Unlawful Service
| Contents |
|
1. Introduction 2. Several Witnesses 3. Independent Ministries 4. The Persecution of Heretics 5. Officiousness 6. Conclusion |
Introduction
Abraham: Our father in heaven,
We come to you in Yahshua name with thankful hearts that you share a double blessing with us this day. Be with Bro. David as he leads this discussion today and bless each one that is participating in Yahshua’s name we pray, amen.
Crystle: Amen.
Guerline: Amen.
Naraiel: Amen.
Kimberly: Amen.
Ye: Amen.
Annetta: Amen.
Rita: Amen.
Barb: Amen
Zahakiel: This month’s study is called “Unlawful Service.” We have touched upon this topic a little bit before in our studies about officiousness, particularly the example of Uzza and the Ark of the Covenant, but today I want to expand that theme into a more detailed examination of a principle, and give some relevant examples.
The basic idea behind this study is that there are individuals, groups, even whole Churches, who go about doing “good” as they consider it, yet they are not, in fact, doing what it is that Yahweh is requiring of them. We see an early example of this kind of thing in the very first book of the Scriptures.
“And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto Yahweh. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Yahweh had respect unto Abel and to his offering, but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.” (Gen 4:3-5)
Cain was a farmer and Abel a shepherd, but it was taught to both men by Adam the meaning of sacrifice, for the first sacrifice was offered on his behalf. (Gen 3:21) It was the death of an animal that represented the infinite gift of the coming Savior, and this symbol could not be legitimately enacted using fruits. This decision was not one that was designed to favor Abel over Cain in any way, but because of his profession, Cain was required to ask or trade for a lamb from his younger brother, and Cain’s character was such that he was unable to do this. It may even be that Yah set this in place specifically to check some defect of character in the older brother, but unfortunately the lesson was not received. Cain, in his pride, wished to be accepted by Yahweh on his own terms, for his own works, and this was the reason why his sacrifice was rejected. It may have been the best that he had, in terms of his own personal labor, but it wasn’t what the Creator had asked for.
We are going to see a few more examples of this idea worked out in sacred history, and then discuss the applications to our own day.
Several Witnesses
Zahakiel: Let’s look at some examples of our theme. Interestingly enough, these first few examples are all found in one place, the first few chapters of 2Samuel.
We read, and let me know when you are finished with this relatively long passage:
“Now it
came to pass after the death of Saul, when David was returned from the
slaughter of the Amalekites, and David had abode two days in Ziklag, it came
even to pass on the third day, that, behold, a man came out of the camp from
Saul with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head. And so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth,
and did obeisance.
“And
David said unto him, ‘From whence comest thou?’ And he said unto him, ‘Out of
the camp of Israel am I escaped.’
“And
David said unto him, ‘How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me.’ And he
answered, ‘That the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people
also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.’
And David
said unto the young man that told him, ‘How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan
his son be dead?’ And the young man that told him said, ‘As I happened by
chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the
chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. And when he looked behind him,
he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, “Here am I.” And he said unto me, “Who art thou?” And I
answered him, “I am an Amalekite.”’
“‘He said unto me again, “Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me, for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me.” So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.’” (2Sam 1:1-10)
Rita: Done.
Annetta: Done.
Happy Rock: Done.
Barb: Finished.
Naraiel: Done.
Crystle: Finished.
Guerline: Done.
Ye: Done.
Kimberly: Ok.
Zahakiel: Now, first and foremost, this report was not true. We may read from the previous Book that, “said Saul unto his armourbearer, ‘Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me.’ But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.” (1Sam 31:4)
We read a “second witness” of this actual account in the Book of Chronicles, which serves to not only substantiate up this matter, but also to clear up the incident that led to Saul’s death, for while the Book of Samuel reports (from Saul’s point of view) that he spoke with the “ghost” of Samuel, Chronicles gives a more removed record, explaining that this was, in fact, a “familiar spirit.” (1Ch 10:13) But of this event, the death of Saul, the Chronicler the matter just as it appears in 1 Kings, the verse in this case being 1Ch 10:4.
