A guide has multiple responsibilities. Not only does he lead the way and explain points of interest along the way, but he also assumes responsibility for the safety and welfare of those he leads. Usually before the adventure begins, the guide briefs his followers about any pitfalls that may lie ahead or about potential dangers that may lurk in unexpected places. It is always good to know before going into something what the risks and hazards are.
The Bible is our guide to worship that is both acceptable and pleasing to the Lord. It is not surprising, then, that along with the instructions that we are to follow, there are also warnings that we are to heed. It makes sense to start with the warnings.
In one of His frequent exchanges with the Pharisees, the Lord Jesus said, “In vain they do worship me” (Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7). The sad danger is that vain worship is possible. Worshiping in vain is worshiping without purpose or result, in emptiness and deception. Two factors mark this worthless worship. First, it abandons God’s directives in favor of man’s traditions: “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your traditions…teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:6, 9; see also Mark 7:7-8). Second, it is talk without heart: “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me” (Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6). That Christ quotes this indictment from Isaiah 29:13 indicates that it was not just a Pharisaical flaw. Heartless religion was possible in the Old Testament dispensation; it was rampant in the days of Christ’s earthly incarnation; unhappily, it pervades even the best of churches today. If we can learn anything from Christ’s appeal to Isaiah in His exposé of first- century Pharisaical hypocrisy, it is this: God has never been and will never be satisfied with heartless worship. Heartless worship is a major pitfall to avoid.
Tragically, the notion seems to be deeply ingrained in man that formal acts of worship—whatever form they take—constitute legitimate worship that will by its very performance be accepted by God. Men tend to form their opinions of God from their estimations of themselves. Because they satisfy themselves with outward acts of ritual, they assume that God must be satisfied as well. Many people today who are without Christ assume that going to church and keeping the golden rule will somehow balance to their favor in the end. Even many who profess Christ allow their pious religious routines to substitute for private devotion and a sincere heart. To estimate God in this way is either to question His omniscience—that He is able to see the heart—or His moral perfection—that He cares about the heart. In contrast to all this human reasoning is the divine preference for heart obedience over manual religion: “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Sam. 15:22).
Nonetheless, so convinced are some that their “worship” works that they cannot fathom the notion it does not. The Lord’s incontestable indictment of Israel’s heartless religion recorded in Micah 6 illustrates this unfounded confidence. The nation defended itself against God’s accusation by arguing that if God was not satisfied with what they were doing, it was His fault for not making His expectations clear. They claimed that they were willing to offer any sacrifice He wanted; all He had to do was ask.
Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? (Micah 6:6-7)
Their self-justifying questions concerning how to approach and satisfy God reveal both the false conception that external religion is enough to please Him and the frustration as to how much is enough. This dilemma always plagues those who assume that outward displays of religion or personal deprivations please God. Since there can never be any certainty that enough has been done, the cyclic solution is to do more and more. Their quandary is evident in the intensification of their offers ranging from the best of the animal sacrifices (calves of a year old) to the exaggerated quantities of sacrifices (thousands of rams and ten thousand rivers of oil) to the desperate abomination of child sacrifice. Their willingness to stoop to heathen practice in order to reach the heights of God reveals their total ignorance not only of what God wants but of who God is. Ironically, rather than defending itself, Israel further incriminated itself by assuming He wanted things rather than hearts.
Because heartless religion is so offensive to God and constitutes such a dangerous impediment to biblical worship, I want to focus our attention on a representative text from the opening of Isaiah’s prophecy and let the Bible speak for itself.
Before this Old Testament evangelist declares any of his magnificent messianic pronouncements, he elaborates on the danger of vain worship. Isaiah’s logic is faultless. This prince of old dispensation preachers addressed the visible covenant community, warning them that being Israelites—notwithstanding the privileges and advantages—was not sufficient to make them acceptable before God. Unhappily, Isaiah’s message to the covenant sinners of his day has too much relevance to the churched sinners of our day. Now as then, would-be worshipers must learn the folly and danger of heartless religion and consider that the only cure to heartless religion is a spiritual relationship with God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing less or other will satisfy God. While exposing the deplorable spiritual condition of the people, Isaiah both reveals the problem of and offers the solution to heartless worship. Three themes are on the surface of his argument.
