Three lessons from Judges

We've been reading through the Bible as a church family since the beginning of the year, and yesterday we concluded the book of Judges.  This is one of the more challenging sections of the Old Testament, largely due to its gruesome content, spiritually destitute characters, and unabashed warfare.  The central theme is  found in the repeated refrains, "Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD" (Judges 2.11; 3.7; 3.12; 4.1; 6.1; 8.33-35; 10.6; 13.1) and "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (17.6; 21.25), clear indicators of the spiritual temperature of the nation that was supposed to represent God to the world.  The book's horrific conclusion alone, five chapters of utter depravity, paint a stark picture of the darkness and self-deception of which men are capable.

Here are a few observations to be gleaned from such a heavy, poignant text.

Ultimately, God is THE Judge.  Though God raised up men and women alike to lead the nation of Israel and rescue the people from oppression at the hands of their enemies, ultimately God Himself is the judge.  Jephthah's words to the king of the Ammonites in 11.27 make this point clear: "The Lord, the Judge, decide this day between the people of Israel and the people of Ammon."  Jephthah's own personal story -- despite the great victory he won as Israel's judge -- is a tragic reminder of this very fact: that the Lord alone rules with equity and flawless judgment.

One of the larger, undergirding themes of the book of Judges is therefore the insufficiency of man's leadership.  You and I wholeheartedly acknowledge this truth at the same time we deny it, because we all have our heroes as much as we have our scapegoats.  The guy I vote for is the only candidate worthy of the job; the guy who gets in instead is inept and unqualified.  The last boss knew what he was doing, but the new guy is a joke.  Moreover, when we find ourselves in leadership roles, we are even more likely to forget the reality that human leadership is flawed, because we envision ourselves to be fair, moral human beings perfectly capable of (and entitled to the right of) meting out justice.

While the Judges of Israel were men and women chosen specifically by God, they were still sinners who exhibited critical lapses of judgment.  Sometimes, it's difficult to find even a shred of godliness in these figures (i.e. Samson).  And we sometimes struggle with understanding why God empowers some and not others.  But all of this points to the reality that God alone is perfectly just, and that He alone rules with perfect holiness.  This fact reminds us that, although we are subject to imperfect human institutions and required by God Himself to honor them, those who hold power in this world are not above error or worthy of our unwavering allegiance.

Israel's repentance was genuine (if short-lived).  And therefore, God's mercy and restoration were genuine as well.  God would not have called the judges to restore the people had their cries of contrition not been in earnest.  Unfortunately, it was only after they'd tried everything else, endured oppression for as long as they could on their own power, and clung to the false gods of the surrounding nations that they would finally remember the Lord and His goodness.  Out of their sorrow, they would cry for help, and God -- impatient to rescue His people from their plight (10.16) -- would respond.

This is a powerful reminder that, though we often fall repeatedly into the same sins, God's mercy remains.  One of my favorite worship lyrics comes from Laura Story's "Indescribable": "You see the depths of my heart, and you love me the same."  I can take confidence in the fact that, though I am weak and still subject to temptation, my status as His child is unchanged, and His grace is never rescinded.

While it's impossible to identify a singular root cause of the pattern of rebellion we see in Judges, it seems to me that the cycles are largely generational.  One generation does what is evil in the sight of the LORD, comes to repentance after a decade or so of oppression, and God raises a judge to defeat the enemy and give the people rest, but then they ultimately fail to impart to their children the importance of sacred devotion to the Lord.  And so, 18-20 years later, this new generation -- poorly taught and still beset by the foreign nations their forefathers failed to eradicate -- is doomed to walk the same path as their parents.

Certainly not every single member of the previous generation had died off by the time of the next rebellion, nor were they  immune to the allure of temptation.  Furthermore, every man and woman is ultimately responsible for his or her own sin (Ezek 18.20; Jas 1.14).  But in a similar situation to the wilderness wanderings of the Mosaic era, the parents ultimately failed to teach their children well, setting them up to repeat their own failures.  This is what prompted Moses to deliver the series of speeches just outside the Promised Land that comprise the book of Deuteronomy, because the children had no "knowledge of good or evil" (Deut 1.39), despite the miraculous experiences of their parents in the wilderness.

We would do well to take this indictment of parenting to heart: we should endeavor to teach our children well about the Lord's goodness as well as our own failures, so that they are prepared for the temptations they themselves will face and will (hopefully) seek the Lord's will rather than their own.

The life lessons we give to our children should be saturated with Scriptural truth, not just practical wisdom.

