enough to bring inside their servants and their cattle and thereby their servants and cattle were spared from physical destruction:
Exodus 9:20 He that feared the word of the LORD among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses: 21 And he that regarded not the word of the LORD left his servants and his cattle in the field.
The ensuing storm devastated the servants and cattle of all those who refused to fear the Lord:
Exodus 9:24 So there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous, such as there was none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation. 25 And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field.
Strikingly, even after they had observed and experienced that remarkable deliverance, God said the following of Pharaoh and his servants, which in the flow of thought included those who feared God enough to bring in their servants and cattle:
Exodus 9:29 And Moses said unto him, As soon as I am gone out of the city, I will spread abroad my hands unto the LORD; and the thunder shall cease, neither shall there be any more hail; that thou mayest know how that the earth is the LORD’S. 30 But as for thee and thy servants, I know that ye will not yet fear the LORD God.
This passage shows that some of Pharaoh’s servants feared the Lord enough to experience physical deliverance from that particular judgment but they still did not fear the Lord as they were supposed to fear Him!
Although their experiencing that deliverance was not an act of worship, it shows the reality of the spiritual dynamic of people who fear the Lord to some extent but do not fear Him fully, as He requires all humanity to fear Him.
[RajeshG]Ah, so you ARE saying that mixing divination in with sacrifices is acceptable to God.The sacrifices that he offered were necessary for him to have an audience with God, regardless of what his intentions and motivations were. They were acceptable to the extent that he was fulfilling an obligation to God.
I see a parallel to what even the high priest of Israel had to do when he went into the Holy of Holies. He could only enter into the presence of God through the offering of sacrifices (Heb. 9:7). Whether he was personally right with God in his heart was a separate matter; even when he was not right with God in his heart, he had to obey what God had ordained be done.
I can’t agree with that at all, especially with the analogy that a person using divination would be parallel to the high priest in the Holy of Holies. The priest not only had to be consecrated with offerings, but he was also washed and anointed with oil. I find it sacrilegious that you would compare that consecrated priest to a person using demonic divination.
[Kevin Miller]No, I am not.Ah, so you ARE saying that mixing divination in with sacrifices is acceptable to God.
I can’t agree with that at all, especially with the analogy that a person using divination would be parallel to the high priest in the Holy of Holies. The priest not only had to be consecrated with offerings, but he was also washed and anointed with oil. I find it sacrilegious that you would compare that consecrated priest to a person using demonic divination.
The sacrifices were not at all in any way the use of divination on Balaam’s part. God would have totally rejected him had he tried to use any divination to contact God.
You are wrongly equating what God had Balaam prophesy to Balak with what Balaam did when he offered those sacrifices on those altars.They are not one and the same.
In fact, the third account directly shows that this is the right understanding:
Numbers 23:29 And Balaam said unto Balak, Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven bullocks and seven rams. 30 And Balak did as Balaam had said, and offered a bullock and a ram on every altar.
24:1 And when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness.
After having the altars built and the sacrifices offered, Balaam went on the previous times to seek … His offering the sacrifices was not his seeking the enchantments. The enchantments, whatever they were, was something that he sought for after having offered the sacrifices. There is no basis in the text for equating the two.
I do not know of any instances in the Bible that speak of offering sacrifices on an altar as a form of divination. Do you?
Furthermore, the point of comparison between what Balaam did and what the high priest did was that both had to offer sacrifices to God to come into His presence. The Bible establishes that truth all the way back in Genesis 4 when both Abel and Cain had to bring sacrifices to God when they drew near to Him.
Discussion