The Problem Of Spiritual Insensitivity
External religion breeds spiritual insensitivity by making the “worshiper” oblivious to his real spiritual condition. The moral depravity of the nation magnified the worthlessness of their outward religion. In spite of the Lord’s special interest in Israel—evident by His father- like care and provision for them—they rebelled against Him, defying and resisting His rightful authority (v. 2). In order to demonstrate the absurdity of Israel’s attitude and behavior and to highlight the degree of their spiritual stupidity and insensitivity, the prophet contrasted the people’s irrational ignorance to the apparently rational behavior of dumb beasts: “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider” (v. 3). Oxen and donkeys are not particularly bright animals, but they exercise better sense than thoughtless worshipers. The dullness of these animals in contrast to the special enlightenment of Israel makes the comparison extremely pointed. Whereas the dumb ox and donkey never fail to know their owner or the place of their sustenance, Israel failed to know. The Hebrew concept of knowing is much more than simple mental awareness or understanding; it conveys the notion of willful acknowledgment and recognition. Israel’s ignorance consisted in the failure both to acknowledge the Lord as master and to recognize Him as the source and sustainer of life. The last verb of verse 3, consider, continues the condemnation by stressing the failure to give attention to what they should be thinking about. Unaware of their privilege, they were not worshiping perceptively or properly. Since true worship flows from the knowledge of God, it follows that improper thinking about God contaminates and invalidates any act of worship.
The Cause Of Spiritual Insensitivity
Although Isaiah 1:4 is a worst-case scenario, it illustrates how far the distance can be between God and those who are professedly worshipping Him. The prophet expresses his grief (woe) over the lamentable state of the people by making it unmistakably clear that their spiritual ignorance and insensitivity was related to their depraved condition and behavior. Piling four unflattering epithets (“sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters”) on top of three verbal clauses without using any conjunctions (“forsaken…, provoked…, gone away backward”), the prophet, in grammatical rapid-fire, depicts the nation’s spiritual plight. All together, the sevenfold combination warns us that “worshipers” can in actuality be alienated from God, active in sin, and confirmed in guilt. Religion, ironically, can make a person oblivious to sin, but it cannot solve the problem of sin.
The three verbal clauses, particularly, address the root of the matter: alienation from God. Each of these verbs expresses what the people really thought about God. Although their involvement in ritual gave the impression that they were drawing near to the Lord, the opposite was in fact true. And God knew it. First, they forsook the Lord. In the Old Testament, forsaking the Lord is the comprehensive expression of apostasy: they abandoned Him. That the LORD is the stated object of this forsaking makes it even worse. This is the personal name of God associated inseparably with the covenant. Therefore, to abandon the LORD was to reject that special relationship with all of its corresponding responsibilities. Second, they provoked the Holy One of Israel to anger. More literally, they despised and irreverently disdained Him. This particular form of the verb (the iterative use of the piel) suggests this contempt to be deliberate and sustained. Again, the stated object of this disrespect—“the Holy One of Israel”—intensifies the violence of the act. Whereas His holiness demanded the reverent recognition of His unique distinction, they callously regarded Him as though He was nothing special at all. Third, they turned away backward. The verb is reflexive (niphal) and thus it underscores the self-determination and self-interest involved in this estrangement. They alienated themselves. Notwithstanding their religious routines, their heart and thoughts drew them away from the Lord.