God does not condone human violence.  This is especially difficult to grasp when reading the Old Testament, the pages of which drip with the blood of slaughtered peoples, families, and nations -- Israeli and Gentile alike.  In the book of Judges alone there is enough brutality to satisfy Game of Thrones audiences.  However, the violence in Judges is always directly connected to the people's sin.  God had promised repeatedly that, were the Israelites to walk in worshipful obedience, they would live in peace and prosperity with His sovereign protection shielding them from their enemies.  Instead, Israel first failed to complete the conquest of the land, and then descended into all kinds of depravity as a direct result.  The judgment for this was the oppression of the foreign nations, which in turn necessitated war to free the people of Israel once they acknowledged their error.

Even within that framework, most of the violent activity we see in Judges is excessive and not God-sanctioned.  For example, cruelty such as the severing of Adoni-bezek's thumbs and big toes (1.6), the killing that resulted from Abimelech's power struggle (Ch. 9), Gibeah's crime and the Levite's grotesque response (19.22-30), which in turn prompted Israel's civil war with the tribe of Benjamin (Ch. 20).  These, amongst other examples, were not done at God's command, though the perpetrators were often the very men He called to lead the people (for more on this, see point #1).

Did God command the conquest of the Promised Land, in which Israel was expected to fully eradicate the peoples living there?  Yes.  Moses and Joshua both make this case very clear (e.g. Deut 7.1-2; Josh 3.10).  And the reason is that the Canaanite tribes were wicked people groups who viciously slaughtered their own neighbors and engaged in abominable practices such as child sacrifice in worship of their false gods.  They were perverse tribes who hated God and His people, and God's decisive judgment of them was as much the reason for their eradication as was fulfillment of His promise to Abraham (Gen 15.16; Lev 18.24-25; Deut 7.10; 9.5).  As John MacArthur put it, "The question is not why God chose to destroy these sinners, but why He had let them live so long, and why all inners are not destroyed far sooner than they are."

In the pages of Joshua, we see God's hand leading Israel to victory over wicked peoples whose iniquity was a stench upon the earth.  In Judges, it's a different story -- a worst-case scenario that unfolds again and again.  The wars that ensued after the death of Joshua were direct consequences for the people's wickedness and their failure to permanently depose the Lord's enemies.

A fuller discussion of why God commanded literal war for Israel yet requires peaceful coexistence of His church is beyond the scope of this post, but what we must remember is that even in the conquest era God never condoned human violence.  In fact, the Word attests that He hates hands that shed innocent blood (Prov 6.17), claims just vengeance for Himself (Deut 32.35; Rom 12.19), and prohibits the taking of human life (Ex 20.13; 1 John 3.15).  Leading the people to seize the land promised to Abraham was an act of sovereign judgment that is in no way to be imitated by Christians in any capacity.  Frankly, no legitimate follower of Christ will commend the Crusades.  Our responsibility as His children today is not to determine for ourselves who is worthy of judgment, but to communicate the gospel message in our best, compassionate effort to -- in Paul's words -- "overcome evil with good."

In a day and age when everyone is again doing what is "right in his/her own eyes," understanding the concepts put forward in the book of Judges is more than just a lesson in ancient history.  These truths are pertinent to understanding the complexities of sin in the world, as well as embracing our own God-given responsibilities for walking in righteousness.

Leviticus 18 -- A loophole for homosexuality?

When I'm defending the traditional Christian stance on homosexuality, my go-to passage is not Leviticus 18 or 20.  Nor, as a matter of fact, is it Romans 1.

I'll often approach the topic more from a Genesis 1/Ephesians 5 perspective -- God's designs for marriage and sexuality being paramount.  However, what I constantly run into is the popular argument that Leviticus 18.22's language invokes the type of sexual violence common in the time period, which would render the English reading something more akin to, "A male shall not forcibly lie with another male, as such sexual violence is an abomination."

This understanding of the subtext, while maybe not entirely inaccurate, still misses the overall context of the chapter.  It also ignores the fact that the Hebrew word translated "lie" in English to connote sexual relations, does not here carry any violent overtones.  In fact, the word translated "lie" in other Old Testament passages might have the same root, but with a different connotation when elsewhere used to connote violence or ambush (i.e. "lying in wait," as per Deut 19.11; Prov 1.11).

