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?
- 248 views
[Kevin Miller]The passage in 2 Kings 17 is the one that I am ultimately driving towards and the one that many weeks ago God used to direct me into studying this subject at this time. There is more Scripture that I want to discuss first, however, before getting to that passage because a right understanding of it must be based on comparing Scripture with Scripture to see all else that God has revealed about His accepting worship from some unbelievers.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.
In fact, I had not even thought about how observance of the Passover was directly relevant to this subject until last night and even later last night God directed my thinking to yet another passage that I had never thought about in this regard. God wants us to profit fully from these passages so that we will have His mind about what worship He has accepted and what He has not.
The apostle Paul was saved during his encounter with the risen Christ on the Damascus Road. Immediately prior to his being saved, he had been wickedly persecuting Christians in his unbelief in Jesus as the Christ.
Paul was a highly devoted Jew who worshiped God zealously for many years even before he had ever heard anything about Jesus of Nazareth and had rejected believing in Him as the Messiah and the Son of God.
Was any of Paul’s worship prior to his salvation accepted by God?
[RajeshG]The apostle Paul was saved during his encounter with the risen Christ on the Damascus Road. Immediately prior to his being saved, he had been wickedly persecuting Christians in his unbelief in Jesus as the Christ.
Paul was a highly devoted Jew who worshiped God zealously for many years even before he had ever heard anything about Jesus of Nazareth and had rejected believing in Him as the Messiah and the Son of God.
Was any of Paul’s worship prior to his salvation accepted by God?
For some time I have noted with fascination that this thread just keeps going.
Rajesh, you say, “Paul was saved during his encounter with the risen Christ on the Damascus Road.”
I think we need to be careful in calling that Paul’s moment of salvation.
When Paul was 20 years old, perhaps AD 10, what did Paul need to believe to be saved? I see no reason to assert that this young devout Paul was not a genuine believer. I see the questions of faith (Is Jesus the Messiah? Is Jesus God?) that Paul was struggling with on the road to Damascus as a crisis of faith within The Faith.
It would be like someone saying, “I used to be an Arminian, but I was converted.” Well, that’s not conversion in the sense of salvation.
[Dan Miller]Dan, I have never heard anyone else make the claim that Paul was already saved when Jesus arrested him on the Damascus Road. I do not believe that there is any way to support biblically that he was saved prior to that encounter.For some time I have noted with fascination that this thread just keeps going.
Rajesh, you say, “Paul was saved during his encounter with the risen Christ on the Damascus Road.”
I think we need to be careful in calling that Paul’s moment of salvation.
When Paul was 20 years old, perhaps AD 10, what did Paul need to believe to be saved? I see no reason to assert that this young devout Paul was not a genuine believer. I see the questions of faith (Is Jesus the Messiah? Is Jesus God?) that Paul was struggling with on the road to Damascus as a crisis of faith within The Faith.It would be like someone saying, “I used to be an Arminian, but I was converted.” Well, that’s not conversion in the sense of salvation.
1 Timothy 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; 13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. (1 Tim. 1:12)
Saul was a blasphemer whom Christ saved as a pattern for other unbelievers in Christ who would believe in Him to live everlasting.
[RajeshG]I think the Matthew 15 passage that I quoted earlier would apply here. Paul was a Pharisee, and Matthew 15:1 says, “Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem.” For all we know, Paul could even have been in that group! Jesus told them in verses 7-9:The apostle Paul was saved during his encounter with the risen Christ on the Damascus Road. Immediately prior to his being saved, he had been wickedly persecuting Christians in his unbelief in Jesus as the Christ.
Paul was a highly devoted Jew who worshiped God zealously for many years even before he had ever heard anything about Jesus of Nazareth and had rejected believing in Him as the Messiah and the Son of God.
Was any of Paul’s worship prior to his salvation accepted by God?
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
It doesn’t seem to me that God would be accepting worship from these people, since he tells them that they are worshipping God in vain.