This individual who came to David with the false report believed, wrongly, that by claiming to have slain David’s enemy, he would obtain favor of the king. He was wrong about this… after David and his men mourned for Saul’s death, we read, “And David said unto him, ‘How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy Yahweh’s anointed?’ And David called one of the young men, and said, ‘Go near, and fall upon him.’ And he smote him that he died. And David said unto him, ‘Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, “I have slain Yahweh’s anointed.”’” (2Sam 1:14-16)
It is true that Saul was on his way out; rejected by Yah (as revealed years before by Samuel) and about to be replaced by David anyway… at the same time David was not yet authorized by Yahweh to take the throne, or to attack Saul. He had received no prophetic instruction to impose his rule on Israel, but he had confidence in the prophecies that the throne would be his in due time.
Here is another example from just a couple chapters later; again, let me know when you’ve read it all:
“And
Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, saying, ‘Whose is the land?’
Saying also, ‘Make thy league with me, and, behold, my hand shall be with thee,
to bring about all Israel unto thee.’
And Abner had communication with the elders of Israel, saying, ‘Ye
sought for David in times past to be king over you. Now then do it, for Yahweh hath spoken of David, saying, “By the
hand of my servant David I will save my people Israel out of the hand of the
Philistines, and out of the hand of all their enemies.”’
“And
Abner also spake in the ears of Benjamin, and Abner went also to speak in the
ears of David in Hebron all that seemed good to Israel, and that seemed good to
the whole house of Benjamin. So Abner came to David to Hebron, and twenty men
with him. And David made Abner and the men that were with him a feast.
“And
Abner said unto David, ‘I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel unto my
lord the king, that they may make a league with thee, and that thou mayest
reign over all that thine heart desireth.’ And David sent Abner away; and he
went in peace.
“And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from pursuing a troop, and brought in a great spoil with them; but Abner was not with David in Hebron, for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace. And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth rib, that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother.
“And afterward when David heard it he said, ‘I and my kingdom are guiltless before Yahweh for ever from the blood of Abner the son of Ner. Let it rest on the head of Joab, and on all his father’s house; and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth on the sword, or that lacketh bread.’” (2Sam 3:12, 17-22, 27-29)
Annetta: Done.
Naraiel: Done.
Crystle: Finished.
Happy Rock: Done.
Rita: Done.
Guerline: Done.
Ye: Done.
Barb: Finished
Zahakiel: Now Abner was a soldier in service to Ishbosheth, Saul’s son who took over Israel by default after his father’s death. Yet Abner was willing at that point to help David take the kingdom. Joab, suspicious of Abner’s motives, and upset because Abner had killed his brother in battle, decided to kill the warrior on his way back from a feast with David.
Joab thought, in doing this, that he was getting revenge for his loss, and at the same time he was protecting Israel from a dangerous man. Yet we find that David did not approve of his action, and in fact later – as he lay dying – he gave this instruction to his son and successor Solomon:
“Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet. Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace.” (1Kings 2:5, 6)
Shortly thereafter Solomon indeed had Joab executed for these crimes, most if not all of which he believed he was doing for the better good of the nation (although very much against the wishes of the appointed king).
Zahakiel: A third, shorter, example from 2 Samuel is found here, and it involves the same Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, that Abner had originally defended:
“And when
Saul’s son heard that Abner was dead in Hebron, his hands were feeble, and all
the Israelites were troubled. And the
sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went, and came about the heat
of the day to the house of Ishbosheth, who lay on a bed at noon. And they came
thither into the midst of the house, as though they would have fetched wheat;
and they smote him under the fifth rib: and Rechab and Baanah his brother
escaped.
“For when they came into the house, he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, and they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him, and took his head, and gat them away through the plain all night. And they brought the head of Ishbosheth unto David to Hebron, and said to the king, ‘Behold the head of Ishbosheth the son of Saul thine enemy, which sought thy life; and Yahweh hath avenged my lord the king this day of Saul, and of his seed.’” (2Sam 4:1, 5-8)
Here we find the same kind of arrangement again. The book of 2Samuel seems to be emphasizing this principle, using a number of examples from this period of David’s life. These two individuals, by murdering an innocent man, believed that they were doing David a favor and, like the Amalekite youth, went to him boldly, expecting a reward.
Here is the response they
received: “And David answered Rechab and Baanah his
brother, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said unto them, ‘As Yahweh
liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity, when one told me,
saying, ‘Behold, Saul is dead,’ thinking to have brought good tidings, I took
hold of him, and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I would have given him a
reward for his tidings. How much more,
when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house upon his bed?