That said, of course rape is not a modern sin and it is not dis-included from the sexual sins addressed in the Pentateuch (see Deut 22.25).  In fact, many of the sexual deviancies listed in this passage and others would likely involve some kind of violence.  Actually, I'd argue that all of them do.  After all, incest is most often the result of one family member taking advantage of another or using him/her against his/her will (see Judah/Tamar [deception] -- Gen 38.12-26; Lot and his daughters [deception, drunkenness] -- Gen 19.30-38; Amnon/Tamar [forcible rape] -- 2 Sam 13).

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of cases of consensual incest, of course.  Sin is tempting and seemingly justifiable for all sorts of twisted reasons.  I'm also not arguing that violence is a moot point when it comes to these sexual sins.  What I am arguing is that, if the issue at stake in Leviticus 18 were simply violence, and that the practice of homosexuality itself was acceptable on non-violent grounds, then we would be forced to say -- by that same standard -- that incestuous sexuality was also acceptable, in the case that both parties were consenting.  In other words, we can't just pigeonhole one act in this list as being explicitly violent, therefore rendering it acceptable in non-violent circumstances, and not also apply the same logic to the rest of the passage.

Ironically, this is not the perspective our culture holds when it comes to this passage -- obviously, incest is wrong (or at least not preferable) because we find that type of sexual expression unhealthy and distasteful.  Nobody marches for the rights of incestuous couples, even though there are state and national laws prohibiting legal unions between siblings and parents/offspring.  However, because our culture wants to endorse the practice of homosexuality, the caveat of forcible rape is applied to this passage to suggest a loophole that doesn't actually exist.

The larger context of the book of Leviticus is even more compelling.  The entire text resounds with the theme of God's holiness, emphasizing again and again the importance of the Israelite people living with radically different beliefs, customs, laws, and ethics than the nations surrounding them.  Specifically in Leviticus 18, the topic is sexual sins that were violations of God's standard of holiness for Israel.  As with the rest of the book, the laws He is here ordaining will separate His sanctified people from the practices of the foreign nations.  Specifically included in Leviticus 18 are incestuous acts, bestiality, sex during a woman's menstrual period, child sacrifice, and homosexuality.  The child sacrifice thing particularly seems out of place here, but the ritualistic sacrifice of children in the pagan Canaanite nations would definitely involve lewd fertility rites, and would symbolically defile maternity, paternity, and one of the divine purposes of copulation.

Again, sexual coercion or outright sexual violence is implied in nearly all the acts listed here, which is not excusable or unimportant.  But the central thrust of this passage is the bigger theme of violating God's standard of holiness -- regardless of how, when, or why they take place.  In other words, what do all these things have in common?  They all break God's design and defy God's purpose.  There are no specific details or conditions given for any of these practices, which means there are no circumstances that would render the act in question acceptable, and no circumstances that might provide a convincing case for the Almighty's approval.  In fact, the only "favorable" conditions in this text are deliberately removed from consideration -- that is, when it comes to a man taking his stepsister as a sexual partner, regardless of whether or not they grew up together, which is probably the only time we might culturally consider the incest to be a mere technicality and argue for its acceptability (18.9).  In that instance, there most likely wouldn't be any violence taking place, but it is still an act condemned for the standard it violates.

Bottom line, Leviticus 18 removes the issue of motive entirely and makes the blanket statement that any engagement in these types of practices is a violation of holiness.  For Israel to do any of them would be for them to live like the foreign nations, whom God was chastising for the very same sinful acts.  Such a disregard for holiness within the Israelite community would result in excommunication or death.  What is ultimately important, therefore, is that the specific conditions of the act in no way alter the fact that it is still sinful.

I'll leave it at that, because today's standard of what constitutes acceptable sexuality can't be determined by just what the Old Testament says about sexual conduct.  We can only dispel arguments that seek to prove homosexuality's acceptance in history, so that such twisted logic doesn't become a platform for modern acceptability.

Jesus certainly didn't come to eradicate the Law -- He came to fulfill it -- but He also came to inspire within us not a duty-bound obligation to rigorous customs, but a love for the same kind of holiness that God has always required of His people.  There is no way to reconcile any act -- that is still inherently sinful under any circumstances -- with a God whose perfect character demands perfection in His children.

And that's why the message of the cross is so potent.

The cross communicates that God loved us enough to buy us back from our enslavement to sin, at the cost of His own blood.  The cross communicates that there is a much greater consequence in store than any shade of loneliness or despair in this life can possibly foreshadow.  The cross communicates that none of us were able to fix our own problems, but that Jesus came to give us the power to make that possible.

The cross communicates that homosexuality is a sin you can be rescued from.  You are not beyond God's mercy.  Repentance is not out of the question.