Three of the four descriptive epithets synopsize the behavior of the nation that exhibited their alienation from God, and the remaining one pronounces the necessary consequence of such behavior. Significantly, the three statements describing the nation’s sinful activity boldface the endlessness of the transgressions by using participles, grammatical forms that in Hebrew emphasize the habitual performance of the stated condition. Sin was a way of life. First, their behavior was marked by sin (“sinful nation”). Their purpose as a nation set apart as God’s special possession was “to keep all his commandments” and to be “an holy people unto the LORD” (Deut. 26:18-19). But tragically, they were constantly missing the mark or goal that God had set for them: they were habitually falling short of the glory of God (cf. Rom. 3:23). Second, they were a group whose common attribute was the doing of evil (“a seed of evildoers”). Outside of the moral and ethical sphere, the word “evil” refers to calamity or disaster, expressing a disorder in the regular arrangement of circumstances. In the moral sphere, it conveys the disruption or violation of the orderly standards and rules of God. They were guilty of disorderly conduct with calamitous consequence to both self and society at large. Third, they were a class of people whose behavior was ruinous, corrupt, and destructive (“children that are corrupters”). Perpetual sin against God, self, and society are not behaviors you might expect from those worshipping God.
The fourth unflattering caption of the nation declares the consequence of sinful practices: they were a people encumbered with guilt (“a people laden with iniquity”). The terseness of Isaiah’s language paints a vivid picture of a people bowed down with a dreadful burden (literally, “a people heavy of iniquity”). The term “iniquity” simply means twisted or crooked and, when referring to sin, presents it as perverseness, a twisting away from the proper path. However, this word not only designates the act of sin but by metonymy also refers to sin’s consequences in terms of punishment or guilt. Indeed, it is the principal word used in the Old Testament to designate guilt as the consequence of sin. The fact that this epithet does not use a participle to express habitual behavior, as do the other three expressions, would suggest the consequence of guilt to be in view rather than the commission of some sort of perverse behavior. The Lord had them pegged for what they really were; the fact that they were in the church only intensified the guilt.
The Callousness Of Spiritual Insensitivity
God always deals with sinners for their sin, and Israel was not exempt from chastisement. Although divine discipline is justly punitive, it should be remedial in its consequence. Good parents punish misbehaving children, inflicting discomfort both to warn of the more severe end of sin and to encourage proper behavior. Few things are more disappointing and frustrating to parents than unresponsive children. Some children seem never to learn regardless of the intensity or frequency of disciplinary measures. This is the analogy Isaiah uses to picture God’s “frustration” over the callousness of the nation’s spiritual insensitivity. In verse 2, the Lord declared that He had “nourished and brought up children” and that they had rebelled against Him. Verses 5-9 describe a people who had already experienced some of the consequences of sin. They had been chastised but remained oblivious to what the Lord, as a father, was doing.
The prophet describes Israel’s condition in terms of an individual whose entire body bears evidence of wounds.
…the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment. (vv. 5b–6)Although these words vividly imply the total effects of sin and thus are often employed as biblical proof of the truth of man’s total depravity, their principal focus points to wounds that have been inflicted externally either by the sword or by scourging rather than to sores that fester from internal and inherent corruption. That verses 7 and 8 detail the invasion of the land by foreigners confirms the imagery. Sadly, these are wounds to which there was no response; they were ignored and left untreated to putrefy through infection.
The question of verse 5 indicates that the Lord was the primary agent who inflicted the wounds and that in spite of the thoroughness with which He had punished, the nation continued in rebellion. There are two possible translations of this question, both of which engender amazement over the persistent rebellion: (1) “Why will you be stricken again?” or (2) “Where can you be stricken anymore?” The first suggests the foolishness of a people who continue to be beaten when repentance could remedy their condition. The second pictures a body that, having been beaten so repeatedly and extensively, has no unwounded area. It underscores the insensitive and obdurate character of the nation that remained contumacious despite multiplied efforts to arouse spiritual concern. Regardless of the translation, the significance is pretty much the same. It is as though the Lord is asking in “divine frustration” where He could smite them again to do any good. I can only wonder if Isaiah’s morbid image does not mirror the detailed account of God’s successive disciplinary acts that his contemporary Amos indexed, each with the tragic refrain, “…yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD” (4:6-12). Isaiah’s description of this spiritual callousness soundly echoes the warning of Solomon: “He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy” (Prov. 29:1). All the religion in the world is not the remedy. In fact, heartless religion was a chief contributor to the problem.
