1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (ESV)
1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?
Paul is here continuing to chide the Corinthians for their factionalism. They are quarreling among themselves because each little group is more fond of a different leader. Paul has already told them that this is a wrong way to behave, and he will continue that argument through chapter 3.
Here at the beginning of the chapter, Paul talks about the spiritual immaturity of the Corinthians. He says that he did not feed them solid food, but only milk for babies, because they were not ready for it. Here he says they are still not ready for solid food; they are still spiritual infants. How does he know? He knows because of the way they are quarreling about which leader is the best. When they fight about following Paul or Peter or Apollos, they display that they are immature.
I wonder, from this section, how often local churches are beset with immaturity of the sort we see here in the Corinthian church. How often do we fight and quarrel more over the personalities of leaders than over the message of the gospel? I fear it is far more than we would like.
We want to be wise here as we call on the church to follow faithful elders. Faithful is key. If a man is not given to opening the word of God and exposing to the congregation the actual meaning of a text, he is not faithfully handling the word of God. If a pastor is teaching or pressing an obscure and doubtful doctrine as if it is central to the Christian life, he is not being faithful. If a pastor will not care for the congregation, he is not being faithful. If a pastor is not a person of character, but his life is marked by moral compromise, he is not faithful. You cannot ultimately follow such a man if that man will not repent of such faithlessness.
Is your pastor faithful to the word of God? Is your pastor loving toward the people of God? Is your pastor a person of character? If he is, follow him. Follow him, even if his personality is not exactly like yours. Follow him even if he is not as dynamic as somebody you download from the Internet or as the guy at the church building down the street. Follow him as he follows Christ.
Drawing the Line Between Toloration and Division (1 Corinthians 1:10-13)
1 Corinthians 1:10-13 (ESV)
10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
As Paul opens his letter to the Corinthians, he quickly calls for unity in the Corinthian church. It appears that the church has become factional around the favorite teacher of the different groups. But Paul wants the church to stop such division, understanding that Christ is not divided.
The reason that this struck me this morning is that it is the other side of the coin from the last quiet time reading I did. Last time, I considered Paul’s command for the Romans to watch out for promoters of false doctrine and to avoid them. There, Paul was clearly calling for a division in the body when dangerous doctrine was involved. But here, Paul calls for the people to pray for unity in the body and to avoid dividing over little things that are not important.
In the modern church, one might see the same sort of factionalism. With the popularity of authors, bloggers, and Internet preachers, it is no surprise to see groups drawing lines in the church—I follow Sproul, I follow Piper, I follow Mohler, I follow MacArthur, or I don’t like one of the above.
So, we see, especially in comparing this to Romans 16:17-18, That there are valid and invalid reasons for division in the church. When the issue is doctrine of an appropriately high level, division is necessary and right. When the issue is personality or when the doctrine is not of significant importance, division is inappropriate.
Again, I go back to the fact that we need real wisdom. Where is the line? I would guess that, depending on your personality, the line is either lower or higher than you realize. If you are the kind of person who wants to separate from every believer who does not see every doctrine as you do, you probably need to calm down, to exercise grace, and to have mercy. If, however, you are someone who only wants unity, I would guess that there are issues over which you should be separating from others, but which you are not for the sake of a unity that does not honor Christ.
I still find Albert Mohler’s three levels of theological triage to be helpful in this discussion. There are first level issues which are doctrines that, if you do not believe them, you are not saved. There are second level issues which may prevent us from being a part of the same local church, but which would not make us believe that one another is lost. Then there are third level issues which are issues on which believers in a local body can disagree and still be in happy fellowship.
An example of a first level issue would be the resurrection of Jesus. If a person denies that Jesus rose from the grave, literally, physically, bodily, and eternally, they are not saved. Paul makes that abundantly clear in 1 Corinthians 15. To deny the resurrection is to deny the entire Christian faith. If someone denies this issue, you cannot call them a brother or sister in Christ.
