|
|
||
|
|
|||
For some reason, in my prayers this week, the word “abomination” kept coming to my mind as something I should explore. I did a study of the times that it appears in the Bible, and while it does appear mostly in the Old Testament, its meaning in both is the same, something that is repulsive, hateful, and that brings to mind a bad smell.
There are two ways that the word is used in the Scriptures as they have been translated for us. In the first, and perhaps most obvious, it is used when describing a grievous sin, something that will destroy the soul of those that participate in certain actions. Here are some verses that demonstrate what I mean:
“Thou shalt not sacrifice unto Yahweh thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evil-favouredness, for that is an abomination unto Yahweh thy God.” (Deu 17:1)
“Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the House of Yahweh thy God for any vow; for even both these are abomination unto Yahweh thy God.” (Deu 23:18)
We know the following passage quite well for its spiritual application to the Mark of The Beast: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife, her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Yahweh, and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” (Deu 24:1-4) That is a very specific action being described here, but we will see why it is important.
“The way of the wicked is an abomination unto Yahweh, but He loveth him that followeth after righteousness.” (Pro 15:9)
“He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to Yahweh.” (Pro 17:15)
I don’t think any of these verses are surprising. Yahweh hates wicked things. There were many other verses that I could have listed here that identify such things as witchcraft, cheating in business, sacrificing children to false gods, and so on. What I find most often listed, though, in the verses that use “abomination” in this first way involves something that defiles the relationship between Yahweh and mankind, either directly, such as by idolatry and disrespect of the sacrifices, or indirectly in symbol, such as through marriage and intimate acts.
Those things that separate us from our Father in Heaven are described in these and many other verses as abominations to Him. Because of His love for us, anything that destroys or weakens that bond, that connection, is a detestable, hateful thing that has a bad “smell.” We know that true worship, the praise of human beings, is sometimes described as having a good smell in Yahweh’s perception.
We read, for example, “And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar. It is a burnt offering unto Yahweh; it is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto Yahweh.” (Exo 29:18)
Here is how the apostles apply it to the Christian life: “Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish.” (2Cor 2:14, 15)
The life of the Christian, the life in Christ that is united with the Father, is the opposite of an abomination. The unity we have with the Father and Son is a life of serving others, of sacrifice, and whether we live or we die, in obeying the principles of Heaven for love’s sake, we do always those things that please our Father and, as I have said in our previous study, He is proud of and joyful with His people. His people are caused “always” to triumph. The life that is not an abomination is the one that always triumphs. This is not something that is often heard taught in the modern Christian Bible School. This is not something that is often heard from the pulpit. If one of us were to go to visit a Church of any kind, whether Baptist, Adventist, Mormon, or Catholic, and say, just quoting the Word of God, “My Father causes me always to triumph in Christ, and He keeps me always from falling.” What do you suppose the reaction would be?
Well, we do not have to suppose. Many of us know from experience. When I was living in Florida, I was invited to give a Bible study on a Sabbath morning to a group of independent Adventists, and I spoke of the First Angel’s Message. I explained that since I had been born again, I turned from a life of sin entirely, and did not transgress my Father’s will in any way that I understood to be wrong. I described the joy of my freedom, and that I was not praising myself, but had been given a gift beyond my ability to create, and that it was available likewise to anyone who wanted it, and was willing to lay down their life of sin to obtain a life of victory. It was a simple message, well presented I believe, and with much Scriptural support.
The people there that day seemed to receive it thoughtfully enough, although there were no shouts of “Amen” or any excitement that they had finally received the message they were awaiting. It turns out that the main teacher of the group had not been there that week, so he did not hear what I shared. I heard afterwards, though, that when he returned, and when he heard what I said, his next week’s study was focused on undercutting what I had taught. I didn’t get many details, but apparently he used an example of an animal or a bird that had been eating a certain meal all its life, and suddenly tasted new food, then got sick and had digestive problems. From what was described to me, the examples used were fairly distasteful, but the intention was clear. Unfortunately, I did not hear anything further from that congregation after that. They had returned to their original diet.
Another time, I was invited to a little group here where I live. A friend of mine, a committed Baptist, had gotten into a bit of a dispute, as I understand it, with the pastor of the local Baptist Church. Some of the congregation supported him, and so they began to gather at his house on Saturday nights for Bible study. He invited me to share a message, because he knew that in my time away, I had joined a new Church and had a story to tell. As in Florida, I spoke about the power of the Victory message, of righteousness by faith, of ceasing to sin. I shared with them that this was not some distant, impossible goal, but was near to us, and that it does not require our strength, but trust in our Father’s promises, in order to be experienced.
