Divine Selectivity in Worship: What Should We Believe?

In various ways, Scripture reveals that God has been selective in what He has accepted from humans in worship:

1. Any stone altars that were made of any hewn stones have been polluted altars, and all worship offered therefore on any such altars has been unacceptable

2. Leaven could be used in in one kind of offering but not in another

3. Honey could not be used in any offerings by fire

Based on this data and other data that I plan to present in this thread, I would like to discuss what we should believe about divine selectivity in worship in areas about which God may not have given such specific revelation.

Discussion

Based on what we see in Scripture, we rightly hold that God created all aquatic, avian, and terrestrial1 life forms as good entities.

We read of various avian and terrestrial life forms that have been offered acceptably to God in worship on an altar.

We never, however, see any aquatic life forms used in acceptable worship of God.

Why not? From this data, what else are we to learn about divine selectivity in what He accepts in worship?

________________________________________________

1 “Terrestrial” is probably not the right word to use to speak of those life forms that are not aquatic or avian, but I am not sure what other term would be the right one.

1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
Scripture here speaks of 4 categories of living beings:
1. humans

2. beasts

3. fish

4. birds

Of these 4, we know plainly that God has never accepted the sacrificing of humans in any form of worship. We also know, however, that God has accepted and even commanded the offering of some kinds of beasts (category 2) and some kinds of birds (category 4).

Given this explicit biblical data, it is noteworthy that Scripture never speaks of divine acceptance of any use in worship of living beings from category 3 (fish).

Because God created all life forms in all 4 categories but Scripture never speaks of the acceptable use of any aquatic life in any kind of worship, we have biblical revelation that supports our holding that there is an entire “genre” of living beings that God has created but has never accepted for use in worship.

Based on this biblical reality, we should understand by analogy that there would be no legitimate basis to hold that God certainly accepts or must accept every “genre” of music for use in worship even if He had created them all. The believer who would want to insist that there are no “genres” that are unacceptable to God for use in worship must provide a biblical basis for the legitimacy of holding that position.

In the past, some who support the use of CCM/CWM in corporate worship have asserted that the kinds of music that they favor for use in corporate worship are certainly acceptable to God because they assert that He created them all.



In reality, the Bible never teaches that God created all kinds of music.



Furthermore, based on the biblical data that I have presented in this thread, we can clearly see that arguing on the basis of God as Creator is not a legitimate basis for holding such a position, regardless of whether He did or did not create all kinds of music.



Those of us who reject the notion that God accepts without exception the use of whatever kinds of music people choose to use in corporate worship do not have to prove that our view is true because the opposite position is biblically indefensible.

RajeshG wrote:

Because God created all life forms in all 4 categories but Scripture never speaks of the acceptable use of any aquatic life in any kind of worship, we have biblical revelation that supports our holding that there is an entire “genre” of living beings that God has created but has never accepted for use in worship.

Based on this biblical reality, we should understand by analogy that that there would be no legitimate basis to hold that God certainly accepts or must accept every “genre” of music for use in worship even if He had created them all.

I really don't think this analogy is logical. First off, you're assuming that because we don't have a command or prohibition regarding aquatic life used in worship that God would therefore not accept fish used in worship. The lack of a mention is NOT the same as rejection. Israel simply didn't have fish farms during the time of the Mosaic Law like they have today. If fish husbandry had been in existence back than, then the fish would have been under the same tithe requirements as other farmed animals and crops. There is no reason to think that fish from fish farms would have been rejected in worship.

Secondly, you are comparing a genre of animals which were wild at the time of the Mosaic Law with a genre of music which actually is produced by humans. How is a genre of animals comparable to a genre of music? This doesn't make sense.

Thirdly, you are comparing what would be acceptable or unacceptable in worship within the Mosaic Law time frame to our present time period of church worship. How is it that you think the instructions, or lack thereof, for worship between those two time periods would be comparable?

You are basically saying that a lack of mention of a genre of wild animal used in worship in the Mosaic law time frame is analogous to a rejection of a genre of human produced music used in worship in the Church Age time frame. This is worse than comparing apple to oranges. This is comparing apples in a pie served at a restaurant to oranges in a smoothie served at a picnic.

You are basically saying that a lack of mention of a genre of wild animal used in worship in the Mosaic law time frame is analogous to a rejection of a genre of human produced music used in worship in the Church Age time frame. This is worse than comparing apple to oranges. This is comparing apples in a pie served at a restaurant to oranges in a smoothie served at a picnic.

There are multiple problems with your responses and your analysis of what I have said.



You wrongly think that what I have said only concerns worship in the "Mosaic law time frame" vs. worship today. That is a faulty understanding of what I am speaking about from Scripture. Scripture reveals much that does not fit into either of those time frames.



You also seem to have missed that my comments were addressing those who wrongly try to argue from their belief that God is the Creator of all kinds of music.



Even in "the Mosaic law time frame," your asserting that it included the tithing of farm animals is not biblical; your further use of that notion to say that had their been fish farming, God would have accepted tithes of fish is not supported by Scripture.



Moreover, tithing was not worship that was offered to God in the same sense that animal sacrifices were.

RajeshG wrote: Moreover, tithing was not worship that was offered to God in the same sense that animal sacrifices were.

But it was still worship.

Besides, music is not worship that is offered to God in the same sense as animal sacrifices were either.

The fact that a genre of animals may or may not have been acceptable to God in worship has nothing AT ALL to do with whether God would or wouldn't accept certain types of music. The analogy is faulty at it's core.