A second-level issue could be the issue of baptism. For many, it is impossible to be a member of a local church body where the practice and teaching of baptism differs from your view. Thus, a Baptist is unlikely to join a Presbyterian church, even though faithful Baptists and faithful Presbyterians can respect each other greatly. We will often worship together and learn from each other at conferences and other such events, but our practice of the ordinance of baptism prevents us from being in the same local body. And, this makes sense, as Baptism is a big issue in the life of the local church, having much to do with who is or is not considered to be a believer or who is allowed to be a member of the congregation.
A third level issue might be the age of the earth. One person in a local body might believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old while another believes modern scientists who argue that the earth is billions of years old. Both may believe in creation and oppose any type of macro evolution. If these believers are kind to each other, they could be members of the same local body. This is not to say that the age of the earth debate is unimportant—I think it to be significant—but it may not be a doctrine that should separate us in the local body.
The hard part, of course, the part that requires wisdom, is determining what level a doctrine is on. Some are easy. Some are harder. Examining your personality here is important. Are you the kind of person who makes everything a second or even first level doctrine? If so, you probably are too harsh. Do you think everything is a third level issue? Then you probably are not doctrinally serious enough.
A Call to Division (Romans 16:17-18)
Romans 16:17-18 (ESV)
17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.
As Paul wraps up his letter to the Roman church, he offers some final pieces of counsel to the church. He sends greetings to them from people they should know, and he asks them to greet friends in the city. But, in the middle of this closing, Paul reminds the Romans to carefully avoid the kinds of people who cause them trouble.
The reason that this grabbed my attention is that I do not know that this is the most natural course of action for many Christians. Paul tells the Romans to watch out for people who cause divisions based on doctrine that is not what they learned from sound teachers. Then Paul simply says, “avoid them.”
What makes me wonder this morning is whether or not we avoid those who are selfish and who teach against sound doctrine. In general, I find that Christians who come across somebody teaching falsely or opposing sound doctrine will, for quite a while, make that person a project for reclamation. Or, the same Christians might simply ignore the false doctrine, hoping that it will not come up in polite conversation about the weather, the kids, or sports.
But, go back and take note. The warning is strong. We are to be on guard against “those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught.” That means that biblical doctrine matters. It means that we are to be guarded regarding doctrine. And, it means that, when we find those who cause division over contrary doctrine, we are to get away from them.
This all requires wisdom, as there are multiple levels of doctrine. Do we avoid the person who has a different view of the order of end-times events? I suppose that depends. If two believers disagree as to whether or not Jesus will return before a thousand year reign or just return and show us that the reign was metaphorical, I’m not sure we have to avoid one another. However, what if a believer is telling us that Jesus came back in the late first century and he is not coming again? Well, we probably have an issue, as one view requires a dramatic reinterpretation of entire books of the Bible.
Consider the truth of the verse above. Doctrine divides, and it should. We should avoid those who deny significant biblical doctrines. And it will require real wisdom to know what those are.
So, when do we divide? I would argue that we divide when the person’s doctrine is the kind of doctrine that causes division among believers—obvious-sounding, I know. We divide when a person develops a doctrinal issue that they attempt to bring into the body that turns us from the genuine gospel or from faithfully following the Lord. We divide when a person’s issue hinders congregational unity or worship. We divide when a person’s doctrine could do harm to young believers in the body. We divide when the doctrinal issue is of a significantly important level, or when the person causing the division, even with a lower-level doctrine, has become so pushy with their doctrine that they disrupt peace in the body.
But note again, the command is to avoid them. The command is not to make a giant project out of them. I think this implies church discipline, but it does not include making the disruptive person the center of church life. We urge them to repent, we pray for them, we encourage them, but, when they will not repent, we let them go.
Lord, we need wisdom and grace to know how to help when doctrine differs in the body. I pray for our church that you will protect us from division and divisive people. Help us to have wisdom to know when doctrines are of a level requiring division. Help us to value you, your word, and the gospel enough to be willing to divide if necessary. Help us, in all this, never to be proud or harsh in anything we do. Help us, I pray, to honor you by being loving and honest, kind and strong, merciful and faithful.