It was clear they had never heard a message like this before, and when my friend addressed the group after I had finished, he seemed uncertain. He described what I shared as a “radical challenge,” as something to be deeply considered and… I could see that he could not disagree with what I had said, and did not want to say anything to offend me, but he could not embrace it in its simplicity either, nor could he encourage his group to accept it. He did not invite me back to speak, and we don’t really see each other often any longer.
The things that would or could separate human beings from our Creator are abomination to Him. This could be idolatrous practices, sexual immorality, or a message that does not reveal the truth about the Gospel. These things equally destroy the soul, and they are – all three of them – an integral part of any church that is not truly and genuinely the Bride of Christ. They “stink,” metaphorically and spiritually.
Now, does that mean we should detest those who believe differently than we do, even wrongly, about what Christ has done for us? If they are “abomination,” or taking part in an abomination, doesn’t that mean they should be shunned? Well, in a practical sense I do not see how that would be helpful. It takes wisdom, though, to avoid giving the impression that all beliefs are equal, and that we do not have something unique to share. I would not attend a Church merely for fellowship if I knew that there was something wrong with its message, but I would certainly seek out opportunities to demonstrate the Christian character to its individual members.
This brings us, rather smoothly, to the second way that the word “Abomination” is used in the Bible. There are far fewer examples of this second type, but we may read a few examples of this usage:
“Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.” (Lev 11:12)
“All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.” (Lev 11:20)
We know this chapter fairly well, most of us… they are the food laws, the laws of unclean and clean meats. In fact, the word “abomination” there appears to be used interchangeably with “unclean.” But we note that when our Father is describing the proper diet for His people, it is not written that these things are abominable to Him; instead, they are abominable to us.
In fact, in the Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament, these are two entirely different words. The things that are abominable to Yahweh are described using the word toeba, and things that are abominable to use are called seques. An English-speaker, or perhaps a speaker of any modern language, might miss the difference here. Unclean meats, whether in the water, or of fowl, or swine’s flesh, are seques. That is the word that uniquely describes them when we see the word “abomination” in the Bible. When idolatry, or some other soul-destroying sin is being described, invariably the word toeba is used instead.
Now, why is that important? What is the difference, since both are “bad?” I would like to have known. When I was first taught about Adventism, I was told that unclean meats were an “abomination,” and look at all these verses in the Bible that talk about how hateful abominations are to God. See how offering your children to be burned, or sexual impurity, and eating ham… all these things are condemned in the Scripture, so we should rather die than do any of them. If I was not told this directly, it was strongly implied.
And I am not, in the least, making a statement today undermining the importance of a good, healthy, and Biblically sound diet. I myself have been mostly a vegetarian since I was 19 years old, with the occasional exception of fish for its high protein and low fat composition. These were health decisions that I have made, not merely to please the appetite, so what I am sharing with you is not to cast any doubt on the health benefits of a traditional Adventist diet when it is properly balanced and wisely considered, but we want to know the whole truth about our Father’s words to us.
Now that I consider the matter, it is entirely possible that Yahweh brought this word, “abomination,” to my attention after reading what Bro. Luke recently shared with the Church. It is apparent that some of the things Adventists have traditionally considered to be “landmarks” were not considered so by our Pioneers. Although we believe the Trinity doctrine to be incorrect, rejecting it was never a pillar, or a necessary position, of a member in the early SDA Church. Although we accept the Scriptures’ teachings on clean vs. unclean meats as a reasonable and inspired guideline, James White and other early Adventists did not consider avoiding them to be a test of fellowship.
I do not regret giving up unclean meats, or really any meats, shortly after I became an Adventist, and I am not going to recommend that people start to use them or keep using them, but I certainly question the inclusion of the issue in the “28 Fundamentals” Creed of the mainstream SDA Church. There are certain things that are absolutely “abomination” to us, in that they are, or at least they used to be, unhealthy. They would make us sick. Would modern unclean meats make as sick as they would have made an ancient Israelite, who did not have our knowledge of hygiene, disease, and contamination? Probably not; the Baptists and Methodists are just as correct on this matter as the Adventists. But I know that when I accidentally ate a small amount of ham recently, it made me sick for several days. For one reason or another, it is still “abomination” to me, and so I myself will certainly continue to avoid it.
The point here is an obvious one. We all have the Scriptures to guide us. Church organization, when properly applied, is not the same thing as Church control. Those in the independent ministries, or the solitary worshipper of Yahweh, often fear that they will be controlled, mislead, as they have in their previous experiences with apostate Churches. Thus, they reject all appearance of order. In fact, they are more likely to attempt to be controlling – raging against the Trinitarians, insisting that everyone adopt their view of a proper diet, finding increasingly strange ways to convince themselves and others that the Sunday Law is just around the corner – these are more evidence of a desire for control than the genuine Church will ever adopt.
