I was recently challenged by the idea that there is a difference between trusting God to provide for me, and trusting in the provision that God provides. It is a significant difference. The former asks me to trust in what I cannot see while the latter lets me see what is provided before I make the choice to trust.
In a similar way, there is a big difference between trusting in the Word of God when I can understand it and trusting in the Word of God when it is downright confusing or perhaps even offensive to me. The former is like trusting in the provision that I can see. I am encouraged by it and I can see how it is beneficial to me. The latter appears on the surface to be like picking up a backpack full of bricks just before starting out on a long hike. From my (not very humble) perspective, it will cost me more than I’ll get out of it.
In John 6, Jesus speaks to the crowds in a way that would lead me as a teacher educator to give him very low grades! He seems to go out of his way to be confusing, and not just in subtle ways. It happened earlier in John when he told Nicodemus that people must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God. (John 3:5) This metaphor confused Nicodemus rather than helped. The concrete instantiation of the idea got in the way of understanding the idea itself.
The same thing happens in John 6. Jesus says, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (6:51) I can see the value in comparing himself to nourishment and to the manna that the Israelites ate in the desert, yet it seems that Jesus came dangerously close to suggesting cannibalism! And the people agree with me. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (6:52) As an observer I think, “Good question! I’m glad someone asked! Now Jesus can clear up the confusion.” So what does Jesus say? “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (6:53) Instead of making it better, Jesus makes matters worse! He digs deeper into this metaphor that seems to be causing such trouble!
John, the writer of the Gospel, acknowledges that this was a very tough time in Jesus’ ministry. “After this, many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.” (6:66) It is as though John was saying to his readers that sometimes Jesus’ words were and are seemingly very obtuse and offensive! And some people decided that they couldn’t hang in there with him if he were going to keep speaking like this!
So it is fascinating that John then tells us about the interaction between Peter and Jesus. “So Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘Do you want to go away as well?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.’” (6:67-68) It seems that Peter said, “I agree with those people who left that your words are quite confusing and challenging! But I trust you, that you are the Son of God, so whatever your words are, I believe that they are the words of life.”
It seems to me that Peter was saying, “I know I can trust God and His words even though right now it isn’t making a whole lot of sense to me!” He was trusting in God even when God’s words were confusing and even offensive. John was saying in his Gospel that Christ’s disciples have to choose to follow Him even when the road is a winding path that goes through dense fog. We are to trust in the person of God, not just in the good things that God provides, and not just when we can see the good things that God is doing.
An application for me is that I have to learn to trust God even when His specific provision for me is very unclear. I need to learn to rejoice in His love even when I currently can’t see it very clearly. Is there a better place to go to find such love and grace? If not, then rejoice in staying within the strong arms of the God who gave His Son that we might live!
Friday, November 12, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Party Crashers
A few years ago, a few people made big news by crashing a party for President Obama without an invitation. This made big news because of the great security concern. If someone could sneak into a party including the president unknown to security, certainly he or she could do great harm, especially given today’s climate of terrorism. It also made news because people wondered how security around the most powerful man of the world could be so loose!
It is surprising that Jesus described the kingdom of heaven something like this. That is, He says in Matthew 22:2, “The kingdom of heaven is like” a wedding party put on by the king. There is a bunch of wrangling over who is invited and who actually comes. The problem is that the people on the normal guest list had better things to do than attend a party. So the king sent out to fill the hall with other people, people you wouldn’t expect including both ‘good and bad.’ (22:10)
The most surprising part of this story is what happens next. The king finds among those dinner guests (including those who were good and bad) a man who had no wedding garment.” (22:11) The king reacts very harshly against this man. “Bind him hand a foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (22:13) This action seems just a bit over the top for a man who simply hadn’t worn the right clothes!
UNDERSTANDING THE PARABLE
People have said that this parable is one of the most challenging parables to understand, and I believe them! (By the way, it is interesting to note that when Luke includes this parable of the wedding feast (see 14:12-24), he doesn’t include this extra part of the episode. I don’t blame him!) Assuming that Jesus intended to portray God as this king, the God of justice and love doesn’t come off looking so good!
UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT
It has been said that you aren’t ready to preach a passage of the Bible until you are ready to preach the whole of that book in a single sermon. You have to grasp the big picture in order to know how the ‘details’ fit into that picture. If that is true of preaching, it is also true at least in part when you read the Bible. That is, to take your understanding of a sentence in the Bible as authoritative, you have to understand how that sentence fits into its chapter and that chapter into its book.
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
With that in mind, let’s step back from this passage a moment. Matthew seems to be a book aimed at convincing Jews that Jesus really is the promised Messiah. It seems also that He was wanting to encourage Jewish Christians who might be opposed by their own countrymen. (For example, see the introduction to Matthew in a study Bible, like p. 1816 of the ESV Study Bible.)
MATTHEW’S SECTION ON OPPOSITION BY RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT
Looking at the narrative flow of Matthew around this passage, chapters 19 through 25 all focus on Jesus’ conflict with the religious establishment in Jerusalem. He makes clear the conflict as well as their certain demise. Note that this is a rather big section of the whole book. Matthew takes this issue very seriously! (If you’d like to skip the detail, you can go down to BACK TO THE PARABLE below.)
in 19:1 we see Jesus leave Galilee to start toward Jerusalem for the last time. As he does so, He gives some hard teachings to His disciples (e.g., divorce, welcomed kids, a rejected rich man). In 20:17 Jesus starts toward Jerusalem, telling His disciples about the coming crucifixion while James and John are angling for good positions in the new kingdom.
From 21:1 through 25:46 we have a passage that gives its primary attention to conflict with the religious authorities in Jerusalem, the very ones who represented the people of God and were supposedly in a line of authority connecting back to Aaron and Moses themselves. To walk briefly through this passage:
Jesus clears out the temple and curses the fig tree
* The elders question his authority to do such things
* Jesus responds with three parables: the obedient and disobedient sons who exchange positions, the tenants who don’t fulfill their calling, and the wedding feast (our passage).
* The religious leaders respond by testing Jesus with hard questions about taxes, the resurrection, and the greatest commandment.
* Jesus silences them with a question about how the Messiah could be both David’s son and David’s Lord.
Jesus then declares 7 woes against the religious leaders (Matthew 23).
In Chapter 24 He predicts the destruction of the seat of religion in Judaism.
In Chapter 25 He challenges His disciples to stay obedient to the end even though the end will be a while in coming (parable of the Ten Virgins, the parable of the Talents, and the parable of the Sheep and the Goats).
Chapter 26 is then the transition to Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion.
BACK TO THE PARABLE
As this review demonstrates, this parable is right in the middle of Jesus’ conflict with the religious leaders. Remember that Matthew is writing to convince people that Jesus really is the promised Messiah and to encourage Jewish Christians in the face of continued opposition and rejection by their fellow Jews. So what does this tell us about the parable?
First, the people who should have come to the party (the Jewish religious leaders) rejected the invitation. While it doesn’t make sense (no one would refuse the invitation of the king to the wedding feast of his son!), this is exactly what happened. Jesus knew it would be true. People shouldn’t take this rejection as an indication that Jesus isn’t truly the Messiah. And they shouldn’t be surprised when people who wouldn’t normally be invited into God’s kingdom (e.g., Gentiles, prostitutes, tax collectors) are invited and actually come.
Second, just being in the ‘right place at the right time’ doesn’t make one truly a member of God’s kingdom. It didn’t work for the religious leaders and it didn’t work for many of the Jews. Being in the midst of God’s people doesn’t make you one of God’s people. We don’t know with much certainty what was wrong with the man’s clothing, but we know that there was something about him that made him unwelcome, even though many ‘bad and good’ people were.
THE LESSON IN A SENTENCE
Jesus summarizes his lesson in the parable with these words: “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (22:14) Some refuse the invitation and never come. Some get in the door and yet still don’t belong. And perhaps Matthew is even using it as a thesis for this whole section. There is an open invitation to many, yet those who truly come (the ‘chosen’) are few.
For non-Christian Jews who would read Matthew, this section points out that rejection of Jesus by many of the Jews, especially the Jewish leaders, does not mean that Jesus isn’t the Messiah. In fact, Jesus says that when He is rejected by God’s people, He is in good company, for the leaders of this people had always been rejecting God’s prophets! And for Christian Jews, rejection by their own people should not surprise them either.