Controversy and the Beth Moore Article
I will often post articles on my Twitter feed and Facebook page which contain ideas or arguments I find interesting. Seldom will I post an article with the intent to stir controversy. And, truthfully, I often do not post articles I know will annoy people. However, from time-to-time, it is worth it to pass along something I read which, though controversial, contains some thoughts that we should at least consider.
Recently, I shared the following on Twitter: Another controversial one–thoughts? – Why Your Pastor Should Say “No More to Beth Moore” – http://tinyurl.com/hwymypy. In the piece, as the title suggests, Josh Buice recommends that pastors of churches not endorse the use of Beth Moore resources in the church’s women’s ministries. The author suggests that Beth Moore and her studies should be avoided because of three reasons. First, the author argues that Beth Moore violates biblical commands regarding women teaching men. Second, he suggests that Moore utilizes faulty hermeneutics (standards of biblical interpretation). Finally, Buice believes Moore to be an ecumenical charismatic.
The post received several comments on my Facebook page, including some pretty offended folks. Since I’m not one who is out to offend, I decided I’d like to reread the article and actually offer my opinion of the author’s arguments.
In general, I believe that Buice has some very valid points that need to be considered by pastors and laypersons alike. How could I say that? Lots of people love and are inspired by Beth Moore’s teaching. How dare I attempt to invalidate their experiences? While I mean no disrespect to Moore or those who have greatly benefited from her studies—which I certainly know many have done—that does not mean that Buice’s points are totally invalid.
Addressing the three arguments Buice makes is the only way to fairly evaluate his article. Any other reaction to it is going to be one based on emotion—I like her so Buice is wrong or I don’t like her, so Buice is right. I have no use for either opinion based on emotion.
One more disclaimer is needed. The three points that Buice makes are based on three significant theological positions. If a person disagrees with those theological positions, they will disagree with Buice’s evaluation of Moore. If one is egalitarian, they will disagree with the first point out of hand. If one is given to mystical or allegorical interpretation, they will disagree with the second point out of hand. If one is open to charismatic gifts or more ecumenical in their theological bent, they will dismiss the third point out of hand. In actuality, I believe that most of the strongly offended commenters on Buice’s post are people who disagree with at least one of the three theological positions, and thus are not going to go along with Buice’s argument regardless of whether it was made well or poorly, cruelly or respectfully. Add in those who will reject Buice’s article because of personal experience and fondness for Moore’s studies, and he faces long odds against being well received.
I will not attempt to make an argument in general for complementarianism, conservative hermeneutics, or cessationism. Someone who disagrees with these out of hand will disagree with the article. I think, however, that Buice is writing for pastors who actually agree with the three theological principles he lists, but who do not understand that Moore, in Buice’s opinion, could lead church members to the opposite side of each position. Thus, the article should be evaluated, not on whether or not you are complementarian, non-allegorical, or Cessationist, but whether or not you believe that Buice actually has a point that Moore’s teaching could lead church members away from those beliefs.
When I read the piece the first time, ,I was disappointed with the sweeping and unqualified statements Buice made in describing the complementarian position. Buice writes, “The point of the Bible is clear, women are not permitted to have authority over men, and how is it possible to teach the Bible without authority?” While many complementarians will agree with Buice here, the statement is less nuanced than is helpful. Does Paul mean that a woman could not teach a class on church history, which will inevitably include the Bible, in a small group, mixed setting? Does Paul mean that a woman cannot teach the Bible in writing that will be read by men? Is this about only the pulpit? Complementarians have thought these issues through, and sometimes disagree among themselves, but Buice does not have either the time or inclination to help clarify that this is a more complex issue than it might appear at first glance. Unfortunately, his lack of nuance here prevents Buice from being persuasive to those struggling with a desire both to be fully biblical and to value the wisdom and gifts that God has granted many women in the church.