We remember the work of Jonah the prophet. He was sent to a foreign people, the Ninevites, and he did not go there to be a reformer. They weren’t his people. He didn’t try to get them to become vegetarians, or really even Sabbath-keepers. He just gave them a warning, and left. The people repented of what they realized they were doing wrong, and they were spared the fulfillment of Jonah’s prophecy. There is no indication that these people ever got an inch closer to the Israelites’ religion in any enduring way, but the Scriptures record it as an important event in religious history.
Yahweh did not see these people, ignorant as they were, unlearned in true religion as they were, as abominations. He saw them as worth saving. He saw them as His lost and wandering children. He did not condemn them for wrong doctrines, and He warned them, in time for them to repent, of their wrong practices. This is the heart of Yahweh. This is the true work of the prophets and evangelists.
We read this very important passage from the Book of Acts: “But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, ‘I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from Heaven by four corners; and it came even to me, upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
“‘And I heard a voice saying unto me, “Arise, Peter; slay and eat.” But I said, “Not so, Lord, for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.” But the voice answered me again from Heaven, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” And this was done three times; and all were drawn up again into Heaven.’” (Acts 11:4-10)
As a young and eager Adventist, I would share this passage with others, saying, “See, Peter had never eaten unclean meats, even after being a follower of Christ for years. Clearly, the Savior did not teach anything against the doctrines of Leviticus 11. It says that God is calling men cleansed, not meat.”
Nothing is wrong with that. That is still a true statement, and the passage cannot be used to claim that God has declared unclean meats to suddenly be clean. But let us not miss the point. Jonah was sent by Yahweh to save those who were considered by his people to be “unbelievers.” Peter, similarly, was called to share the message of a Jewish messiah with Gentiles. There were to be no barriers of doctrine or practice, and while there are certainly standards – we would expect any true believer to obey the commandments, including observance of the Sabbath once they are taught its significance – those may rightly be summed up as The Commandments of God and The Faith of Yahshua. Anything else must be a matter of education and conscience, and not seen as a direct indication of conversion or character.
I cannot find one verse of the Bible that says to treat people, especially professed believers, as unclean merely because of what they believe. Look at all the verses that deal with discipline.
Here is how the passage regarding Gospel Order begins: “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Mat 18:15) The “trespass against thee” is not a known sin, or that would be a violation of the faith. It is not a doctrinal disagreement contrary to the Church teachings, because the rest of the verses indicate that it is a personal matter to be settled between the two. It is this, a grievance, not a disagreement about beliefs and practices… that is what will cause the potential revelation of an evil spirit, and perhaps dis-fellowship from the Church. It is a matter of character.
Here is another verse about cutting someone off from fellowship: “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.” (Titus 3:10) Some might read that and say, “Ah, see, there it says ‘heretic,’ which means someone who believes a false doctrine.” It does mean that, but that is not all that it means. It means someone who has accepted a false doctrine, and is using it to bring, as the verse above says, “foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the Law; for they are unprofitable and vain.” (Titus 3:9) It is describing a “troublemaker.”
We may read the parallel in 1 Timothy 6:3-5, and I will quote just a short part from verse 4: “doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings…”
Yet again, we read, “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” (1 Cor 5:11)
In every place where discipline and the need for extreme measures concerning the rejection of doctrine was discussed, the problem was not the belief, but the effect, specifically the impact on the believer’s character, and the believers’ collective unity. Remember, we began by seeing that what is “abomination” to Yahweh is that which separates. If there is a Trinitarian, or one who eats unclean meats, and wishes to fellowship with me, declares that he has victory over all known sin, keeps the commandments of Yahweh, and proclaims the Faith of Yahshua, shall I reject him as a heretic? Certainly not, and it would be false to the character of Christ to use these passages from Titus or Timothy for that purpose.
Those who do these things, who discard and dis-fellowship people because of what they genuinely and conscientiously believe, they are of their father, the Devil. Those who would take it a step further, and seek to persecute, bringing human power to bear, against those who differ from them in matters of faith, they are of their father, the Devil, and they take a mark in their forehead, or in their hand, (Rev 14:9) for this is how we identify the Mark of The Beast itself. They lose all their spiritual discernment, and cannot tell that both their beliefs and their policies are prophets of hell. Let us not be gentle with our words here; this isn’t a matter of doctrine. We are called to reject and denounce the spirit of Satan, the unholy character, no matter where or how it appears.