And for those ‘inside’ the church, the message is that simply being among God’s people doesn’t make you one of His people. Many heard Jesus and saw His miracles, even benefited from them (e.g., feeding of the 5,000) without being one of His people. And many of Abraham’s descendents had the Law and the Prophets, yet they were not truly part of the people of God.
BEING IN GOD’S KINGDOM
It seems that Matthew is teaching that who’s “in” and who’s “out” in terms of God’s kingdom is actually quite surprising. Many you expect to be “in” aren’t. Many you’d never expect to be insiders actually are. Yet even among that surprising set, some are not for reasons that aren’t entirely clear to us.
What makes one right with God is not one’s context (e.g., being descended from the people of God, being in a Christian household, or being a part of a community of God’s people). Rather, it comes with submitting to “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:15) It comes by being among the chosen, not only among the invited.
OUR RESPONSE
How did the religious leaders respond to this parable? They immediately began trying to trap Jesus. They treated Him as an opponent to be beat. In short, they revealed that they were not among the chosen.
How should we respond? By humbly submitting to the Messiah, accepting His invitation and asking Him to make us worthy of it.
It is surprising that Jesus described the kingdom of heaven something like this. That is, He says in Matthew 22:2, “The kingdom of heaven is like” a wedding party put on by the king. There is a bunch of wrangling over who is invited and who actually comes. The problem is that the people on the normal guest list had better things to do than attend a party. So the king sent out to fill the hall with other people, people you wouldn’t expect including both ‘good and bad.’ (22:10)
The most surprising part of this story is what happens next. The king finds among those dinner guests (including those who were good and bad) a man who had no wedding garment.” (22:11) The king reacts very harshly against this man. “Bind him hand a foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (22:13) This action seems just a bit over the top for a man who simply hadn’t worn the right clothes!
UNDERSTANDING THE PARABLE
People have said that this parable is one of the most challenging parables to understand, and I believe them! (By the way, it is interesting to note that when Luke includes this parable of the wedding feast (see 14:12-24), he doesn’t include this extra part of the episode. I don’t blame him!) Assuming that Jesus intended to portray God as this king, the God of justice and love doesn’t come off looking so good!
UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT
It has been said that you aren’t ready to preach a passage of the Bible until you are ready to preach the whole of that book in a single sermon. You have to grasp the big picture in order to know how the ‘details’ fit into that picture. If that is true of preaching, it is also true at least in part when you read the Bible. That is, to take your understanding of a sentence in the Bible as authoritative, you have to understand how that sentence fits into its chapter and that chapter into its book.
THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
With that in mind, let’s step back from this passage a moment. Matthew seems to be a book aimed at convincing Jews that Jesus really is the promised Messiah. It seems also that He was wanting to encourage Jewish Christians who might be opposed by their own countrymen. (For example, see the introduction to Matthew in a study Bible, like p. 1816 of the ESV Study Bible.)
MATTHEW’S SECTION ON OPPOSITION BY RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT
Looking at the narrative flow of Matthew around this passage, chapters 19 through 25 all focus on Jesus’ conflict with the religious establishment in Jerusalem. He makes clear the conflict as well as their certain demise. Note that this is a rather big section of the whole book. Matthew takes this issue very seriously! (If you’d like to skip the detail, you can go down to BACK TO THE PARABLE below.)
in 19:1 we see Jesus leave Galilee to start toward Jerusalem for the last time. As he does so, He gives some hard teachings to His disciples (e.g., divorce, welcomed kids, a rejected rich man). In 20:17 Jesus starts toward Jerusalem, telling His disciples about the coming crucifixion while James and John are angling for good positions in the new kingdom.
From 21:1 through 25:46 we have a passage that gives its primary attention to conflict with the religious authorities in Jerusalem, the very ones who represented the people of God and were supposedly in a line of authority connecting back to Aaron and Moses themselves. To walk briefly through this passage:
Jesus clears out the temple and curses the fig tree
* The elders question his authority to do such things
* Jesus responds with three parables: the obedient and disobedient sons who exchange positions, the tenants who don’t fulfill their calling, and the wedding feast (our passage).