Shall I not therefore now require his blood of your hand, and take you away
from the earth?’
“And David commanded his young men, and they slew them, and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up over the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ishbosheth, and buried it in the sepulchre of Abner in Hebron.” (2Sam 4:9-12)
Zahakiel: Compare these three
incidents with another event, which we’ve looked at in previous studies. We read of the return of the Ark of the
Covenant to Jerusalem, some time after David is made king. It should be noted that the instructions for
transporting the Ark were not being followed, for oxen, and not Levites, were
being used to bear it from one place to another. “And
they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab; and
Uzza and Ahio drave the cart. And David and all Israel played before God with
all their might, and with singing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and
with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets. And when they came unto the
threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark, for the oxen
stumbled.
“And the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark; and there he died before Elohim. And David was displeased, because Yahweh had made a breach upon Uzza, wherefore that place is called Perezuzza [Breach of Uzza] to this day.” (1Ch 13:7-11)
It would seem that David, having reproved others for this principle of “unlawful service” himself, was unable to apply these lessons to his own experiences. Such a tendency of David, to see things in others, but to be unable to as easily see defects in his own character, may offer a clue as to how that incident with Bathsheba could have occurred. David well knew, after all, that adultery was sin; yet when the prophet Nathan revealed to David that he was represented by the guilty party in his parable, (2Sam 12:7) he was genuinely repentant, and the fifty-first Psalm gives voice to his sorrow at the thing he had done.
This is something of which we must all be aware, and something that Yahshua would later discuss in His Sermon on the Mount, instructing His hearers to “first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Mat 7:5) Today’s lesson discusses an application of this, for officiousness of any kind, including that which Yahshua is discussing there, is really a subdivision of unlawful service. The examples we’re looking at today involve individuals seeking to do Yahweh a favor, yet going against His wishes based upon their own (incorrect) impression of what it is He wants. Officiousness, offering to help others when such help ultimately becomes a barrier to true success, is simply applying this service to our neighbors instead of to Yahweh.
Does everyone understand this principle?
Ye: Yes.
Naraiel: Yes.
Annetta: Yes.
Happy Rock: Yes.
Guerline: Yes.
Zahakiel: Now let us look at some applications of this idea to our current experience.
Independent Ministries
Zahakiel: As anyone who’s read our studies knows, the CSDA Church is intensely interested in the unity of the brethren. We consider the prayer of Christ as revealed in John 17 (His longest recorded prayer) to be of particular significance to the Gospel work, and as such we have a great desire to see Christianity united as one. Of course, we are not at all interested in ecumenism, or the mess that has resulted from non- and inter-denominational efforts. We realize that God’s word is to be taken seriously, that the Holy Spirit moves on the hearts of the sincere, and that as a result it is possible to know the right doctrines, and not just be carried about by private interpretations or majority opinion.
We believe we know and teach the truth as it is in Yahshua, or we wouldn’t teach anything at all. We are convinced that we are not simply carrying about with us “a good guess” regarding what it is God wants us to do, but while we are always open to correction and learning, we are going about doing that work and not stuck where many are, in the phase of trying to figure it all out. As it is written, “Jesus answered them, and said, ‘My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.’” (John 17:16, 17)
Unfortunately, not all bearing the name of Christ feel the same way about our understanding of unity. In the past, we have been fairly critical of independent ministries, those not affiliated with an organized Church, particularly within Adventism. The simple reason for this is because such things are explicitly denounced as carnal and even Satanic in the Bible. Paul points out that divisions about spiritual things take place only because of carnality in one or more of the dissenting groups. (1Cor 3:3) He expresses the necessity of being one in religious matters. (1Cor 1:10) Christ states that unless His followers share the same kind of unity He shares with the Father, the world will not know the true significance of His sacrifice, (John 17:23) and this has certainly proven to be the case down through the generations.