The Evaluation Of Empty Worship
Outwardly religious people are often the most difficult to convince of their need for God. No doubt, the people responded to Isaiah’s message of condemnation with skepticism and disbelief, claiming that their worship habits exempted them from any divine displeasure. False security seems always to accompany hypocritical worship (cf. Mal. 1:6-7; 3:8). With irrefutable argument, Isaiah levels God’s complaint against these trained sinners by proving that their religion was inwardly wrong although it was outwardly right. Verses 10-15 record God’s evaluation of empty worship.
Outwardly Right
A survey of this passage indicates that the people observed the letter of the law; they followed the Mosaic instructions according to rule, doing everything they were supposed to do. In terms of modern worship jargon, they adhered flawlessly to the regulative principle. The manner in which they multiplied sacrifices suggests that they were absolutely and indisputably orthodox (v. 11). The burnt offerings required the sacrificial victim to be burned completely on the altar; they held nothing back. The fat represented the best part of the sacrifice to be reserved for the Lord; they offered the fattest. The blood marked the most essential element of the sacrifice; from bulls to goats they shed it all. Not only were they orthodox in the manner of their worship, but they were consistent in observing all of the required feasts and ceremonies; they never missed an occasion for worship (vv. 13-14). If the “church doors” were open, they were there: they had a perfect attendance record. Similarly, they prayed fervently; spreading the hands was symbolic of fervor and zeal (v. 15). They were consistent in their “daily devotions.” Since all of this was true, it never crossed their minds that God could be displeased with them. They were satisfied; they assumed God would be as well.
Inwardly Wrong
Although God was the author of Israel’s system of worship, He categorically rejected its formalistic practice by a people whose behavior and character warranted the appellations “rulers of Sodom” and “people of Gomorrah” (v. 10). Given what He knew to be the condition of their hearts, the Lord’s analysis of Israel’s worship was justifiably harsh. How He saw their religion differed dramatically from how they perceived it. He saw their approach to Him as a treading of His courts (v. 12). Treading is an activity normally associated with beasts—a graphic image. Without regard for God’s holiness, these worshippers lumbered ox-like in the delicate surroundings of the temple, like the proverbial bull in the china shop. He regarded their oblations as “vain” (v. 13). What should have been a sincere reflection of devoted hearts was in fact empty, unsubstantial, and worthless. The Lord also regarded their ineffectual offerings as an “abomination,” something most disgusting and detestable (v. 13). Significantly, the Scripture frequently uses this term to describe God’s attitude toward idolatry. It is sobering to realize that God regards hypocritical and heartless worship of Himself to be just as repugnant and loathsome as the worship of false gods. Even the hands spread so diligently in prayer only pretended piety because the Lord saw the hands as dripping with the guilt of violence (i.e., full of blood, v. 15). Orthodoxy (right doctrine) and orthopraxis (right practice)—though essential elements—are not the sum total of genuine religion and acceptable worship.
The Lord’s assessment of empty religion accounts for His attitude and actions towards it. Several first-person declarations express the divine repugnance and grief. The initial question of verse 11 sets the tone for the crescendo of disgust that follows: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me?” The terseness of the literal rendering suggests something of the disdain He had for every detail of their worship: “What to me is the abundance of your sacrifices?” Their worship meant nothing to Him; there was a total disconnect between the Lord and what they were doing. That the Lord asks those appearing before Him who had “required this” from them implies that He had no part in their pious masquerade (v. 12). In language that can only be classified as boldly anthropopathic (language expressing human feelings), the Lord declares that He has had enough of their burnt offerings (v. 11, “I am full”), that He has grown tired of their rituals (v. 14, “I am weary”), and that He just could not take it any more (v. 13, “I cannot away with”). For omnipotent Deity to confess such exhaustion highlights how offensive heartless worship must be to the Lord. Given God’s attitude about heartless religion, there can be no surprise that He declares His lack of pleasure in their sacrifices (v. 11, “I delight not”), His refusal to accept their observances as legitimate acts of worship (v. 14, “my soul hateth,” i.e., rejects), and His repudiation of their prayers by shutting (literally, darkening) His eyes and closing His ears (v. 15, “I will hide” and “I will not hear”).