With that all said, Buice has a point. Complementarians should be concerned about some of the actions of Moore. Her willingness to attend Lakewood church when a female friend of hers was preaching to a mixed congregation must be seen as a tacit approval of the action. Moore’s influence is so great, especially among women in the Southern Baptist Convention, that she rightly should be challenged for publically affirming a woman acting as a preacher.
The author’s second point is that Beth Moore employs a faulty interpretive framework for Scripture. Buice argues that Moore often uses an allegorical method of Bible interpretation. He also suggests that she practices Lectio Divina, emptying one’s mind in order to allow God to speak directly to the individual during Bible meditation. Sadly, Buice does not cite examples of these allegorical interpretations as proof of his point. The Lectio Divina practice is easily documented from this Youtube clip.
The level of agreement that one will have with the second point of the article, then, will be divided into two parts. Is Moore really guilty of improperly allegorizing texts? Is allegorizing texts improper? If a pastor is a proponent of historical, grammatical exposition, he will likely find himself uncomfortable with some of the ways that Moore handles Scripture. No, it will not be the case in everything she teaches, as very much of what she teaches will be sound. But, if a pastor is concerned with church members finding meanings and allegories in texts that may not have been intended by the author, they must check Moore’s work carefully in order to see if she is engaging in this type of interpretation.
The third point has to do with ecumenism and charismatic practices. Again, a pastor who embraces the continuation of spiritual gifts such as divinely given words of prophecy will have no problem with the charismatic side of this discussion. However, a pastor who is not interested in his people being taught by a person claiming to be given personal visions from God will want to recommend his church members not follow Moore, who has clearly claimed that she has visions given to her by the Lord and who has claimed to have others speak to her words from the Lord that are not words of Scripture.
In one such vision that Moore claims to have been given from God, she expresses an ecumenical desire. Of course many believers want the church to be united and for denominational differences to disappear. However, many pastors know better than to mislead their congregations by acting as though denominational differences are unimportant. The truth is, the church must be divided over issues such as the use of charismatic gifts, baptism, or the doctrine of the atonement. So long as groups believe diametrically opposed things regarding central doctrinal issues, there will be differences in congregations and denominations.
So, what do I think of Buice’s article? I wish he had written it better. I wish he had been able to cite more of what he claims. I wish he had expressed an understanding of the need for nuance and kindness in the complementarian discussion. But none of those things invalidate his concerns regarding Moore’s ministry.
As a pastor, I have not, for a long time, recommended Beth Moore studies to our women. This is not out of any sort of personal rancor. I simply would far prefer that our women learn from teachers who are more faithful to exposition, who are less open to the charismatic, and who are less emotionally driven in their presentation. I do not condemn anyone who has loved a Beth Moore study in the past or who will happily buy the next one out there. But, I would suggest that concerns about Moore’s interpretative method, her recounting of visions and words of knowledge, and her association with false teachers like Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen as well as her embrace of the Roman Catholic Church—a group which denies salvation by grace alone through faith alone—are valid reasons to think twice before starting that next group study.
Old Bread and Other Religions (1 Samuel 21:4)
1 Samuel 21:4 (ESV)
And the priest answered David, “I have no common bread on hand, but there is holy bread—if the young men have kept themselves from women.”
When David was running from King Saul, he stopped by for a little visit with Ahimelech, the priest. David left the priest with the sword of Goliath and some day-old show bread.
Something ran through my mind when reading this passage that has nothing to do with the intent of the text. Yet, this giving of the holy bread to David demonstrates a genuine difference between faith in the God of the Bible and other world religions. Both the priest and David understood that David could eat the show bread.
Why is that reality interesting to me? Back when I lived in Korea, I recall learning about a particular festival that occurred every year. Korean families would visit the graves of their ancestors and would leave out food. In other celebrations, the families would share a meal together, and they would set aside food for their ancestors. When asked if they later ate the food that had been set aside, the Koreans remarked that they would not eat that food, because all the nutrients would be gone. They believed that their relatives received nourishment from the food, even though the food did not disappear. [Note that this is one explanation I was given. I’m sure that other Korean families would present this ceremony in a different way.]
The beliefs of the Korean families about feeding their dead relatives is little different than the beliefs of many ancient religions. Worshipers of idols would often burn food offerings to their gods. In some sense, the people believed that they were feeding their deity.
So, what struck me in a new way this morning was the fact of the difference. Biblical believers have never believed that we feed our God. Ahimelech and David knew that the bread did not lose any of its nutritional value simply because it had been used in a religious ritual.
I know, this is not that profound. But, it interests me. God is bigger and greater than the gods of other religions. He is beyond needing anything from us. He would not ask us for food. He does not need our money or our help. He allows us to serve him for our good, not for his. And, one little reminder of this fact for me today is the fact that David could eat day-old show bread.
Living in the Light – A Review
John Piper. Living in the Light: Money, Sex and Power. Purcellville VA: The Good Book Company, 2016. 144 pp. $11.00.
John Piper has always had a knack for helping believers to biblically view the important issues of life in the light of God’s glory. In Living in the Light, the latest of his books, Piper shines the light of the word and glory of God on the significant issues of money, sex, and power. As he unpacks these important areas in the lives of believers, he shows how each can be destructive if approached from a man-centered worldview or a great blessing when approached with the glory of Christ at the center.
This offering from Piper is wonderfully readable and mature. Unlike some of his earlier works, Piper is able to write to his audience as a retired pastor. His language is simpler than in some of his more scholarly works, but his counsel is profound, loving, and timeless. He is able to approach the topic of sexuality with an honest maturity—clear and real without ever being salacious or prudish—that is so often lacking in modern works. Piper very clearly helps his readers grasp how the gifts that God gives us can be treasures for displaying his majesty and bringing us joy or they can be destructive icebergs that can bring shipwreck to our lives. The book offers solid counsel for believers for being sure that our focus is right so that we can deeply enjoy money, sex, and influence without allowing them to do us harm.
I would happily recommend Piper’s work to any sincere believer. This book could be a great tool for a discipleship group or small group Bible study. The only caution that I would give is that leaders must recognize that, since sexuality is one of the topics, the study requires a level of maturity to be present.
I received a free audio copy of this book from ChristianAudio.com as part of their reviewers program. The recording of this work is of the highest quality, as are all of the books sold by this company.
Living Under Corrupt Leadership (Romans 13:1-2)
Romans 13:1-2
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Here in the latter chapters of Romans, Paul offers instructions to believers about how to live as believers in this fallen world. He has already clearly explained the glories of the gospel, and now he focuses his readers on living in the light of that gospel.
In this section, he begins a brief discussion of how believers are to live in relation to the governmental authorities. Paul argues that God, sovereign over all, has put in place the rulers of the day. The apostle calls the Roman Christians to obey those authorities and to recognize the hand of God in the politics of the day. Later, he will call on them to give those in charge their due.
What strikes me, of course, is that it is not at all easy to obey and respect ungodly authority figures. It is easy to say that, while this obedience is the general rule, obviously God would want us to oppose and bring down leaders with whom we disagree. Yet, such would be illogical. Paul was living under some pretty corrupt rulers. He was writing to the church in Rome, where Caesar lived. While the timing of this letter makes it unlikely that Nero was on the throne, there is no doubt that Christians in Rome understood the government to be full of corrupt and perverse men. Adultery, politically motivated divorces, homosexuality, drunkenness, bribery, and violence marked these leaders throughout much of this period of history.
So, what do we do with Paul’s words? We understand that Paul completely understood what it was like to live as a Christian under hostile leadership. Paul knew what it was like to be governed by people who would have thought him to be insane for his beliefs. Paul knew what it was like to have to follow the rules set forth by men who many of us would not have ever wanted in our homes because of their violent, dishonest, and corrupt character.