Zahakiel: We’ve done several detailed studies about such passages as Ephesians 4 and Acts 6, which demonstrate beyond any realistic possibility of controversy that there was a divine reason for the institution of the Church structure, including the system of pastors, elders, teachers, etc., and that those who reject these concepts are turning away from the very tools that Yahweh has given to His people for their sanctification, for being made holy, “without which no man shall see the Lord.” (Heb 12:14)
And if we are particularly critical of independent ministries in Adventism, it is only because Seventh-day Adventists, of all people, ought well to know better. The writings of Ellen White provide a dramatic modern witness to the necessity of unity among the saints, especially in these last days when the Third Angel leads a single, united people in protest against the Beast and His Image. These are things we studied in the very first New Moon study of which we have an online transcript: “Christian Unity.”
Now we shall see that, aside from working against the unity of the brethren, in some cases very actively, independent ministries are providing “unlawful service” to Yahweh, thinking they are doing Him a favor, when in point of fact they are frustrating the prayer of the Messiah as John recorded it.
Independent ministries are formed on one of two bases. Either a) they perceive some problem with the “Mother Church” and break off in order to rebuke it, or b) they think that the Church has stalled in its growth, and that they have some better idea to share with the world. These two subtle variations on a theme are responsible for all the independent ministries I’ve ever encountered.
Some have said, “The Trinity is false,” and broke away from the Church because of its apostasy. Some have said, “The Church isn’t anti-war enough,” and broke off because of this. Some have said, “The organization is corrupt,” and left because of that.
Zahakiel: “But,” some may ask, “hasn’t the CSDA Church done the same thing?” Not quite. We did not leave the mainstream Church because we believe we have a better idea than what Seventh-day Adventism was originally raised up to offer. We did not leave in order to rebuke an error within the Church and thus “save” it. We left because a Church that unites with the state government is “unchurched,” is a Church no longer, and this is not the same as apostasy or some error in doctrine, or even the corruption within the body itself. We left for the same reason that the apostles left established Judaism, and the Reformers left the Roman Catholic body. For some people the line between these two concepts is faint and difficult to see, despite the examples we have in the Bible of legitimate departures, so we’ll try to clarify it here.
Without going into the details of any individual independent ministry, it is safe to say that every one of them violated Gospel Order in order to become established. The order of events for each time that God has called out a new set of workers from the old is this:
1) There is a falling away from established doctrines.
2) There is the adoption of new, erroneous theories.
3) The beliefs of the organization are made into a “creed” by which the orthodoxy of its members and prospective members are examined.
4) The organization unites with the civil power in order to punish those who violate its decrees.
5) The organization proceeds to persecute those who reject its doctrines, particularly those that claim some manner of affiliation with it.
6) As a result of this persecution, which amounts to a fresh crucifixion of Christ in the person of His saints, the organization passes a breaking point from which there is no recovery.
It is only then that a legitimate calling-forth takes place, and there has never been an exception to this process at any time in the history of God’s dealings with humanity. Yet every independent ministry in existence, as contrasted with a true reformation, has either come forth before step 6, or too late afterward in an attempt to “save” the original body. It should be noted that those who come out after step 6, but without realizing the significance of that sixth step, are in the same boat as those who leave early – the motive behind their departure is not to follow the will of Yahweh as expressed in his response to this “Babylon fallen” condition, but for some other reasoning entirely.
Is this distinction clear, between independent ministries and genuine reformations of a religious body?
Rita: Yes.
Crystle: Yes.
Happy Rock: Yes.
Ye: Yes.
Barb: Yes.
Naraiel: Yes.
Annetta: Yes.
Guerline: Yes.
Zahakiel: Now here is where the unlawful service is offered. As I mentioned, independent ministries tend to leave either too early, or too late with the wrong reasoning.
If they leave to early, they are placing their hands on the Ark as Uzza did. They are trying to steady a holy object that is already on the wrong course, being carried along by oxen and not Levites, but is nevertheless still holy. If there are unsanctified leaders carrying a Church, following the impulses of the flesh like oxen, when there should be elect men guiding matters, that is indeed cause for sorrow; but it is no cause for a hostile takeover or a withdrawing of sensitive souls right when the Body could use sincere prayers from faithful Christians the most. Those who withdraw at this point may think they are doing what God wants them to do, but they are not following Biblical principles or sanctified reasoning. God has not said to them, “Come out of her, my people,” for at that point her sins have not yet reached “unto heaven;” (Rev 18:4, 5) indeed, without understanding the above list of six steps on some level, they would not even be equipped to know when such a point had been reached.