[RajeshG]I’ve always considered divination to be a means to contact the spirit world. Do you think of it as something else? What else would Balaam have been using divination for? Is it your opinion that Balaam was using a sacrifice to contact God and then using divination along with it, but for some totally unrelated purpose that we aren’t even told about? That hardly makes sense, but even if that were true, the use of divination in conjunction somehow with worship would make the worship unacceptable.No, I am not.
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.I don’t know what you mean by telling me I am “equating” those two things. I know Balaam’s message to Balak was not the same as Balaam’s sacrifice, But Balak had hired Balaam, and God did mention in his response to Balak that Balaam’s divination would not work. The divination was being used in conjunction with the sacrifices.
In fact, the third account directly shows that this is the right understanding:I never said the sacrifices and the seeking of enchantments were one and the same, so I’m not equating them. As you said, the enchantments were sought after offering the sacrifices. How can you think a sacrifice to God can acceptably go along with a divination attempt? They don’t have to be “one and the same” for the divination to make the whole worship experience to be corrupt.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?Do you actually think the Bible lists every form of divination that has ever been used? I’ve heard of entrails being spread out in order to get messages from the spirit world, and that form of divination would require a sacrifice. The passage doesn’t have to tell us HOW the divination was performed. The passage simply tells us that divination was used along with the sacrifices, and I’m inclined to believe what the Bible says. I just can’t understand how you think a sacrifice-then-divination combination can possibly be acceptable to God.
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.As the example of Cain tells us, a sacrifice can be completely unacceptable to God if it doesn’t meet the standard that God desires.
[RajeshG]I hadn’t responded yet to this post because it brings us back to the discussion of “acceptance” itself. You wrote that what someone does “may be acceptable (at least to some extent) to God.” Previously in this thread, I had though of acceptance as an either/or situation. God is either pleased with something or He isn’t. Worship meets God’s standard or it doesn’t. Now you are describing acceptance as if it lands on some sort of spectrum, as if it takes place “to some extent” but not to the full extent. Do we need to flesh that idea out any? Do we need to look at our examples of worship and see if they please God “a bit” but not completely?Another parallel is in what Paul wrote of the Philippians:
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.
[Kevin Miller]I do not think that this passage can be applied to Paul prior to his salvation. Paul testified of himself:I think the Matthew 15 passage that I quoted earlier would apply here. Paul was a Pharisee, and Matthew 15:1 says, “Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem.” For all we know, Paul could even have been in that group! Jesus told them in verses 7-9:
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
It doesn’t seem to me that God would be accepting worship from these people, since he tells them that they are worshipping God in vain.
Philippians 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Paul was blameless concerning the rigtheousness of the law. That was not and could not have been true of any of the hypocritical Pharisees that Jesus excoriated in Matthew 15.
[Kevin Miller]There is great debate about what made Cain’s sacrifice unacceptable to God. In any case, the point that I am making by referring to that incident is that it shows additionally that any access to God of the direct-audience-in-the-presence-of-God-type that Abel, Cain, Balaam, and others had/sought could only be had/sought through the bringing of a sacrifice or sacrifices, depending on what God had stipulated.Quote:
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.As the example of Cain tells us, a sacrifice can be completely unacceptable to God if it doesn’t meet the standard that God desires.
Another key consideration in this discussion is that certain aspects of worship, especially the offering of sacrifices, required the actions of and/or instruction from a suitable priest. Second Kings 17 displays that importance in a striking way:
2 Kings 17:24 And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof. 25 And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the LORD: therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which slew some of them.
26 Wherefore they spake to the king of Assyria, saying, The nations which thou hast removed, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land: therefore he hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land.
27 Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land. 28 Then one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD.
Incredibly, somehow some unbelievers (17:26) accurately discerned the spiritual truth that the problem that they were having with those lions was due to their not knowing “the manner of the God of the land”! A priest who rightly knew that manner had to come and teach them how they should fear the Lord.