The lesson is clear, and the application is encompassing: God is not satisfied with external religion. Even the right mechanics of worship are without merit. Worship must be the expression of faith.
The Corrective Of Worthless Worship
As offensive as worthless worship is before the Lord, the offenders are not beyond the reach of His grace. There is hope for sinners, even for those who are highly trained in religion. Grace transforms sinners to saints, creating hearts capable of the purity required for true worship. And grace, once received, always shows itself in life, revealing the clean hands that are equally required for true worship. Psalm 24:3-4 states the inviolable law of worship: “Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? Or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart….” So to these wickedly religious people, whose hearts were corrupt and whose hands were dirty, the Lord extends hope by offering His grace and explaining what that grace demands.
The Demand Of True Religion
God demands that the life of would-be worshipers correspond to the practice of their religion. Israel had made a mockery of their worship by the impiety of their lives, and things had to change. Verses 16 and 17 state both negatively and positively what God requires for a truly pious life—for those who would worship rightly. Simply stated, they had to stop sinning and start behaving well. Negatively, the Lord commanded the people to cleanse themselves, which could be accomplished by putting away the evil and ceasing to do it (v. 16). The principle is clear: fellowship with God demands purity. Positively, the Lord instructed them to “learn to do well” (v. 17). He followed that general requirement with specific examples of how that good behavior could show itself in life (e.g., kindness to widows and orphans). Interestingly, the New Testament defines true religion in almost the same terms. “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” ( James 1:27). The point is that there is more to true piety than just talk. That is always true. What God demanded for those who approach Him in worship was a far cry from what they were. Repentance is essential to correcting worthless worship; without it, true worship is impossible.
The Offer Of Grace
Isaiah 1:18, one of those high water texts in the Bible, sets the course for the necessary repentance. Although it invites lengthy discourse, I must resist temptation and highlight just a couple of thoughts. First, the Lord issues a most gracious invitation: “Come now, and let us reason together.” We can’t take this to mean that God is offering to make concessions to sinners through negotiation. God never makes deals nor compromises His absolute requirements in order to entice worshipers. Rather, the invitation is to face the facts by grace-generated understanding and then to submit to the dictates that God establishes. The only saving way for a sinner to reason with God is to forsake his own thoughts, which are contrary to God’s, and to agree with God’s, which are infinitely superior to his (see Isa. 55:7-9). Reasoning with God is submitting to Him; anything else is unreasonable. It is the response of faith.
Second, the Lord declares His willingness and ability to forgive. In spite of the indisputable evidence of guilt (sins red like scarlet and crimson), the Lord pardons: He turns red to white. This color modification pictures the cleansing or pardon necessary for acceptance before the Lord. Again keep in mind the law of worship: only those with clean hands and pure hearts can approach His holy presence (Ps. 24:3– 4). Contrarily, these people had been trying to worship the Lord with hands dripping in blood guiltiness (v. 15) and with hearts in rebellion (v. 2), so the Lord Himself makes them fit for worship by forgiving their transgressions. But that should not be surprising seeing that the Lord is good and “ready to forgive,” abounding in mercy to all that call upon Him (Ps. 86:5). Although the Lord commands them to cleanse themselves (v. 16), He declares them clean. The link between the divine command and the divine operation is common (e.g., “sanctify yourselves…I am the Lord which sanctify you” in Lev. 20:7-8). That is grace, and it is the only way the necessary changes can occur.
If anything is obvious from Isaiah’s indictment of Israel’s vain worship, it is that God takes worship seriously. Isaiah’s warning is clear enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment