Topical Studies
What the Bible says about
Compromising with God's Law
(From Forerunner Commentary)
|
2 Kings 12:2-3
Jehoash did some good things, such as overcoming the bottlenecks that were keeping the Temple from being repaired (II Kings 12:4-16). Not swayed by the ways of his deplorable grandmother, Athaliah, or the family of Ahab, he was certainly a more moral king than his father or grandfather. Nevertheless, during their reigns, influenced as they were by the paganism of the kings of Israel, high places had been constructed—ones that Jehoash failed to destroy. He was apparently not serious enough about the spiritual state of his realm to remove these obvious stumblingblocks. God's assessment in verse 2 contains a critical detail: Jehoash did the right thing "all the days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him." Jehoash's uncle was the real, uncrowned hero, the moral force that kept the king essentially on track during his reign. He re-instituted the covenant, and as a result, the people were reminded of their obligations and motivated to rid the land of Baal-worship (II Kings 11:17-19). Upon his death, Jehoiada, though not a king, received a royal burial "in the City of David among the kings, because he had done good in Israel, both toward God and His house" (II Chronicles 24:15-16)—a noble interment that Jehoash himself did not receive. When Jehoiada's counsel ceased, so did Jehoash's uprightness: Now after the death of Jehoiada the leaders of Judah came and bowed down to the king. And the king listened to them. Therefore they left the house of the LORD God of their fathers, and served wooden images and idols; and wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem because of their trespass. (II Chronicles 24:17-18) In response to this sin, God raised up Jehoiada's son, Zechariah—a cousin whom Jehoash probably grew up with—to reprove Jehoash: "Thus says God: 'Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the LORD, He also has forsaken you'" (II Chronicles 24:20). The king commanded that Zechariah be stoned in the Temple courtyard for his testimony, forgetting not only God but also all the kindness that Zechariah's father had shown him (II Chronicles 24:15-22; see Luke 11:51). Fittingly, Jehoash's servants later conspired against him and killed him, and though he was buried in Jerusalem, he was not buried with the other kings (II Chronicles 24:25). God had provided young Jehoash with a wise and moral guide, and as long as Jehoiada lived, Jehoash did well. But he never really made his uncle's ways—God's ways—his own; he was spiritually strong only while in the presence of a godly man. Upon Jehoiada's death, Jehoash began listening to foolish advice and even succumbed to reinstituting idolatry. He became similar to today's politicians, always testing to see which way the wind was blowing so he could align himself with other centers of power. When Jehoiada lived, Jehoash aligned himself with the priest. When Jehoiada died, Jehoash aligned himself with the other leaders of Judah, although that meant leaving God. Thus, Jehoash did what was right in the sight of God while under the aegis of a moral father figure. Nevertheless, the high places built during his father's and grandfather's reigns were not destroyed because they were not personally abhorrent to him. He was content to have them, perhaps because he did not want to alienate the leaders in Judah—who were biding their time until the old priest died to fashion the kingdom according to their own tastes. Jehoash lacked the character to do what was right regardless of what the herd was doing.
David C. Grabbe
The High Places (Part Two)
|
|
Psalm 81:4-5
Asaph points out that God ordained the law of which he speaks. Law is inseparable from sovereignty. The god of any system can be identified by locating the source of its laws. From this principle, Herbert Armstrong concluded that the church is the only place on earth where the government of God operates. In the beginning of the United States, our system of law and our standards of morality were lifted in principle—but sometimes almost verbatim—from the absolutes of the Bible. After the Civil War, the basis of our laws gradually switched from the absolutes of the Bible to human relativism, which claims there are no absolutes. It asserts that every system's values, indeed everyone's values, are as good as the next. This philosophy began as mere advice to be tolerant, but as it became more popular, its adherents urged people to be pragmatic, that is, to adapt, to make compromises in values, to do whatever needs to be done regardless of its conflict with others' values. Concurrently, situation-ethics systems arose so that even churches eventually looked upon the Ten Commandments as mere suggestions. God was gradually erased from our public schools. Relativism has crept into every area of life so that it now dominates our moral and ethical thinking in education, religion, childrearing, marital relations, economics, agriculture, health care, social programs, etc.
John W. Ritenbaugh
The First Commandment
|
|
Ecclesiastes 3:16
In places within a culture where godliness must prevail so that people can live a truly good quality of life, Solomon instead found the grave impact of evil. It is as if he has opened a door back to the harsh realities of this evil world, in which God has consigned us to live to prepare for His Kingdom. Living in this world while maintaining an “over the sun” way of life can be discouraging and difficult because its ever-present evil influences surround us, attempting to lure us into compromising with God's ways. Overall, however, Ecclesiastes 3 is a strong, positive reminder of God's great gifting of us. In the face of everyday realities, though, we sometimes manage to forget to be thankful for that, allowing dangerous thoughts to arise that could motivate us back toward the world. Thus, Ecclesiastes 3:22 urges us to be content, exhorting us not to allow ourselves to be drawn into vanities, the often-attractive realities that the world holds out to us as invitations to rejoin it. Discouragement and a wandering mind go hand in hand.
