|
David, son of Jesse, had been anointed king of Israel, announced
by God as the rightful, divinely appointed successor to failing
king Saul (1 Sam. 31; 2 Sam. 1). David was brought by he Lord's
instruction to Hebron in Judah where he was publicly acclaimed
as king in the room of Saul. Abner, cousin of Saul and the king's
chief of staff, desired however to follow dynastic Eastern customs
by appointing one of Saul's sons, Ishbosheth, as king. He was
probably not without his personal reasons as well since he was
Saul's cousin. Ishbosheth was therefore crowned king at the eastern
township of Mahanaim (2 Sam. 2:89). However, God's choice
for successor to Saul was David, consequently, by the Lord's providence
the house of Saul crumbled while David's throne was consolidated
in Hebron. Consider the following as related to these events:
First, David was content to allow God to implement his own desires
by his own providential oversight. It had been God's own design
that David be appointed head of Israel, nevertheless David:
Attested his unqualified submission to the guidance of God ...
not only by not returning to Judah till he had received permission
from the Lord, but also by the fact that after the tribe of Judah
had acknowledged him as king, he did not go to war with Ishbosheth,
but contended himself with resisting the attack made upon him
by the supporters of the house of Saul ([2 Sam. 2:12ff], Keil
and Delitsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, pp. 29293).
Compare this to Sarah's lack of faith in the promise of God when
upon one occasion she sought to bring to pass God's intention
regarding a son by giving Hagar to her husband Abraham that he
might father a child by her (Gen. 16:35). David's kindly
disposition is also seen in the fact that his first formal act
as king was the commendation of the men of Jabeshgilead
for rescuing the impaled bodies of Saul and his sons from the
walls of Bethshan where they had been exposed to Philistine
ridicule. They had demonstrated, according to David, "kindness
to the Lord's anointed." This can hardly be construed as
a mere political maneuver on his part since even David himself,
while a fugitive from Saul's impassioned jealousy, had so respected
the king.
David's Appointment as King Eliminated All Others
Second, the appointment of Ishbosheth by the northern tribes as
a rival king to David was an open violation of God's commands
though, in fact, the Lord had never specifically forbidden it.
Since David was selected, God eliminated all other candidates
from the throne. Thus:
The promotion of Ishbosheth as king was not only a continuation
of the hostility of Saul towards David, but also an open act of
rebellion against Jehovah, who had rejected Saul and chosen David
prince over Israel, and who had given such distinct proofs of
this election in the eyes of the whole nation, that even Saul
had been convinced of the appointment of David to be his successor
to the throne (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament,
pp. 292-93).
It is also instructive that even Abner himself, who orchestrated
the kingship of Ishbosheth (2 Sam. 3:8), recognized and admitted
the fact that God's chosen king was actually David. "Jehovah
hath spoken of David saying, By the hand of my servant David I
will save my people Israel" (2 Sam. 3:18) was Abner's confession.
This brings to mind the principle found in Scripture that "when
men do as a religious service, what they are not commanded to
do, it is rejected" (M.C.. Kurfees, The Instrumental Music
Question, by Foy E. Wallace, p. 9). So it has always been.
Offering instrumental music in worship to God is open rebellion
to God since it is a construction of worship after man's heart,
not God's desire.
Jesus observed of the Jews who washed hands as a religious service,
"In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments
of men." He spoke of the scribes and Pharisees of his day
who 1) were worshiping God; 2) were offering vain worship in that
they offered that which God had not commanded; 3) the matter of
hand washing was a very small matter as far as appearancesake
is concerned, but it was sinful because it was not authorized.
Likewise, the masses today 1) offer mechanical instrumental music
in worship to God; 2) their worship is vain, and therefore rejected
because, as was the elevation of Ishbosheth, they are offering
that which God has not sanctioned; 3) the matter of mechanical
instruments of music seems to be, as is construed by defenders,
a very small matter. "Surely God will not damn anyone for
simply playing a piano while he/she sings praises," I have
heard quipped. No, neither did our Lord reject men simply upon
the basis that they preferred to clean their hands. But it is
a disposition to presume to add to God's selected offerings which
falls under the Lord's strictures.
Here is a fact, then, that should be thoroughly and indelibly
impressed upon every heart, that according to Jesus, an act, such
as washing the hands, which is wholly sinless outside of religious
service is, nevertheless, sinful when performed in religious service
in the absence of any command of God. Hence, although engaged
in worshiping God, men may, at the same time, be under the condemnation
of Jesus, because they are doing that which is ordered by man,
and not by the Lord, which Jesus says is vain worship (Matt. 15:89).
John L. Girardeau, professor at Columbia Theological Seminary
in South Carolina, put it this way over 100 years ago:
A divine warrant is necessary for every element of doctrine, government,
and worship in the church; that is, whatsoever in the spheres
is not commanded in the Scriptures, either expressly or by good
and necessary consequence from their statements, is forbidden.
Worship presented at the altar of manmade religion by means
of mechanical instruments of music is in violation of the divine
warrant in the same sense that those who appointed Ishbosheth
king acted in rebellion against God. When God elected David to
be king, though he never expressly forbade any other from being
crowned, he implicitly forbade it. When our Lord Jesus Christ
appointed singing (Eph. 5:19) to be offered as music in worship,
he forbade the offering of instrumental music to God in worship.
To utilize it in worship in the absence of divine warrant is to
act in rebellion to divine authority.
|