The cross communicates that a far greater fulfillment awaits those who come spiritually hungry to the Lord than any human relationship can offer.

Christian, please stop...

On my way to the office this morning, I noticed a quote on the side of a building near where I live.  A Google search attributed the words to Publilius Syrus, a Latin writer known for that kind of sententiae.  Regardless of its origin, the quote itself -- faded letters on the whitewashed side of a dilapidated building that I drive past nearly every day -- suddenly struck me as so very relevant.

"In quarreling, the truth is always lost."

Of course, the beauty of a slogan is its brevity, but the challenge is interpreting its true meaning.

Here's the way I see it.  We live in the midst of socially and politically turbulent times.  I don't know that there has ever been a time in our nation's recent history, outside of openly declared civil war, that its peoples have stood so internally divided.  And frankly, the issues separating Right and Left are exactly the kinds of things that are truly worth fighting about -- issues of immigration, the lives of unborn children, foreign policy.  In one way or another, these are issues of morality that I believe the Lord bears on His own heart.

But there's a disconnect, because there isn't really debate on this issues so much as there is open warfare between both sides.  And it's not a simple problem of fact-checking when it comes to deciphering who's right and who's wrong.

It's really just the problem of being quarrelsome in and of itself.

The ability to hold different opinions is at the core of American ideology, but both Left and Right seem to have forgotten how to do that with any degree of civility.  Commentary on popular issues from both sides is entirely hateful, vengeful, and destructive.  Protest marches are only peaceful in the sense that no one is openly carrying weapons.  Media coverage from both Right and Left are unabashedly biased, sourcing different information and seeking only to demoralize and vilify the opposition, never allowing for misunderstanding, proper context, or genuine rebuttal.  Statistics are manipulated and rendered useless by both sides.  And even as the masses acknowledge the problems inherent to mainstream media coverage, we swallow it.  And in so doing, we allow the rage to fester.  We seek to dominate the other side rather than defuse the tension by coming to terms.

We lose our way and our identities in the quarrel -- along with what we were even fighting about.

I can't really tell anyone who doesn't hold to Christian ideals how to conduct themselves on these issues.  But for those of us who do confess the name of Jesus, here's a couple things that I beg of those within the church to please, please stop doing.

Christian, please stop needlessly quarreling.

The internet, the news, and the world are all viciously embroiled with conflict.  The noise is sickening: the combatants on both sides are men and women who can't see past their own ideals and preferences, who would rather see the opposition as criminals rather than fellow human beings, who could never swallow the possibility that they themselves might actually be in the wrong.

It is so critical that we as Christians temper our public critique with love and humility -- that is, after first determining if it is even necessary for us to speak at all.

You don't need to prove your point to those who hold the opposite opinion.  They have as much right to hold their perspective as you do, and it's between them and God Himself whether or not they're wrong.  Your job is not to change somebody else's moral standard, their political affiliation, or their stance on Creation.  Your job, when you speak out, is to introduce people to the love and hope of Jesus Christ that you yourself have experienced.  When Jesus instructed His followers to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, I don't think He was talking only about those who are literally shooting at us, but also those who can't see eye-to-eye with us, and those who hurl mixed insults and falsehood.

Truth is lost when we quarrel -- the true facts of whatever we're arguing about, not to mention our real purpose in entering the argument in the first place.  If we must disagree (and on some of these issues, we must), let's do it with poise and a desire to hear out the other side before we even begin to open our mouths (Jas 1.19).  Furthermore, let's also consider the time and the place.  At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, the internet is not really the place to wage war.  YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram comments are not going to influence someone the way one-on-one conversation can.  The greatest impact to be had is on individuals with whom we have personal relationships, so we must start there, not with a keyboard soapbox.

I know we all burn to speak in the face of falsehood and deception, which we see lots of in the modern political climate.  And by no means am I suggesting that we should just hold our tongues and bear up in silence.  However, we should seek to conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the holy calling with which the gospel has ensnared our hearts (Eph 4.1-3), and not simply act out of a desire to correct erroneous perceptions and set records straight.  That kind of vindication will truly come from only one place (Rom 12.19).

Christian, please stop making your local church body a political platform. 

First, it should not be the primary agenda of the church to seek to influence politics.  The church's primary agenda should be seeking to influence its congregants and the world with the gospel (2 Cor 5.18-19).  Don't get me wrong, the church should address political issues from the pulpit and spend much time praying for our nation and its leaders... so that the people as individuals may have positive influence within their communities, the local government, and their political affiliates.  But we must be careful not to confuse a shortsighted goal for an eternal one and potentially damage the image and influence of our congregations in the eyes of our larger communities.