John W. Ritenbaugh
Ecclesiastes and Christian Living (Part Five): Comparisons
|
|
Matthew 24:12-13
In recent years, the indicator in verse 12 about "love . . . grow[ing] cold" has often been cited when a grievance toward a particular church organization or group arose. This verse, however, can easily be misapplied, so it behooves us to more fully understand what it means so that we can know if or when it is being fulfilled. Understanding the word translated "love" is a vital first step. It is the well-known Greek word agape, the love that people have only because God has given it to them (Romans 5:5; II Timothy 1:7; I John 2:5; 4:7-8). The people whose agape love is growing cold must have had it in the first place, so it refers to those whom God has called into a relationship with Him (John 6:44). It is important to differentiate between this agape love and the other types of love mentioned in the Bible. Phileo love means "to be a friend to" or "to be fond of" a person or object, indicating "having affection for," whereas Strong's Concordance notes that agape "is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety" (emphasis ours). Similarly, philadelphia love means "fraternal affection" or "brotherly love." Agape love, though, is manifested first toward God, because it is a dutiful, submissive, obedient love, one that does what is right regardless of how a person feels about it. In other words, agape love has a moral core rather than an emotional one. The Bible shows that, in general, we show agape love to the Father through our obedience and submission, especially to His law (John 14:15-23; 15:10; I John 2:5; 5:2-3; II John 6). We show agape love to each other through sacrifice, just as Jesus' example of love—to those around Him and to us—was through sacrifice (John 13:34; 15:12-13; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:13; Ephesians 5:2, 25; I John 3:16, 18; 4:9-12). The meaning of Matthew 24:12, then, is that agape love will grow cold because of lawlessness, even though there may still be brotherly love, kindness, and human affection. Remember, we show agape love to God through obedience—the opposite of lawlessness—so when disobedience increases, agape grows cold. An example of this appears in the letter to the Ephesians, where Jesus says that they had left their first love—their first agape—and He commands them to repent (Revelation 2:4-5), that is, to turn away from their lawlessness. When there is compromise, or the setting aside of God's standard of righteousness and holiness, then the submissive love toward God and the sacrificial love toward man will begin to grow cold. It is a simple cause-and-effect relationship. In this prophecy, Jesus Christ is describing an ongoing breakdown in the relationship with God. Since that most important relationship is the source of agape love, if it is waning, then it will be evident in other relationships. A symptom may be that sacrificial love toward other people is decreasing, but the real cause is that the relationship with God is cooling off. A cause of this deterioration is found in the preceding verse: "Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many" (Matthew 24:11). While a true prophet always upholds God's law (Deuteronomy 13:3-4; Isaiah 8:19-20; Romans 8:7), a false prophet is willing to compromise with God's standard of holiness when it suits him. Those following a false teacher will likewise slide into lawlessness, becoming separated from God (Isaiah 59:1-3).
David C. Grabbe
Is the Love of Many Growing Cold?
|
|
1 Corinthians 9:19-22
Does this mean that Paul would compromise with God's law under special circumstances? Absolutely not! Does he endorse "situation ethics"? Absolutely not! Does Paul embrace syncretism? Absolutely not! Paul understands that we need to guard and protect jealously certain core beliefs such as God's laws and statutes, which we hold as non-negotiable. But we find a rather wide variety of marginal beliefs (such as choice of music, automobile, food, clothing, etc.) upon which we can compromise without sin. The apostle Paul had a keen sense of what part of his belief structure was negotiable and what was not. He had the knack to make things that he and other people agreed upon to seem like mountains and those he and others disagreed upon seem like molehills. In I Corinthians 6:12, He expresses the realization that just because something was lawful does not mean it is the thing to do—especially if it will offend someone. In Romans 14, Paul sets some guidelines on dealing with marginal issues. If becoming a vegetarian or a teetotaler for a day proves the price of peace and not offending, he considers it a small price to pay.