Now, those who leave after the organization has fallen, similarly misunderstanding the six points of descent, yet thinking they can save all or some of the former Church, are doing what Joab, the Amalekite, and the two sons of Rimmon did. After the fall of the old Body, a new One has already been appointed, just as David had been anointed by Yah to be the new King even before Saul departed this world. Yet the purpose of the new Church is not to “destroy” the old one; it is to seek to win hearts away from error and into the truth. Those who leave the Old Church after its fall ought not to go about killing it with their words, as the youth says he did to Saul, or trying to establish a new ruler as Ishbosheth’s killers were attempting to do. No, the replacement has already been established, and those who wish to do Yahweh’s will have the responsibility to find it, not to create it again, or to attack the fallen body.
Now naturally, it is the responsibility of those who know the truth to rebuke error, and this will often involve protesting the errors and persecutions of a former body that has gone through the six steps of apostasy we have listed. Yet this is not just some random attack, or the main purpose of the Body, but an expression of genuine love for those who are being misled.
Zahakiel: Recently I was shown an email response given by someone who has been made aware of the CSDA Church’s activities. This individual expressed some distaste for the letters we’ve written to the General Conference officials, believing that we are “bothering” these poor men with our problems. I believe such sympathy for the individuals we are “troubling” (1Kings 18:17) with our communications are grossly misplaced. Whatsoever inconvenience the policy-makers and lawyers of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists experience as a result of our heartfelt warnings ought to be weighed against the terror, the poverty, the deprivation of personal freedom and, worst of all, the restriction of religious liberty, that has come about as a direct result of the deliberate actions of these men. Which of us is really demonstrating agape? We must be careful to judge spiritual matters spiritually, and not because of the inclinations of the carnal, and often misguidedly emotional, heart.
The above paragraph leads smoothly into our second application of the “unlawful service” principle, but before we go there, I want to make sure everyone is clear on the application to independent ministries. They may (by leaving early) try to “fix” something that Yahweh hasn’t yet declared broken, and lay their unsanctified hands on the Ark of the Covenant. They may also (by leaving after it has fallen but without the motive of uniting with the genuine believers) go about with harsh words for their former Body, rebukes for those who will not listen, or attacks on the relatively innocent, when their whole duty is to find those who are already walking in Yahweh’s will, and unite with them according to the prayer of John 17.
Are there any questions about these things?
Annetta: No.
Rita: No.
Naraiel: No.
Guerline: No.
Happy Rock: No.
Crystle: No questions.
Kimberly: No.
Ye: No.
The Persecution of Heretics
Zahakiel: Here is the second application of the “unlawful service” principle: the persecution of heretics, genuine or perceived.
Satan knows how to do his work very well. He allows humans to be outraged at sin, at crime, at injustice, at the worst kind of intolerant behavior… but he allows us to do so only when looking backward. If only people realized what hypocrites he was making of our species because we allow him to do this… but multitudes will only realize this too late to do themselves or others any good.
Few protested the witch hunts of the earlier centuries. Few dared speak against the Inquisition, and brave warriors signed up for the Crusades due to the promise of earthly and heavenly reward. Today, we look back on these things as spots, dark and ugly, on the history of Christianity. But how many are able to see the subtler, yet no less real, activities of the enemy of souls in the movements going on right under their noses?
The fallen angels need not use torture, death, bloodshed or violence to accomplish their goals. There was a time when this was an effective way to distract the clergy and the laity from the promises of the Gospel. Today, a much more potent method is being employed in many cases: the legal system. The very civility of the modern legal process can be its most dangerous characteristic, for in quiet, decent ways, it positions itself to restrict freedom from those who believe it to be on their side. The second beast, we must remember, appears to be a lamb, but speaks like a dragon. (Rev 13:11) What this amounts to is an “acceptable” inquisition, a peaceful, organized, disciplined witch-hunt that will leave (if allowed to run its course) a world full of respectful, human-law-abiding, morally decent human beings… and not one genuine, Spirit-filled, Bible-believing Christian. That is the goal of the enemy.