The flow of thought in the rest of the passage shows that after such instruction, they learned the manner of the God of the land and feared Him in a manner that they prior to that point had not been doing. They were engaging in certain appropriate worship activities comprising fearing the Lord that He did accept (!) from them so that the problem with the lions was resolved.
The rest of the passage, however, also shows that they did not fear Him fully, as they should have by turning wholly to Him and turning away from all their idolatry!
[RajeshG]I’m not sure why you don’t think that could be true of the hypocritical Pharisees. It seems to me that that is the very nature of their hypocrisy. They were obeying commandments but without faith. Paul described his own righteousness in Phil 3:9 as “a righteousness of my own that comes from the law,” but what he needed, and what the other Pharisees didn’t have was righteousness “which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.” So Paul was certainly admitting that his heart was far from God just like the other Pharisees.I do not think that this passage can be applied to Paul prior to his salvation. Paul testified of himself:
Philippians 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Paul was blameless concerning the rigtheousness of the law. That was not and could not have been true of any of the hypocritical Pharisees that Jesus excoriated in Matthew 15.
[RajeshG]I don’t see any indication in the story of Cain and Abel that the two brothers were seeking “direct-audience-in-the-presence-of-God.” The passage doesn’t really tell us much at all about the purpose of their sacrifice. Gen 4:3-4 says “In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.” The sacrifices could have been for atonement, or they could have been simply thanks offerings, but the passage certainly doesn’t stipulate that sacrifices needed to be brought for a “direct-audience-in-the-presence-of-God.” Can you provide any Scriptural passage at all that contained the stipulations required for “direct-audience-in-the-presence-of-God” type of sacrifices? The once-a-year sacrifice in the Holy of Holies might perhaps count, but even those were done for the atonement of Israel and not specifically to enable God’s presence. God’s presence was already in the Holy of Holies even before the atonement sacrifice took place.There is great debate about what made Cain’s sacrifice unacceptable to God. In any case, the point that I am making by referring to that incident is that it shows additionally that any access to God of the direct-audience-in-the-presence-of-God-type that Abel, Cain, Balaam, and others had/sought could only be had/sought through the bringing of a sacrifice or sacrifices, depending on what God had stipulated.
[RajeshG]So are you claiming that when verse 32 tells us they “appointed from among themselves all sorts of people as priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the shrines of the high places,” that these priests were “suitable” priests based on the instructions God had given Israel? After all, verse 34 tells us “they do not follow the statutes or the rules or the law or the commandment that the Lord commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel.” I don’t see at all how the priests they were using were “suitable” priests, and therefore I don’t see how their sacrifices would have been acceptable to God.Another key consideration in this discussion is that certain aspects of worship, especially the offering of sacrifices, required the actions of and/or instruction from a suitable priest. Second Kings 17 displays that importance in a striking way:
Speaking of priests, I think the example of Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu is worth looking at. It’s an excellent example of even Israelite priests offering sacrifices that are not acceptable to God. Leviticus 10:1-3 says,
Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. 2 So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. 3 Moses then said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord spoke of when he said: “‘Among those who approach me I will be proved holy; in the sight of all the people. I will be honored.’” Aaron remained silent.
God is quite specific that people who approach him with sacrifices must do so in a manner that aligns with God’s commands. Doing so otherwise would not be acceptable.
[Kevin Miller]Cain was an unbeliever who was of the devil. Yet, he talked about being hidden that day from God’s face as a result of the punishment that God imposed on him:I don’t see any indication in the story of Cain and Abel that the two brothers were seeking “direct-audience-in-the-presence-of-God.” The passage doesn’t really tell us much at all about the purpose of their sacrifice. Gen 4:3-4 says “In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.” The sacrifices could have been for atonement, or they could have been simply thanks offerings, but the passage certainly doesn’t stipulate that sacrifices needed to be brought for a “direct-audience-in-the-presence-of-God.” Can you provide any Scriptural passage at all that contained the stipulations required for “direct-audience-in-the-presence-of-God” type of sacrifices? The once-a-year sacrifice in the Holy of Holies might perhaps count, but even those were done for the atonement of Israel and not specifically to enable God’s presence. God’s presence was already in the Holy of Holies even before the atonement sacrifice took place.