The fact that a genre of animals may or may not have been acceptable to God in worship has nothing AT ALL to do with whether God would or wouldn't accept certain types of music. The analogy is faulty at it's core.

No, it is not. You fail to understand what I am getting at.

Scripture explicitly teaches us that God created all the animals and pronounced them all good, and it plainly shows us that not all the animals were ever accepted in worship. Just because He created them all and pronounced them all as good did not mean that He ever accepted the use of all of them in worship.



If someone tries to argue in a similar way that God accepts all kinds of music because He is the Creator who created them all as good, the analogy applies directly because the argument is (wrongly) based on the assertion that God is the Creator in both instances. Even if God were the Creator of all kinds of music, and even if He had pronounced them all good it still would not be true that He therefore accepts the use of all of them in worship.



In actuality, all such assertions about divine acceptance of all kinds of music in worship that argue on the basis of God as Creator are false and have no biblical basis.

RajeshG wrote: Even in "the Mosaic law time frame," your asserting that it included the tithing of farm animals is not biblical; your further use of that notion to say that had their been fish farming, God would have accepted tithes of fish is not supported by Scripture.

I should have used the words "firstborn requirements" instead of "tithe requirements" in my post. I was looking at Duet 14:23 which says, "And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always."

I shorthanded my thoughts by saying "tithe requirements," but I was meaning the idea of offering the firstborn of the animals to God. If Israelites in the past had practiced fish husbandry, then the firstlings of the schools of fish would have been included in what was offered to God. If you think not, then why not?

Kevin Miller wrote:

I should have used the words "firstborn requirements" instead of "tithe requirements" in my post. I was looking at Duet 14:23 which says, "And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always."

I shorthanded my thoughts by saying "tithe requirements," but I was meaning the idea of offering the firstborn of the animals to God. If Israelites in the past had practiced fish husbandry, then the firstlings of the schools of fish would have been included in what was offered to God. If you think not, then why not?

This passage does not talk about offering the firstborn of the animals to God. Deut. 14:23 specifies that the person was to "*eat* before the Lord . . . the firstlings of [his] herds and of [his] flocks . . ."



The passage does not say that these firstborn animals of the *specified* animals were offered to God on an altar; it only says that they were eaten by the person who would bring them to the place that God chose to put His name there.



What Deut. 14:23 talks about therefore is different than the many passages in the OT that talk about offering various animals to God in worship on an altar.

RajeshG wrote: What Deut. 14:23 talks about is different than the many passages in the OT that talk about offering various animals to God in worship on an altar.

So is this thread about "Divine Selectivity in Worship" only pertaining to things offered to God in worship on an altar? I didn't think that it was, since you started to talk about God being selective about genres of music in worship, and music isn't offered on an altar. However, if you only want to talk about things offered on an altar, that's fine.

If you make any more comments about music in this thread, I'll be sure to remind you that the worship God is selective about in this thread is worship on an altar and not any other types of worship.

Kevin Miller wrote:

So is this thread about "Divine Selectivity in Worship" only pertaining to things offered to God in worship on an altar? I didn't think that it was, since you started to talk about God being selective about genres of music in worship, and music isn't offered on an altar. However, if you only want to talk about things offered on an altar, that's fine.

If you make any more comments about music in this thread, I'll be sure to remind you that the worship God is selective about in this thread is worship on an altar and not any other types of worship.

I have already explained what I am doing in this thread. We know with certainty that God was selective concerning what was ever offered acceptably to Him in worship on an altar. That fact establishes the reality of divine selectivity in worship even in a realm (living beings) consisting of things all of which He Himself directly made.



The Christian who wants to argue that God accepts all kinds of music in worship because He created them all has to prove biblically why that is true because the Bible itself establishes that divine creation of all things in a particular realm does not guarantee that God accepts in divine worship the use of all things in or from that realm.

Scripture itself establishes a very strong connection between animals offered to God and music that is offered to Him:



Ps. 43:3

O send out thy light and thy truth: let them lead me; let them bring me unto thy holy hill, and to thy tabernacles.

4 Then will I go unto the altar of God, unto God my exceeding joy: yea, upon the harp will I praise thee, O God my God.



Notice that David speaks explicitly of going to God's altar and praising God on the harp!



Moreover, Psalm 69 directly compares the two and instructs us that offering acceptable music to God pleased Him better than animal sacrifices did:

Psalm 69:30 I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving.

31 This also shall please the Lord better than an ox or bullock that hath horns and hoofs.



These two passages as well as others, including in the NT, make clear that comparing what Scripture reveals about divine acceptance of animal sacrifices offered to God on an altar and what it reveals about divine acceptance of music offered to God is fully biblical.

Scripture speaks in both Testaments of a heavenly altar that is before the throne of God (Is. 6; Rev. 8, 9, etc.).



Scripture speaks of worship that includes music before the throne of God in heaven (Rev. 5, 14, 15).



By divine choice, the revelation about worship music in heaven speaks only of the use of harps (a stringed instrument) and does not mention the use of any drums in heavenly worship music before the throne of God. (Trumpets are mentioned in Revelation, but it is unclear to me whether they are used in the actual worship of heaven).



If heavenly worship music includes any use of drums, God has not revealed any such use. Based on what God has revealed, I hold that we should learn that God does not intend for us to understand that percussive musical elements must be a vital part of the heavenly worship music that is played and sung before the heavenly altar that is before the throne of God.



It is also at least interesting that one of the key passages about worship music before the earthly altar of God (Ps. 43:3-4) speaks only of the use of a harp and does not mention any use of drums.