Did Prophets Have Freedom of Choice?

In the beginning years of the seventeenth century, many people said, "…good night England and good morning America." A desire for freedom of religion was one of the reasons why a great number of them were willing to launch out on that long, uncertain, and dangerous voyage across the Atlantic.

A few years later, those peoples and others who followed ceased to be British colonies and became an independent nation of the world. Our forefathers established a new government for this young nation, one that rested on the foundation of the Constitution. In the first amendment, the people of the United States were given the freedom of religion, and many others, have been part of Americans’ lives for more than two hundred years.

People of our nation, and many others, are granted the right to freedom of religion. However, one needs to ask the question, "…is this pleasing in the sight of God?" God has always invited, admonished, even pleaded with all people to accept Him as their only God; but has never forced them to do so ( Joshua 24:14-15, Matthew 11:28-29, Matthew 23:37, Revelation 3:20, and Ezekiel 18:23-32).

This concept of individual freedoms as expressed in various governments throughout the world has, unfortunately, led many people to believe that God has granted them the right to choose from a myriad of established religions and be acceptable unto Him. The Bible teaches us tolerance of others and their beliefs as exhibited in the parable of the tares. Both the parable and its explanation by Christ, teach us not to force one’s religious teachings upon others ( Matthew 13:24-30 and Matthew 13:37-43). Christ stated, "Let them grow together until the harvest". God has given us a choice then to choose his law or to choose another law, however one needs to address the question, what happens if God’s law is disregarded?

The scriptures reveal that there truly is no freedom of religious choice as the world would want one to believe. One might consider the first two people on earth, Adam and Eve. Were they granted the choice of freedom of religion? No, they were given only one law to follow, directly by God and they chose not to obey all of it and therefore were cast from the garden. They were told, "Ye shall not eat the fruit of the tree in the midst of the Garden" ( Genesis 3:3). God also instructed Cain and Abel to offer up a sacrifice ( Genesis 4:1-7 and Hebrews 11:4). The law given to them required that the offering would be an animal, and Cain wasn’t refusing the sacrifice, he merely took it upon himself to choose another type of offering, he was exerting his person religious freedom. Did God allow him the freedom to offer the fruit of his fields rather than the animal?  The Bible lets us know that God failed to grant him this religious freedom.

From the events that happened to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah ( Genesis 18 and 19) it is clearly demonstrated that these individuals had become extremely ungodly with the exception of Lot and his family. By command of God, Lot and his family were given instructions to flee this ungodly place, certain restrictions were applied, and they were expected to follow them to the letter. They were to flee for their lives and not look back until they reached the city of Zoar. Always, it appears, that one person in a crowd has to "do their own thing" and so was it with Lot and his family. His wife decided, for whatever the reason, that she had the right to choose, and looking back at the cities of the plains,  was immediately punished by God ( Genesis 19:26).

A short time after God delivered the children of Israel from their Egyptian bondage, Moses began delivering them a system of religious laws to follow. This religion is found in the Old Testament of the Bible. God, from the beginning of this law, let his people know that they wouldn’t be given the freedom of religion. He told them that they would not be allowed to eliminate any portion of His religion and also that they would not be able to add anything to it ( Deuteronomy 4:1-2).

One portion of God’s religion for the children of Israel was that their priests were to be of one specific family, that of Aaron ( Exodus 28). Yet, Korah and his followers did not want to be controlled and have their freedom stifled. To this end they demanded that they might also be priests. Did God grant them their desire? ( Numbers 16:28-33)

It is revealed to us that Saul was to tarry seven days in Gilgal before going to battle. On the seventh day, Samuel was to come and offer up a sacrifice; but for some reason Samuel was detained. Saul then decided he would take it upon himself to make the sacrifice and assume some degree of personal religious freedom. Did God find this acceptable and allow Saul this freedom of choice? No! ( I Samuel 13:9-14) One might also look at Nadab and Abihu who decided they would offer "strange fire", sacrifices that were not legislated by God, despite God’s warnings. Yet they wanted freedom of choice, and again were denied by God ( Leviticus 10:1-2).

God’s people in times of old were not granted freedom of religion. In order for them to be acceptable in His sight, they had to comply with His teaching, without any additions or subtractions from it. This is how God dealt with people during the first two dispensations of time. But what about people now? Must people today conform to the teachings of God found in the New Testament also without making additions or subtractions? If not, God truly would be a respecter of person yet there are numerous scriptures that tell us He is not ( Romans 2:11 and Ephesians 6:9). There are also verses within the New Testament that say, "…as it was with them, so shall it be with us". ( I Corinthians 10:1-12, Hebrews 2:1-4, Hebrews 10:28-31, Hebrews 12:25 and Revelation 22:18-19). "Remember Lot’s wife…" ( Luke 17:32) resounds in a loud voice today, and through it we receive a solemn warning in another New Testament verse that states, "… Woe unto us if we follow the examples of Cain and Core (Korah)…" ( Jude 11) who were lovers of freedom from some parts of God’s law and exhibited the selfish desire of freedom of choice.