Consider the Book of 1 John. This is a well-known letter designed to counteract Gnosticism, which is precisely the belief that mankind can be saved while committing sin, as long as he knows the right doctrines. If that sounds familiar, it should. But John writes, “He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:9, 19)
The problem is the effect of false doctrines, leading to a rejection of the Christian character, and ultimately disunity. This is what John was writing to prevent. It is the separation that is the abomination to Yahweh, here and everywhere else. I do not say there are no false doctrines; there are, and we teach against them all. I do not say there are no standards of behavior; there are, and we reflect them to the world in our manner and our testimony. But we need to understand what these verses are telling us – there are no creeds in the true religion of Christ. We don’t need them. We are not as the Pharisees who, for fear of violating the commandments, made a multitude of burdensome rules to protect them from the promptings of their unholy spirits. They had an “inside” problem, and they tried to fix it with an “outside” solution. If the heart is not converted, the works will not matter. If they were clean on the inside, if they had the Holy Spirit dwelling within, they would need nothing but the Commandments of Yahweh, and the Faith of Yahshua.
Lucifer, of course, took this too far, saying “Since we are holy, we need NO rules, we need NO commandments.” That is the excess that destroys the principle. There are things that please our Father, and we must know them in order to always do them. There are beliefs that kill sin in the heart, and reveal a converted soul. But there are no creeds in the true religion of Christ, and we have been mis-taught about some things regarding our Pioneers in Adventism. We have been subject to the propaganda of modern Pharisees, with their subtle leaven.
We have been told, or it has been implied to us, that the founders of our faith were joyless, legalistic, and narrow-minded. We have been told that they were severe and strict. And yes, they were diligent in their observance of the faith, but they worked with Churches that differed from them doctrinally. They minimized tests of fellowship in order to be as inclusive as possible. They tried to apply the old rules of behavior, conduct, and diet, to the world in which they were then living. They taught principles, and left their observance to individuality and each person’s relationship to the Savior. When Ellen White, for example, wrote in a manner too particular, which she realized might be misused, she corrected herself thereafter. This is the danger of proof-texting from her works. These were a people of judgment, but also Philadelphia, a people of brotherly love. We have lessons to learn from reading what they were really like, and we continue to reject, like the true abomination it is, the zealotry, legalism, and loud screeching denouncement of beliefs that differ from our own, so that we shall be genuine and effective servants of our Father in Heaven.
Whatsoever separates, whatsoever tends toward disunity, whatsoever pushes people away from those who might teach them the Good News of our Creator and Savior, is abomination to our Father in Heaven. We establish the truth of this from the Scriptures.
Therefore, let us be like the apostles, denouncing error, but not the people who are deceived by them. Let us be like our pioneers, who called no man unclean for differing in matters of faith and practice. Let us be like Christ who, though He was sent to the Jews, healed and taught the Samaritans and Gentiles, so that ultimately, He would draw to Himself one people, united in love, sincerely seeking righteousness in a natural, organic way that needs no check-list of orthodoxy. Let us trust in the promises of our Father, and in the sincerity of those who call on His name. Let us extend the invitation: “Come with us, walk with us, as we all learn the point of perfect balance on these and all things.” Let us accept the testimonies of those who draw near to us, for all things will come into judgment, and we will learn, together, and do, together, “what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Rom 12:2)
David.
An Enduring Witness
“We do not object to abstinence from the use of swine’s flesh, if it is done on the right grounds. We think that too free and abundant use of it, and other animal food, of which many, and even some of our brethren in the present truth are not guiltless, is a sin; for it clogs and stupefies the mind, and in many cases impairs the constitution; but we do not, by any means, believe that the Bible teaches that its proper use, in the gospel dispensation, is sinful. But we do object to a misapplication of the Holy Scriptures in sustaining a position which will only distract the flock of God, and lead the minds of the brethren from the importance of the present work of God among the remnant. Error, however small it may appear, darkens and fetters the soul, and if persisted in will lead to gross darkness, and great errors, and sooner or later its fatal results will appear.” [James White, The Review and Herald, "Swine’s Flesh," May 23 1854]
“Some had been bringing in false tests, and had made their own ideas and notions a criterion, magnifying matters of little importance into tests of Christian fellowship, and binding heavy burdens upon others. Thus a spirit of criticism, fault-finding, and dissension had come in, which had been a great injury to the church. And the impression was given to unbelievers that Sabbath-keeping Adventists were a set of fanatics and extremists, and that their peculiar faith rendered them unkind, uncourteous, and really unchristian in character. Thus the course of a few extremists prevented the influence of the truth from reaching the people.” [Evangelism, p. 215]
“This vision conveyed to Peter both reproof and instruction. It revealed to him the purpose of God – that by the death of Christ the Gentiles should be made fellow heirs with the Jews to the blessings of salvation. As yet none of the disciples had preached the gospel to the Gentiles. In their minds the middle wall of partition, broken down by the death of Christ, still existed, and their labors had been confined to the Jews, for they had looked upon the Gentiles as excluded from the blessings of the gospel. Now the Lord was seeking to teach Peter the world-wide extent of the divine plan.” [Acts of the Apostles, p. 135]