Categories
character study distinct distinctiveness faithfulness right and wrong righteousness Uncategorized

Zadok The Priest

Neal Pollard

Zadok the priest was neither an Anglican Church member or even British. Many associate his name with Handel’s 18th century coronation hymn, written first for King George II. But, he was a significant, if minor, Old Testament character. We learn at least four great lessons from his character, as revealed in Scripture.

  • He was a versatile servant of God. He is introduced as “a young man mighty of valor” (1 Chron. 12:28), but also as a priest of God (1 Chron. 15:11). Thus, he was handy in a fight while also helpful in reconciling men to God. What an example of a five or two talent man, able to serve God in more than one way. God has blessed most of us with the ability to do many things well. We should be motivated to use those skills for Him.
  • He was a respecter of God’s Word. His predecessor, Uzzah, disregarded God’s instructions for transporting the ark and paid for that with his life. Zadok was at the head of the list of priests tapped to do it the right way, according to God’s word (1 Chron. 15:11ff). Nothing we see after this does anything except strengthen the view that Zadok submitted to the divine will. What a legacy to leave, known as one who simply takes God at His word and strives to be obedient to it.
  • He was a loyal friend. When Absalom rebelled against King David, many in Israel aligned themselves with this usurping son. However, Zadok remained true to David (2 Sam. 15). David relied on him, with Abiathar, to keep tabs on the insurrection while ministering in Jerusalem. David knew he could count on Zadok. In the same way, Scripture praises such loyalty. David’s son penned that “A friend loves at all times, And a brother is born for adversity” (Prov. 17:17). We should be a friend others can count on at all times.
  • He was a good judge of character. Whether choosing to serve David over Absalom or Solomon over Adonijah, Zadok was an excellent discerner of the right choice. In both cases, these were the righteous and God-approved choices. Even Abiathar, who stood with David over Absalom, got it wrong when Adonijah tried to supplant God’s will concerning David’s rightful successor. For this reason, Zadok took his place alongside Samuel as the only priests to anoint a king during the United Kingdom period of Israel’s history (1 Kings 1:39). It was this event Handel coopted to write his coronation hymn. God had bright hopes for those who feared Him, that they would be able to “distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him” (Mal. 3:18). That was Zadok, and it should be us–regarding preachers, elders, teachers, as well as every child of God we have dealings with. We must grow in our ability to be capable fruit inspectors (cf. Mat. 7:15-20; John 7:24).

Thank God for Bible characters who show us, with their lives, the way to please Him with ours. The times may, in some ways, be drastically different from when Zadok walked the earth. But, with the time God gives us, we would do well to imitate these traits of this priest of God remembering that God desires us to be faithful priests for Him today (cf. 1 Pet. 2:1-9).

flickr_-_government_press_office_gpo_-_samaritan_priest_zadok_ben-avisha_hacohen

Categories
compassion

Studying The Sweet Samaritan

Neal Pollard

Jesus wants us concerned with people, especially those near us in some way.  It may be easier to care about someone who looks like us, who is decent or even attractive, or who is easier to help.  The unattractive, strange, dissimilar, or unpleasant may not be ones we are as easily drawn to assist.  That is why Jesus’ teaching on who our neighbor is ought to be convicting and persuasive.  Luke 10:30-37 records the infamous lesson of the good Samaritan.  Here is what the text reveals about this story.

The parable reveals a problem (30).  Someone is hurt and in need and can do nothing for himself.  It is an observable problem, as the text will reveal.

The parable reveals three pedestrians (31-33), a priest, a Levite, and the Samaritan.  The first two do nothing to help the hurting man, but the Samaritan is moved to provide assistance. The priest was passive, the Levite paused, but the Samaritan pitied.

The parable reveals a proper performance (34-35).  It is seen in what he felt—compassion. It is seen in what he did—came to him, bandaged him, soothed him, carried him, cared for him, and supported him.

The parable reveals a proof (36). Jesus asks, “Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor…?”  The answer did not depend on how long they were followers of God, how much they knew, or how much influence they had in the community.  The proof was in the performance, as revealed in the previous two verses.

The parable reveals the point (37).  The point of the parable is to prove to be a good neighbor by “going” and “doing.”  Learning this story or hearing its application does not make one a good Samaritan.  Feeling convicted does not, either.  Instead, the good neighbor is the one who puts the principles of this parable into practice.  Jesus would tell us all, “Go and do the same.”

Categories
Bear Valley church of Christ Daily Bread Neal Pollard Pollard blog Uncategorized

My Study With Armando

Neal Pollard

This morning, I had the opportunity to have an impromptu Bible study with a man who introduced himself as Pastor Dr. Armando.  He wanted to find a congregation who would allow his ministry and followers a place to work and worship.  Prayerfully, I listened to him and looked for my opportunity to turn the conversation from his program to the Bible.  After hearing him out, he asked if we would be interested.  I told him that he saw some great needs and had some intriguing methods of providing benevolence to our community, but the problem would come regarding what they taught and how they worshipped.  As gently as I could, I tried to show him what Scripture said about both–since both were matters he brought up in our discussion.  Judging from his facial expressions, he had never heard of a preacher or church approaching the plan of salvation or how to worship or anything else using nothing but the Bible. I told him we had no creed, council, synod, or earthly head who governed or gave us religious traditions to follow.  While he seemed very interested in the concept, his “pragmatic” side did not allow him to see how that would work with the group with which he already worked.  There were nearly 100 people, black, Hispanic, and white, who he said worshipped with him.  They believed how or when one is baptized was not important, and they were very drawn to their drums, guitars, and other instruments in worship.  Yet, as strident as he was about their beliefs, this idea of non-denominational, simple New Testament Christianity intrigued him.  We ended our hour-long discussion by agreeing to meet to talk further about these things in a more systematic way.  I’m optimistic and hopeful!

Perhaps we have bought into the idea that the “restoration plea” has been tried and has failed to find a following.  If Dr. Rangel is in any way representative of the religious world, and I have reason to believe he is, there are a great many who are totally unaware of that plea.  Could there be a whole world of religious people out there, disenchanted with mainline evangelical denominationalism, who would be open to New Testament Christianity?  Let’s pray for opportunities to share it and see what happens!