* The religious leaders respond by testing Jesus with hard questions about taxes, the resurrection, and the greatest commandment.
* Jesus silences them with a question about how the Messiah could be both David’s son and David’s Lord.
Jesus then declares 7 woes against the religious leaders (Matthew 23).
In Chapter 24 He predicts the destruction of the seat of religion in Judaism.
In Chapter 25 He challenges His disciples to stay obedient to the end even though the end will be a while in coming (parable of the Ten Virgins, the parable of the Talents, and the parable of the Sheep and the Goats).
Chapter 26 is then the transition to Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion.
BACK TO THE PARABLE
As this review demonstrates, this parable is right in the middle of Jesus’ conflict with the religious leaders. Remember that Matthew is writing to convince people that Jesus really is the promised Messiah and to encourage Jewish Christians in the face of continued opposition and rejection by their fellow Jews. So what does this tell us about the parable?
First, the people who should have come to the party (the Jewish religious leaders) rejected the invitation. While it doesn’t make sense (no one would refuse the invitation of the king to the wedding feast of his son!), this is exactly what happened. Jesus knew it would be true. People shouldn’t take this rejection as an indication that Jesus isn’t truly the Messiah. And they shouldn’t be surprised when people who wouldn’t normally be invited into God’s kingdom (e.g., Gentiles, prostitutes, tax collectors) are invited and actually come.
Second, just being in the ‘right place at the right time’ doesn’t make one truly a member of God’s kingdom. It didn’t work for the religious leaders and it didn’t work for many of the Jews. Being in the midst of God’s people doesn’t make you one of God’s people. We don’t know with much certainty what was wrong with the man’s clothing, but we know that there was something about him that made him unwelcome, even though many ‘bad and good’ people were.
THE LESSON IN A SENTENCE
Jesus summarizes his lesson in the parable with these words: “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (22:14) Some refuse the invitation and never come. Some get in the door and yet still don’t belong. And perhaps Matthew is even using it as a thesis for this whole section. There is an open invitation to many, yet those who truly come (the ‘chosen’) are few.
For non-Christian Jews who would read Matthew, this section points out that rejection of Jesus by many of the Jews, especially the Jewish leaders, does not mean that Jesus isn’t the Messiah. In fact, Jesus says that when He is rejected by God’s people, He is in good company, for the leaders of this people had always been rejecting God’s prophets! And for Christian Jews, rejection by their own people should not surprise them either.
And for those ‘inside’ the church, the message is that simply being among God’s people doesn’t make you one of His people. Many heard Jesus and saw His miracles, even benefited from them (e.g., feeding of the 5,000) without being one of His people. And many of Abraham’s descendents had the Law and the Prophets, yet they were not truly part of the people of God.
BEING IN GOD’S KINGDOM
It seems that Matthew is teaching that who’s “in” and who’s “out” in terms of God’s kingdom is actually quite surprising. Many you expect to be “in” aren’t. Many you’d never expect to be insiders actually are. Yet even among that surprising set, some are not for reasons that aren’t entirely clear to us.
What makes one right with God is not one’s context (e.g., being descended from the people of God, being in a Christian household, or being a part of a community of God’s people). Rather, it comes with submitting to “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:15) It comes by being among the chosen, not only among the invited.
OUR RESPONSE
How did the religious leaders respond to this parable? They immediately began trying to trap Jesus. They treated Him as an opponent to be beat. In short, they revealed that they were not among the chosen.
How should we respond? By humbly submitting to the Messiah, accepting His invitation and asking Him to make us worthy of it.
Friday, October 29, 2010
The Kindness and Severity of God
One of the attributes that is valued in parents is their consistency. Parents, it seems, should treat their kids the same way, day in and day out. Obviously if kids can't figure out what their parents care about or how they'll respond to the kids' actions, it is hard for them to learn or have confidence in what will come.