But God tells us to obey the authorities over us, because those authorities have been put their under his sovereign design. This does not mean that God embraces or approves the evil actions of such men. However, throughout history, God has given nations people to rule them who properly represent the people. God has used even wicked rulers to accomplish greater plans. God has placed kings on thrones to bring about the rise of some nations and the fall of others. Our Lord’s ways are far beyond our ability to understand.
Thus, it is right for us, in even our messed up political environment, to understand that the Lord is in control. Whether you like one of the candidates for president or you plan not to vote for any of the corrupt options set before you, know that God is in control. As a believer, it will be your call to obey the laws of the land in which you live so long as those laws do not contradict the command of God. Part of what will make this difficult will be learning how to express opposition to immoral commandments while at the same time showing proper respect for the authority that God has given us. In this, we need wisdom and courage from the Lord to live as his followers in the middle of a corrupt nation, just as Paul needed the same in a very similar circumstance.
Lord, I would ask that you help your people to obey your command and to trust your sovereign will. You will give us the rulers that you intend. We will trust you that your kingdom will not fail because of kings, prime ministers, or presidents. We ask for mercy from you. We ask for men of character to lead our nations toward righteousness. Yet, we also grasp that the true hope for our nation is not in politics but in the gospel. Give us, I pray, the courage to live godly lives in the here and now. Give us wisdom to know what laws we can obey and when those laws so oppose your word that we cannot follow them. Grant us courage to live as aliens in a land not our own as we look for the coming of our Savior who will set right all that is wrong.
Unparalleled – A Review
Jerad C. Wilson. Unparalleled: How Christianity’s Uniqueness Makes It Compelling. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2016. 240 pp. $14.99.
What exactly is it that makes Christianity different from every other world religion out there? Why would I think of Christianity in any category different from atheism, Islam, or some other belief system? In Unparalleled, Jared Wilson mingles thoughtful philosophy with biblical encouragement to help show his readers why Jesus really is vastly different than any religious leader and Christianity is unique among the world views.
In this work Wilson addresses a variety of things that make Christianity unparalleled. Whether it is simply the fact that God is a person, that God is triune, or that Jesus is God, the author combines a wonderfully readable tone with sharp reason and biblical thinking to show his readers the differences between the Christian faith and all other ways of thinking. Wilson helps us consider the identity of God, the brokenness of humanity, Jesus—his deity and his resurrection—and the eternal destiny of people along with many other valuable topics in his presentation. He combines solid biblical study with very relatable life stories to make this book quite useful and easily readable.
I have always loved the writings of Jared Wilson. He presents in everything he writes a sweet picture of the grace of God. He certainly never compromises in his communication about our sin and need of a savior, nor does he compromise in his call for Christians to obey the call of God. At the same time, Wilson understands that we will never obey our way into heaven and we cannot earn our way into the favor of God. Wilson writes well in a way that will both challenge and encourage believers.
I also believe that this work would be a great resource for Christians to use in ongoing discussion with friends who are not sure about the faith. The ten chapters of this book could each be used as very helpful discussion guides to show a non-believer just what Christianity is all about.
I received a copy of this book from Baker Books in exchange for my writing of an honest review.
Right Wrong and Wrong Right (Judges 18:14-20)
Judges 18:14-20 (ESV)
14 Then the five men who had gone to scout out the country of Laish said to their brothers, “Do you know that in these houses there are an ephod, household gods, a carved image, and a metal image? Now therefore consider what you will do.” 15 And they turned aside there and came to the house of the young Levite, at the home of Micah, and asked him about his welfare. 16 Now the 600 men of the Danites, armed with their weapons of war, stood by the entrance of the gate. 17 And the five men who had gone to scout out the land went up and entered and took the carved image, the ephod, the household gods, and the metal image, while the priest stood by the entrance of the gate with the 600 men armed with weapons of war. 18 And when these went into Micah’s house and took the carved image, the ephod, the household gods, and the metal image, the priest said to them, “What are you doing?” 19 And they said to him, “Keep quiet; put your hand on your mouth and come with us and be to us a father and a priest. Is it better for you to be priest to the house of one man, or to be priest to a tribe and clan in Israel?” 20 And the priest’s heart was glad. He took the ephod and the household gods and the carved image and went along with the people.