Zahakiel: It is this subtle deception that allows us to recoil with shock at the injustices of the past, but turn a blind eye to the injustices we see around us right now. It is this that allows Seventh-day Adventists to fast and pray that they will be counted faithful when the Sunday-Law comes about from a union of Church and state to restrict their religious liberty… yet when they are told that the same terrible thing is being done to other professed Christians on their behalf, they say, “That’s not my problem.” The evil one has made hypocrites of them… and it is our prayer, and the object of our earnest labor, that this veil of mystery be lifted from just a few sensitive eyes.
We look back in sadness at the way human beings have treated other human beings in the past, but unless we look at how we treat each other today, often in the name of Jesus, or at least in the name of “good,” we will never truly be doing what our loving Father in Heaven really wants us to do for the greatest possible good. We may be performing a service, yes, but an unlawful service.
How we treat each other leads into our final application of this idea, but before we do I want everyone to be clear on the second. The Word of God contains not one teaching, not one passage or verse, that indicates anywhere that a Christian is responsible for deciding who a “heretic” is and then persecuting him or her. The doctrines of Yahshua are laid out in sufficiently clear detail that none need err; and if we discover that someone is not abiding in these principles we are told to reason with them, to pray for them. And, if these things fail, are we to burn them, imprison them or cast them to the lions? No, we are to leave them alone. If they happen to be a member of the Church we must (for the purity of the Body) disfellowship them and then… just as before, leave them in peace.
Zahakiel: The last step of Gospel Order is to treat the offender who will not repent “as an heathen man and a publican,” (Mat 18:17) which did not involve suing him or taking away his livelihood. Paul said of someone who would not hear his instructions that he was forced to “deliver such an one unto Satan [not the legal system or the executioner] for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1Cor 5:5) That was not a threat; Paul is simply stating that if these individuals are choosing to serve Satan, let them see the harvest of such service, that perhaps they will repent before the close of their case in Heaven. Again, we are taught, “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject,” (Titus 3:10) and if he continues to claim to be a Christian despite his rejection, “with such an one no not to eat.” (1Cor 5:11) lest it be thought that his words or actions are acceptable.
Does everyone understand this?
Annetta: Yes.
Naraiel: Yes.
Crystle: Yes.
Guerline: Yes.
Rita: Yes.
Barb: Yes.
Happy Rock: Yes.
Ye: Yes.
Kimberly: Yes.
Officiousness
Zahakiel: The last of our applications is the idea of officiousness, which plagues our non-members and has even, to a degree, troubled some of our current members in the past before clear light on this subject came forth.
In some of the studies I’ve written, such as the relevant passages in The Two Temples and the Highway of Holiness books, we’ve looked at officiousness as a negative from the point of view of the person to whom help is being offered. If the individual is given the impression that he or she cannot possibly do anything properly, this is bad for growth. Similarly, if an individual is not allowed to make a few mistakes in the practice of some unfamiliar task, true mastery will not be possible.
But what about from the point of view of the offerer? This is not something we’ve looked at in any great detail before. The officious individual suffers a loss greater than one to whom the undesired help was offered, for he brings upon himself the displeasure of Yahweh. Of course, we as Christians ought to be the most courteous, the most helpful of all people, and with this our Father in Heaven is well pleased; but we must also temper the desire to be helpful with wisdom, lest we be more of a nuisance than a minister.
I have often thought, and I can say this here because we are in a family setting, that 8-9/10ths of the problems with those who have undergone our baptismal examinations and not been approved comes from the practice of simply speaking too much or at the wrong time.
“But,” you might ask, “isn’t the purpose of the baptismal examination to identify spiritual problems? What does speaking too much have to do with it? And, if we simply stop speaking so much, isn’t this just fixing the outside problem and not really cleansing the inside of the vessel?”
Of course, Yahshua said, “cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.” (Mat 23:26) But two questions need to be asked:
1) Is the behavior acceptable until the inside of the cup is clean? And
2) How is the inside of the cup to be cleansed, anyway?
Zahakiel: Obviously, if the person isn’t sure why the behavior is wrong, but gets continuous negative feedback about some habit from reasonably reliable sources, it would be sensible for him or her to curb the activity until it’s figured out. But more importantly is the question of how to go about cleaning the inside of the cup. Obviously, prayers are necessary, and should be the very first step; but there’s something else that can be done as well…
When children are being taught something, are they first taught the theory and then encouraged to put it into practice? No… if a child is being taught to speak he’s not instructed in how the words developed from more primitive forms and educated about the theory of communication… the child is told “Speak,” and encouraged to do so by frequent examples. By practice, all that is required to properly use the language will become clear. If it is necessary to know more about the theory, then the opportunities will present themselves when the time is right. Consider this matter spiritually, and some of you… please commit it to fervent prayer.