Given this, I find God's actions in 1 Kings 21 a bit confusing. Ahab was an awful king, the seventh of the kings in the Northern Kingdom of Israel none of whom could be considered good kings. In this chapter, he selfishly approaches Naboth, a commoner in his kingdom, to buy or trade for Naboth's vineyard. In a way it seems that Ahab does the honorable thing. He offers to buy the land, but Naboth views his land not as something to be bought or sold, but as God's gift to himself and to his descendants. Accordingly, Naboth says that the land isn't for sale or trade, no matter what is offered in return. In response, Ahab was 'vexed and sullen,' being so upset that he wouldn't eat.
Enter one of the worst characters in biblical history, Jezebel. She essentially says, "You are king. You can have whatever you want. Let me show you!" And she was right given the common view of kings in that day.
So she arranges to have Naboth killed and then tells Ahab to go claim the land. Ahab does and all seems fine, that is, until Elijah the prophet arrives. He has very harsh words from God to Ahab. Among his predictions: dogs will eat the flesh of Ahab's family in the city, and birds will eat the flesh of Ahab's family in the country. For a society that highly values care for bodies of the dead, it is hard to imagine a harsher judgment ... especially for a king! God is very severe with Ahab because Ahab had abused the trust God had given him as king, using it to murder and steal simply because he wanted a nice vineyard closer to his palace.
We are then given this awful assessment of Ahab: "There was none who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the LORD like Ahab, whom Jezebel his wife incited." (1 Kings 21:25) Ahab was as bad as he could get.
Notice that the ESV puts this statement in parentheses. It is as if this text is out of place. In fact, it interrupts the narrative flow. But rather than seeing it as a side comment that perhaps we aren't supposed to hear, perhaps the writer wanted to make sure that we realize that Ahab is as bad as it gets. He deserves the severity of God if anyone does!
So now we get the puzzle. Ahab again sulks, but this time, he sulks because of the message of the judgment of God against him. But God saw something more than a moody king who couldn't get his way. Notice God's words to Elijah: “Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days; but in his son's days I will bring the disaster upon his house.” (1 Kings 21:29)
God saw something good in Ahab. He had humbled himself before God. And God delays his judgment so that Ahab would personally miss the worst of it! Rather than inflict his awful judgment on Ahab himself, God would delay the punishment and bring it on his sons.
I find God's kindness here amazing! We have just been told that no one is as bad as Ahab, and yet when Ahab humbles himself, God is kind! And this is the God of the Old Testament who is often seen as judgmental and violent! But to be frank, it seems that God is too quick to relent. Imagine the worst rulers of today. God brings a message to them of judgment and they fast in response, then God relents in His judgment. If I were in a family like Naboth's, I probably wouldn't be very impressed with God's approach!
Paul says in Romans 11:22: "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off." God is both kind and severe. His severity is shown to those who refuse to humble themselves to Him, and His kindness is shown to those who will. And it seems in Ahab's case, that it doesn't have to take long to shift the category in which we fit! In my view, Ahab was given too easy a shift, yet that is the kindness of God! Even in the Old Testament, we see a kindness in God that surpasses human kindness.
As Paul says, God is both severe and kind. And He perfectly navigates which of these two aspects of His character apparently takes predominance. My first challenge is that I must be humble before God! I want His kindness, not His severity. To be humble is (at least) to have true remorse for sin and for violating the ways of God, to turn to Him in confession, seeking His kindness, and to be humble in my view of other people, recognizing that they and I are in the same position before God. Might I follow the example of Ahab, seeking God's kindness even when, or especially when, I least deserve it.
My second challenge is to treat others the way God does. That is, I need to figure out when/how I should be 'severe' and when/how I should be 'kind.' Clearly God calls us to pursue justice, to confront those who are in rebellion against Him, and to rebuke especially those in His family who are straying from right doctrine and right practice. He also clearly calls us to show love which covers a multitude of sins. In Ahab's case, the attitude of the offender seems to be a primary determiner of which path to take.
The original readers of 1 Kings were probably children of Israel who were in exile. The accounts of the kings of Israel were meant to show the people that God was justified in sending them from their land. But the author wanted to make clear to the people that even the worst of these kinds had ready access to the kindness of God. So they too, even those who justly were sent into exile, had ready access to the kindness of God. All they had to do was humble themselves before Him.
Might we do the same.