David F. Maas
Godly Tact and Diplomacy
|
|
Jude 1:3-4
Contrary to popular belief, we live in one of the most difficult and dangerous ages in all of human history. Some would be willing to argue this, saying that civilization has come a long way and that mankind is not as cruel as the record of history shows that he once was. Certainly living in the first century in the Roman Empire must have been difficult, they might say as an example, since we have the Bible's account of the apostles living in constant danger—and most of them died horrible deaths! That is true. From what the Bible shows, that constant danger promoted closeness to God; the apostles relied on God to keep them safe and provide deliverance for them at every turn. While we are not being hunted down for our religious beliefs, the danger we face today is far greater—spiritually—in that it does just the opposite: It promotes a slow separation from God. We know this kind of danger by the illustration of the frog in the pot of water. The increase in temperature happens so slowly that the frog fails to realize that it is in trouble until it is too late to jump to safety. What produces this danger for us, the called-out children of God? What is the signature attitude of the era that we live in? What failing among the majority of people will cause the loss of our freedoms and the downfall of our nation? It is compromising with the laws and principles of God. We live in a nation that has largely compromised the character it once possessed. Just a minority uphold the Christian principles that underlay documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which provided the foundation for America to become the envy of the world. Now, so many are willing to trade their hard-won freedoms for a little temporary security, essentially selling their birthright. We face an analogous situation among the greater churches of God. We live in a time when the majority of those with whom we once fellowshipped have compromised the beliefs they used to hold dear. Many of these people have joined worldly churches, or worse, losing faith altogether, have slipped back into the world. Some have contrived strange new doctrines to live by, and despite attending services among the scattered churches, too many have nearly lost their faith and zeal for this way of life. In our church history, we can see how deadly even a little compromising with God's ways is. It almost always leads to greater compromises until a person is so far from what has been revealed in Scripture that he has apostatized, cutting himself off from God. What a sad end after such a promising start! In these perilous times, it is of the utmost importance that we resist the urge to use our human reasoning to compromise with God's law. We must be particularly careful in what we perceive as the "smaller areas" of God's Word. Why? Because Satan often makes his greatest inroads by getting us to relax in little things and gradually convincing us to do the same in more vital matters. If he can just get his foot in the door, he feels he has won a great victory and can make us slip away from God. Paul, however, exhorts us, ". . . nor give place to the devil" (Ephesians 4:27). Once we compromise, the process of sin has commenced, and godly character, which is so precious to God, begins to erode, opening the way for sin on a larger scale. If a wise man like Solomon went from ignoring a seemingly obscure admonition to the flagrant breaking of many of God's commandments, we, too, can certainly yield to the peril of compromise. We must learn to spot and avoid the little compromises that lead to big sins.
John O. Reid
Little Compromises
|
|
Jude 1:11
Jude says the men he warns about "have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit." The Greek word translated as "have run greedily" means "to pour out," with the sense that these people rush uninhibitedly toward the object of their desire. There is no restraint—their self-indulgence is obvious in their actions. A similar description of Balaam is found in II Peter 2:15, where Balaam is also noted for his motivation for material gain: "They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness." Numbers 22:18-21 exemplifies Balaam's nature: Then Balaam answered and said to the servants of Balak, "Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the word of the LORD my God, to do less or more. Now therefore, please, you also stay here tonight, that I may know what more the LORD will say to me." And God came to Balaam at night and said to him, "If the men come to call you, rise and go with them; but only the word which I speak to you—that you shall do." So Balaam rose in the morning, saddled his donkey, and went with the princes of Moab. Here, we see the antagonist happily overlooking God's Word and intent for what suited him better. God says, "If the men come to call you," and Balaam says, "Let's go!" In his sermon "Balaam and the End-Time Church (Part One)," Richard Ritenbaugh notes Balaam's approach to what God says and how it is repeated today: In our modern way, we have turned it around: "Well, the Bible doesn't say that you can't do this." Others put it as, "There is no 'Thus saith the Lord' about this"—though there may be dozens of verses that say that one should not do it because of this, that, or something else. Or, there may be a whole story about someone who does something, illustrating a principle of a way we should not go. Nevertheless, because Scripture does not specifically say, "You shall not do this," then many people think it is okay to do it. This is how it was with Balaam: He took God's conditional permission as absolute permission. He was not concerned about what God truly wanted. Blinded by greed, he was willing to use whatever mental gymnastics necessary and take any leeway offered to arrive at his desired answer. He turned the grace of God into a license for evil. The King James Version uses the phrase "for reward" rather than "for profit" in Jude 11. Silver and gold were the rewards that Balaam was after; he was driven by materialism. But there are other types of rewards as well. In Matthew 6:1-2, Jesus warns about doing charitable deeds to be seen by men, saying that those who do this already have their reward, a positive reputation with other men. A reward can vary from person to person, depending on what one values and is motivated by. While Balaam was motivated by silver and gold, the men Jude warns of may have been motivated by influence or prestige rather than just money. Nevertheless, the transgression is the same: compromising with what God says for personal gain. In the letter to Pergamos, Christ calls Balaam's error "the doctrine of Balaam": "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine [or teaching] of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality" (Revelation 2:14). Jesus links the teaching of Balaam with putting a stumbling block before Israel and encouraging people to become involved with idolatry and sexual immorality. Balaam counseled Balak to encourage the Israelites to turn away from God, even as he was claiming he was devoted to God and that he could only speak what God gave him to say. While he undoubtedly had a certain respect for God—respect for His power—at the core, he was a mercenary, willing to say or do whatever was necessary to get the earthly reward he wanted. He spoke what God gave him to speak but still worked the circumstances so he could also receive Balak's payment. The "error of Balaam" can be encapsulated as compromising with the Word of God for personal gain, in whatever form that might take.
David C. Grabbe
A Warning from Jude (Part Two)
|
|
 |
The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment
Sign up for the Berean: Daily Verse and Comment, and have Biblical truth delivered to your inbox. This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. See what over 150,000 subscribers are already receiving each day.
Email Address:
|
We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time. |
|
|