Solomon said, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” (Pro 22:6) Yahshua then said, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” (Mat 18:3)
It seems to me, therefore, that as long as one is new to spiritual things, the best way to go about learning is to do, to “do His will [and] he shall know of the doctrine,” (John 17:17) as we saw a little earlier.
So what does this mean, practically? Simply this: speak/act/offer help when you’re sure that what you are saying or doing is going to be of benefit to the object of your potential assistance. If you’re constantly getting into trouble for offering unwanted help, stop doing it, hesitate (unless it’s clear there is an emergency) until you’ve had a chance to look at it from Heaven’s perspective first. If you’re not sure that the help is necessary, wait, pray, and see if the opportunity will come up naturally.
If there are spiritual problems that lead to officiousness; or, more generally, if spiritual problems lead to defects of character that show up in baptismal examinations, at the very least correct the behavior while you work on the underlying issues. Remember that the Law did come before Christ and the ability to fully understand it; and as Isaiah said, “cease to do evil, learn to do well.” (Isa 1:16, 17) That’s the order. Demonstrate a desire to correct the problem, and then your actions will be rewarded with insight into the spiritual condition, and your prayers (which should be constantly offered once it’s established a problem exists) will be answered with victory over the unlawful service. As James wrote, “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone,” (James 2:17) and I believe that has an application here as well.
Are there any questions about this concept?
Rita: No.
Barb: No.
Annetta: No.
Crystle: No.
Naraiel: No.
Guerline: No.
Happy Rock: No.
Guerline: All is clear.
Ye: No.
Conclusion
Zahakiel: As we conclude, let me summarize the main points of today’s study. First, we saw several examples from the early history of King David, in which several individuals thought they were doing the king a service, when in reality they were acting directly contrary to his desires, because they had a wrong impression of his character. I didn’t state this so explicitly above, but that’s really what it boils down to – misjudging what it is that the king wanted done.
Next we saw three applications of this kind of unlawful service:
1) Independent ministries believe they are doing God a favor, when invariably, unless they are a genuine reformation (which always takes place according to some rigidly defined criteria) they are actually forwarding the work of Satan in deceiving and misleading innocent souls.
2) Religious organizations that directly disobey the Will of God by persecuting heretics, an idea utterly alien to the Scriptures. This persecution can come in forms that may be blatant, (e.g., the Inquisition) obvious to those who know their Bibles (e.g., the Sunday Law) or so subtle that “if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Mat 24:24, e.g., the SDA Trademark)
3) Individuals who, while possessing the well-intentioned desire to be helpful, do not balance their zeal with wisdom, or the voice of the Spirit that often allows individuals to learn things in a more hands-on manner than certain observers may find comfortable.
It is our work, as Yah’s people, to be doers of the Word. As it is written, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified,” (Rom 2:13) and again, “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” (James 1:22) Here, as in all things really, James and Paul are in perfect agreement. We see, by these witnesses, that it is necessary for us to be not only hearers of the Law, but doers also. But let us not forget, in our enthusiasm to be “doers,” that we must be “hearers” first! If we are mere doers, we can never be sure that what we are doing is what we should be doing, and this is as bad, if not worse, as those who hear the truth but do nothing.
Does everyone understand these things?
Ye: Yes.
Annetta: Yes.
Rita: Yes.
Crystle: Yes.
Happy Rock: Yes.
Guerline: Yes.
Zahakiel: Then I’ll ask brother Peter to dismiss us from the meeting with a prayer.
Happy Rock: Loving Father,
We thank you for such a blessing. We ask you to help us put into practice all that you have shown unto us today. May your will be done in our lives we pray in the name of Yahshua, amen.
Zahakiel: Amen.
Annetta: Amen.
Barb: Amen.
Ye: Amen.
Naraiel: Amen.
Guerline: Amen.
Kimberly: Amen.
Crystle: Amen.