Given this, I find God's actions in 1 Kings 21 a bit confusing. Ahab was an awful king, the seventh of the kings in the Northern Kingdom of Israel none of whom could be considered good kings. In this chapter, he selfishly approaches Naboth, a commoner in his kingdom, to buy or trade for Naboth's vineyard. In a way it seems that Ahab does the honorable thing. He offers to buy the land, but Naboth views his land not as something to be bought or sold, but as God's gift to himself and to his descendants. Accordingly, Naboth says that the land isn't for sale or trade, no matter what is offered in return. In response, Ahab was 'vexed and sullen,' being so upset that he wouldn't eat.
Enter one of the worst characters in biblical history, Jezebel. She essentially says, "You are king. You can have whatever you want. Let me show you!" And she was right given the common view of kings in that day.
So she arranges to have Naboth killed and then tells Ahab to go claim the land. Ahab does and all seems fine, that is, until Elijah the prophet arrives. He has very harsh words from God to Ahab. Among his predictions: dogs will eat the flesh of Ahab's family in the city, and birds will eat the flesh of Ahab's family in the country. For a society that highly values care for bodies of the dead, it is hard to imagine a harsher judgment ... especially for a king! God is very severe with Ahab because Ahab had abused the trust God had given him as king, using it to murder and steal simply because he wanted a nice vineyard closer to his palace.
We are then given this awful assessment of Ahab: "There was none who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the LORD like Ahab, whom Jezebel his wife incited." (1 Kings 21:25) Ahab was as bad as he could get.
Notice that the ESV puts this statement in parentheses. It is as if this text is out of place. In fact, it interrupts the narrative flow. But rather than seeing it as a side comment that perhaps we aren't supposed to hear, perhaps the writer wanted to make sure that we realize that Ahab is as bad as it gets. He deserves the severity of God if anyone does!
So now we get the puzzle. Ahab again sulks, but this time, he sulks because of the message of the judgment of God against him. But God saw something more than a moody king who couldn't get his way. Notice God's words to Elijah: “Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days; but in his son's days I will bring the disaster upon his house.” (1 Kings 21:29)
God saw something good in Ahab. He had humbled himself before God. And God delays his judgment so that Ahab would personally miss the worst of it! Rather than inflict his awful judgment on Ahab himself, God would delay the punishment and bring it on his sons.
I find God's kindness here amazing! We have just been told that no one is as bad as Ahab, and yet when Ahab humbles himself, God is kind! And this is the God of the Old Testament who is often seen as judgmental and violent! But to be frank, it seems that God is too quick to relent. Imagine the worst rulers of today. God brings a message to them of judgment and they fast in response, then God relents in His judgment. If I were in a family like Naboth's, I probably wouldn't be very impressed with God's approach!
Paul says in Romans 11:22: "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off." God is both kind and severe. His severity is shown to those who refuse to humble themselves to Him, and His kindness is shown to those who will. And it seems in Ahab's case, that it doesn't have to take long to shift the category in which we fit! In my view, Ahab was given too easy a shift, yet that is the kindness of God! Even in the Old Testament, we see a kindness in God that surpasses human kindness.
As Paul says, God is both severe and kind. And He perfectly navigates which of these two aspects of His character apparently takes predominance. My first challenge is that I must be humble before God! I want His kindness, not His severity. To be humble is (at least) to have true remorse for sin and for violating the ways of God, to turn to Him in confession, seeking His kindness, and to be humble in my view of other people, recognizing that they and I are in the same position before God. Might I follow the example of Ahab, seeking God's kindness even when, or especially when, I least deserve it.
My second challenge is to treat others the way God does. That is, I need to figure out when/how I should be 'severe' and when/how I should be 'kind.' Clearly God calls us to pursue justice, to confront those who are in rebellion against Him, and to rebuke especially those in His family who are straying from right doctrine and right practice. He also clearly calls us to show love which covers a multitude of sins. In Ahab's case, the attitude of the offender seems to be a primary determiner of which path to take.
The original readers of 1 Kings were probably children of Israel who were in exile. The accounts of the kings of Israel were meant to show the people that God was justified in sending them from their land. But the author wanted to make clear to the people that even the worst of these kinds had ready access to the kindness of God. So they too, even those who justly were sent into exile, had ready access to the kindness of God. All they had to do was humble themselves before Him.
Might we do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)