WILL GOD ACCEPT OF SUBTERFUGES?
By E. B. Saunders
Mankind act as though they believed the Lord would accept of that which he has not commanded. Their actions look as if they thought that the Lord was under obligations to accept of their little gratuitous subterfuges instead of his requirements. Obedience is better than sacrifice. Men seem to think it a very little thing to disobey God; but then fearing that all is not right, they offer some trifle of their own invention in place of his requirement. Speak to them of their course, and they will say, "God looketh on the heart," "If our hearts are only right," "I think as long as my conscience does not condemn me, God will accept of it," and many pleas of a similar nature, thinking that because they feel safe, while they put out their eyes and hide their heads in such sand, they are actually secure. Yes. God looketh on the heart, neither can he be blinded by any amount of counterfeit worship. The heart God requires is that which will obey him and love to keep his commandments. God governs by his law; and as long as the heart hates God's law, it hates the government of God; and if it hates his government, it will be rebellious even if it were in heaven. Such hearts are not right. Though they may deceive some and make them feel safe, yet it is carnal unless willing to be subject to the requirements of its Maker. Neither will God accept of something that he has not required. And especially will such an offering become very offensive when the will of God is known to him who offers it. There is one sentence to such as know his will and do it not, but instead offer him a substitute of their own invention; it is to be punished with many stripes. The notion seems to prevail to a great extent that God does not mean just what he says; that if we only do something similar to his command, it will answer just as well. This idea originated with mankind very early, probably in Eden, when our first parents thought God did not mean just what he said, when he told them they should surely die if they ate of the forbidden fruit. Perhaps Cain thought so too, when he brought an offering of the fruits of the ground. Before Christ came and died for sin, man was required to bring an offering of a clean beast to show his faith in the great Offering God was to send into the world. Abel understood this, and therefore offered a lamb for a victim, to show his faith in the Lamb of God that was yet to come. Perhaps Cain argued that God looks on the motives, or heart, and that a bloody offering was not necessary; that the blood of a lamb could not take away sin, and that God only meant that he should manifest his faith in the promised Messiah; so he, full of human reasonings, brought an offering of the fruits of the ground. Did God accept of it? Now shall we, living since Christ died, come to God with just such vain human reasonings, and instead of manifesting faith in Christ by the gospel ordinance of baptism—burial in the likeness of Christ's death, reason that God does not mean just what he says; all he requires is an application of water in the name of the Trinity. Think you that God will accept of such a subterfuge? Doubtless Nadab and Abihu had hearts full of just such reasonings and wicked thoughts, when they offered strange fire before the Lord. Perhaps they thought and argued that God only required fire off the altar to be used because it was near by; and that he did not mean that they should always take of it; besides, common fire would burn the incense just as well. It may be that they thought that they were on such familiar terms with the Lord, and that he had blessed them as in times past, that they need not do just as he had commanded. But did God accept of them? See Lev. x, 2. But, says one, if God punished them so at that time for doing that which he commanded them not, why does he not punish us now if we are equally as bad? Doubtless God has not punished every one that has offered an abomination in place of his commands, but simply gave us an example to warn us not to trifle with him. Rom. xv, 4. The command to keep holy the seventh day is just as precious in the sight of God as it ever was; and God will not accept of a day that he has not sanctified, in place of it. I do not see why a day offered to God as a substitute for his holy Sabbath-day, if persisted in when we know his will, is not just as great an abomination as it would be to offer a dog in place of a lamb, for a burnt-offering; or strange fire when he had not commanded it. Nadab and Abihu willfully offered to God that which he commanded not, and were destroyed. If we willfully offer to God a Sabbath which he commanded not, shall we escape a punishment equally severe. We can never obey God by doing that which he has not required; and if the willing and obedient, only, eat the good of the land, how can we partake also if we disobey? The blessing is only on such as do his commandments. Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.