In this passage, we see something of the decline of Israel. The people of Dan are looking for a place to live, because they have not obeyed God and driven out the inhabitants of their assigned portion of land. While scouting out a place, the men of Dan discover that an Israelite man has a little pagan shrine in his home with an idol, ephod, and Levite serving as their godless priest.
Fascinating is the tension in the scene. The scouts say to the soldiers, “Now therefore consider what you will do.” The answer should have been violence against the Levite and Micah who had fashioned false gods and was corrupting the worship of the true God in Israel. That would have fit everything else happening in the Old Testament at that time. However, the answer was something different. Instead of opposing the blasphemy happening in Israel, the Danites decide that they would rather have the idols for themselves.
I suppose that this gets my attention this morning because it is such a clear picture of a people turning away from the Lord. How far must they have fallen to look at something clearly wrong and call it right? But, a look at Romans 1 shows us that such things happen to societies, and that is the judgment of God for the sinfulness of people.
Lord, I ask that you would protect me from the sinful desire to call right wrong and wrong right. Help me to follow your word. I understand that the failure of the men in this passage is not unique. I know that I could also easily decide that something that is clearly wrong is OK for me or that something that clearly is right is not necessary for me. Keep me, I pray, in your word and filled with your Spirit so that I might rightly recognize right and wrong and follow you faithfully. I also thank you for Jesus, who paid the penalty for all the times that I already have mixed up good and evil in my own heart.
Honey from a Carcass (Judges 14:2-3, 8-9)
Judges 14:2-3, 8-9
2 Then he came up and told his father and mother, “I saw one of the daughters of the Philistines at Timnah. Now get her for me as my wife.” 3 But his father and mother said to him, “Is there not a woman among the daughters of your relatives, or among all our people, that you must go to take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?” But Samson said to his father, “Get her for me, for she is right in my eyes.” …
8 After some days he returned to take her. And he turned aside to see the carcass of the lion, and behold, there was a swarm of bees in the body of the lion, and honey. 9 He scraped it out into his hands and went on, eating as he went. And he came to his father and mother and gave some to them, and they ate. But he did not tell them that he had scraped the honey from the carcass of the lion.
Samson wanted a Philistine wife. God, of course, had forbidden such an intermarriage. Yet, to Samson, it looked and felt right. It was what he wanted.
In the same chapter, Samson killed a lion. Later, he looked and found that bees had made honey in the carcass of the lion. Samson chose to eat that honey and to give it to his parents who were unaware of what was going on. Eating honey from a dead animal carcass would have clearly violated God’s laws relating to clean and unclean foods.
What do we see here? God has clear rules that he commands that we follow. In two instances, we see Samson disregard the rules of God simply because he wants to. Not only does Samson break the laws of God, he also drags his parents into his mess with him, corrupting those around him with his selfish sin.
Truly, this is a picture of our own sinfulness. When we sin against God, is it not because what we do seems right in our eyes at the time? We want what we want. What we want seems sweet and satisfying. We do not like that God would forbid anything from us. So, we break the law of God. Then, in order to satisfy ourselves more, we often drag others into our mess in order to feel better about our own failings.
The word of God is perfect. His law is worth far more than gold and his standards are sweeter than honey (cf. Psalm 19:10-11). Never is breaking the law of God OK. Never does it lead to satisfaction and joy. Never does it benefit us in the long run. Never can we strive against God and win.
Lord, the truth is, we are sinful people. It is so easy for me to decide that I want what I want and I will disobey your commands. I pray that you will work in my heart a love for your word so that I will not break it. I pray that you will put obstacles in my path when I would run to sin. I pray that you will convict me of sin and help me toward holiness. I ask for friends who will confront me when I fail and whose wisdom I will hear. Please do not let me get honey from a carcass and think it good. Thank you for your Holy Spirit to convict me and for the finished work of Jesus by which I am forgiven.
Pastor Travis Peterson 