Second, don't assume that you speak for everyone in your congregation.  Christians need to stop lumping all so-called "Leftist liberals" into the same category, just the same as they must stop assuming all "good" Christians are hardcore Republicans.  Believe it or not, a good number of true fellow brothers and sisters in Christ identify more strongly with "them" than with "us."  In other words, YES -- allegiance to Christ CAN and DOES surpasses voter registration.  You should never assume that every Christian holds the same political values as you, or that everyone who disagrees with you is "the enemy."

Do many in the opposing camp hold ideals contrary to the morals of Scripture?  Certainly.  But not all of them do.  And furthermore, it's comical to be offended by the fact that an individual who doesn't adhere to the same standard as we do might practice or support things contrary to what we ourselves believe to be right.  In other words, why should people who aren't Christians act like they are?  Does that actually gain them anything in the light of eternity?  Be careful -- if you said, "Yes!" then you might be preaching a gospel of works rather than a gospel of grace.  If those on the "other side" are truly in need of rescue, then let's first address hearts, not behaviors.

Whether you identify as a Democrat or a Republican, assuming the guilt of the other side impairs your ability to understand the complexity of the issues at stake and also keeps you from engaging on an individual basis.  No one side or the other is immune to hypocrisy or human error -- or, for that matter, the tendency to cover up rather than confess such things.

In that regard, no matter who he may be as an individual, and no matter what political party he spearheads, we need to remember that the president is not the Messiah.  The One who truly claims that title died a long time ago to save you from a much bigger need.  And while God might use the current administration to accomplish His purposes, that doesn't mean that the president is acting with that perspective in mind, nor does it mean that he is the answer to all the issues facing our country.

On the other hand, even if you're of the opinion that the man currently behind the Oval Office desk deserves neither honor nor your respect... well, frankly, not a one among us deserves those things from our peers either.  The grace of the Father is only applicable to sinners who admit their own unworthiness, after all.  Personally, I didn't vote for Donald Trump.  Even though I might align with a number of his policies, I could not in good conscience support the man for the role of president.  But all things considered, he is now in the position of Commander-in-Chief, and I should do my best to demonstrate both honor and respect, the same as I did with Barack Obama (for whom I also didn't vote, by the way).  As Christians, we are responsible to respect those in authority over us, even in a place where we are Scripturally obligated to speak out against them.

Christian, please stop elevating American ideals to the place of Scripture.

I've ruffled feathers with this before, but it is one of my deep convictions that Jesus didn't die for my right to vote, own a gun, or say whatever the heck I want in any given forum.  Our Founding Fathers certainly did, and I -- like you -- am deeply thankful for it.  But Jesus gave Himself for something much bigger.  That sacrifice, that of God on behalf of all humankind, should enable us to engage in disagreements with those who hold opposite political viewpoints with a degree of intentional aloofness, because this world -- this nation -- is not our home, and the laws and liberties we hold dear are nowhere promised to us in the pages of Scripture.

As a matter of fact, Jesus and the Apostles both preached that living the life of a truly engaged disciple is to incur hostility, persecution, and even physical altercation -- not rights, freedoms, and liberties (John 15.20; Rom 5.3; 1 Pet 2.19).  While God does give countless blessings to mankind, the New Testament resounds with the theme that when we are truly living lives that demonstrate our faith in and allegiance to our Savior, we will be on the receiving end of animosity.  Let us be cautious, then, to incur the world's hatred not for the hypocrisy of preaching love, peace, and justice on the picket lines with angry signs in the air, but for our faithful commitment to true religion -- the love of orphans, widows, and the afflicted; and the lifelong pursuit of self-control and holiness (Jas 1.27).

So let's not quarrel over the peripheral stuff.  Let's be earnest, and disagree about it with civility, respect, and humility.  Let's not obscure the truth of Christianity with the idolatry of American ideals.  Let's uphold the good of our nation in an open-handed way -- not with a lack of careless regard for the issues at stake, but with a greater sense of what we possess in Christ for all eternity.  Let's fight for the life of the unborn and the protection of the refugee without tearing down the entire institution.  Let's make it a priority to deal one-on-one with individuals, because it is in our real relationships with real people that we can affect real change.

Let's not quarrel at all, because quarreling only obscures truth.  As Christians, listening first and carefully choosing our battles can go much farther toward affecting change in the world around us than can getting needlessly red in the face.