Genesis 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
To me, that clearly implies that Cain was in God’s direct presence on that occasion.
That interpretation is explicitly confirmed later in the passage:
Genesis 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
[Kevin Miller]The Law required obedience to God from the heart; it was not concerned just with external obedience. There are numerous statements to that effect in Scripture. Paul could not have declared under inspiration that he was blameless concerning the righteousness of the Law had he been a hypocrite.I’m not sure why you don’t think that could be true of the hypocritical Pharisees. It seems to me that that is the very nature of their hypocrisy. They were obeying commandments but without faith. Paul described his own righteousness in Phil 3:9 as “a righteousness of my own that comes from the law,” but what he needed, and what the other Pharisees didn’t have was righteousness “which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.” So Paul was certainly admitting that his heart was far from God just like the other Pharisees.
[Kevin Miller]I do not know what you mean by “enable God’s presence.”The once-a-year sacrifice in the Holy of Holies might perhaps count, but even those were done for the atonement of Israel and not specifically to enable God’s presence. God’s presence was already in the Holy of Holies even before the atonement sacrifice took place.
The yearly sacrifice was not to enable God’s presence; my point was the the high priest could only enter into God’s presence with the blood of the sacrifice that God had ordained had to be brought.
Hebrews 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people.
In order to accomplish atonement for us, even Christ had to enter with the blood of His sacrifice to enter into God’s presence for us (Heb. 9:12 ff.).
[Kevin Miller]The passage says that they brought a priest who knew what God required and he taught them to do what they had not done previously—fear the Lord (2 Kings 17:28). Three times thereafter the inspired writer of Scripture says explicitly that they feared the Lord:So are you claiming that when verse 32 tells us they “appointed from among themselves all sorts of people as priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the shrines of the high places,” that these priests were “suitable” priests based on the instructions God had given Israel? After all, verse 34 tells us “they do not follow the statutes or the rules or the law or the commandment that the Lord commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel.” I don’t see at all how the priests they were using were “suitable” priests, and therefore I don’t see how their sacrifices would have been acceptable to God.
2 Kings 17:32 So they feared the LORD, and made unto themselves of the lowest of them priests of the high places, which sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places.
2 Kings 17:33 They feared the LORD, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence.
2 Kings 17:41 So these nations feared the LORD, and served their graven images, both their children, and their children’s children: as did their fathers, so do they unto this day.
Yet, the passage also says each time that they also engaged in idolatrous worship of other gods and in a later statement it says one time that they did not fear the Lord:
2 Kings 17:34 Unto this day they do after the former manners: they fear not the LORD, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the LORD commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel.
The Spirit has not inspired the Bible to have any contradictions in it. God’s Word is perfect. Any right handling of the passage must account for both sets of data. Any attempt to deny or minimize three explicit statements that say that they feared the Lord after they had previously not done so would be wrong.
The best way that I see to harmonize all the data is to hold that they did fear the Lord to the extent that they did engage in some worship activities that He did accept.
The parallelism between the statements in 17:32 and 17:33 indicates that the priests that they appointed of the high places were not the ones who did whatever they were doing to fear the Lord. Instead, they were the ones through whom they served their own gods, as the rest of verse 33 says. Verse 29 supports that understanding by stating that the houses of the high places were where they put their gods that made.
We have to work with the data that the Spirit has provided. Asking lots of questions about details that the Spirit has not provided will not be of any value.
If you have a harmonization of all the data that you think is better, I’d like to hear it.
Discussion