Saturday, June 27, 2009
Job Search -- June 28th
Titus II Lesson -- June 28th
Submission to Government
1 Peter 2:13-17
Review
In 1 Peter 1:13, after having explained the greatness of our salvation in 1 Peter 1:1-12 (i.e., what God has done in salvation), Peter says: “therefore.” That is, in light of this great salvation we are to live in a manner that is consistent with this great salvation. So, in 1 Peter 1:13-2:12, Peter sets forth seven calls to action related to our sanctification as believers. Now, our study in 1 Peter moves into the third section of the book -- the submission of believers (2:13-3:12). Derek Thomas writes: “What practical difference does it really make in your life that you are a Christian? What does it really mean for you to be a Christian? How is your life any different because you profess the name of Jesus Christ than if you didn’t? That’s the issue that Peter is dealing with here in this third section. He wants to say something about Christians living in a society that is less than ideal, to slaves who are living in circumstances which are less than ideal, to husbands and wives in marriages which are less than ideal, and to those churches which are less than ideal. In four different areas Peter wants to address the issue: ‘What difference does it make that you profess to be a Christian?’”[1] This week, we explore the first area – the need of the believer to be submissive to government that is less than ideal.
Background
In order to better appreciate Peter’s comments, it is important to remind you of the following background information. First, Peter writes this epistle at a time in which Rome was becoming increasingly displeased with Jews and Judaism (see Acts 18:2, 14-17) because they were resisting Roman control. This eventually led to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus just as our Lord forewarned (see Matthew 24:1-2; Luke 19:41-44). Since Rome viewed Judaism and Christianity as closely related, the church was often being falsely accused of opposing Rome.[2] Second, Peter writes this epistle to a group of believers living in a highly pluralistic society. Rome willingly accepted any religion and its practices, except for the religion that proclaimed it was the “only” way. Finally, Peter writes this epistle in the early 60’s. Remember who is the emperor of the Roman Empire -- it is the infamous Nero. Nero was one of the most monstrous rulers the world has ever known. He was perhaps responsible for more murders than any other man in history, including even Adolf Hitler. He was a cruel, vicious, amoral tyrant that came to the throne when his mother Agrippina manipulated to get him there, pushing Claudius, the legal heir out of the way. How was she repaid for her efforts? Nero banished and then murdered her. He put the government in the hands of political hacks. Just a few years after Peter writes this epistle, Nero will bring a wave of persecution down upon the people of God that only the early nineties of the first century were to eclipse. Peter knows what he is saying when he says: “Submit yourselves, for the Lord’s sake to every human institution.”[3]
Transition[4]
Many of the same dangers present at the time of Peter’s writing exist today in a slightly different form. Increasingly, Christians are looked upon with suspicion as those opposed to civil authority. This is partly due to some Christians who are becoming increasingly militant and apparently more willing to break the laws of our land. An abortionist is murdered by a man whom some would view as little different from many other anti-abortionists. If the evangelical pro-life movement is willing to break laws in order to save the lives of the unborn, which laws are they not willing to break? This suspicion is also due to our opposition to an increasingly pluralistic society. Christians (and their institutions such as the church) oppose same-sex marriage, support church discipline, and practice “spanking” – all of which are in opposition to practices the “state” is re-defining.
We see then just how vitally important the Christian’s relationship to civil government is. We are “aliens and strangers” on this earth. That is, our citizenship is in heaven. Does this mean that we are somehow less obligated to obey the laws of the land? No. Unlike those who exploded a bomb in the New York World Trade Center, we dare not view our foreign citizenship as a license to break the laws of the land in which we live. Peter’s words are not easy to swallow, and they may be less than easy to obey. In this passage, Peter will inform us that we have the same obligation to obey our government as do unbelievers living in this nation. Peter will also inform us that the Christian has an even higher obligation to obey our government than unbelievers. To help us sort through that obligation, I want to consider three aspects of our obligation to obey our government: submission, freedom, and honor – even though all three relate to submission.
Submission (2:13-15)
First, let us consider the aspect of submission.
“13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.”
What is the key phrase in this verse? The key phrase in this verse is: "for the Lord's sake." If you miss that, you miss the most important thing. There is a kind of allegiance to human institutions that is not for the Lord's sake. That is not what Peter is interested in. It may resemble Christian submission on the outside, but it is radically different. Christians do not submit to human institutions simply because they feel like it, or because they have compliant personalities, or because the institutions have coercive powers. We do not look first at ourselves to see what we feel like doing, nor do we look first at the institution (like government) to see if it there are consequences for not submitting. We look first to God. We consult God about the institution. And we submit for His sake.[5]
What makes this issue so urgent for Peter? First, it is because Peter has mentioned three things that raise the question whether we have any allegiance to the institutions of this world at all. If we are a separate "holy nation", if we are "God's people", and if we are "aliens and strangers" --perhaps then we should withdraw into our own Christian communities and enclaves and have nothing to do with the powers and institutions of the world. Peter's response to that idea is a simple -- no. While we are in this world, we are (in different senses) citizens of two orders, two systems. That is, we are citizens of this world with its necessary institutions and citizens of the kingdom of God with its necessary values. As such, our submission to the institutions of this world becomes an act of tribute to God's authority over the institutions of the world. We look the President (or a king or a governor) in the eye and say: "I submit to you, I honor you — but not for your sake. I honor you for God's sake. I honor you because God owns you and rules over you and has sovereignly raised you up for a limited season and given you the leadership that you have. For His sake and for His glory and because of His rightful authority over you I honor you.”[6]
The second reason this matter is so urgent for Peter is because there may be some confusion when it is necessary to obey the government. That is because Peter is the very same person who once proclaimed: “We must obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). When society asks you and forces you to do something which is contrary to the will of God, you’ve got no choice -- you’ve got to obey God and not men. Peter had been in one of those circumstances. But in this passage Peter is admitting that those circumstances are relatively rare. Those circumstances are relatively infrequent. So when he comes to write this general letter to his brothers and sisters, he’s saying the exact opposite. More often than not, our duty is to be submissive to the powers that be – not to stand against those very same powers.[7]
Practically speaking, to whom are we to be in submission to? Submission is not only to be granted to the king (the ultimate authority) but to all of his agents. As I understand Peter, this not only means men in prominent positions of power such as governors but to all those who act on their behalf (the civil servants who carry out the functions of government on our level). Peter expects us to respond to these agents of authority as though they were the supreme human authority whom they represent.[8]
What do we learn is the purpose of government from this passage? The purpose of government and those who govern is: “the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.” While the form of government may differ, the task is always the same -- governments are to punish evil-doers and to praise those who do what is right. The proper aim of government is to dam up the river of evil that flows from the heart of man so that it does not flood the world with anarchy (e.g., Rwanda and Sudan). Note very carefully: governments “prevent”, they do not save.[9] They are to maintain external order in a world seething with evil so the saving message of the gospel can run and triumph on its own power. That is why Paul urged us in 1 Timothy 2:1-4 to pray for kings and those in authority — because he desires that the Gospel not be hindered by upheaval, so that more people can be saved.
One final comment on submission. Submission is doing what is right. Submission is doing the will of God. Submission by doing right is the way that we may, in the will of God, see the ignorance of foolish men silenced. What do I mean? Man’s ignorance of God and His ways often results in foolish accusations against believers. They may see our good deeds as evil and accuse us for doing good (see 2:12). Oftentimes (not always), civil authorities expose and silence false charges against the righteous by exercising their biblical responsibility of punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous.
Freedom (2:16)
We have considered the aspect of submission. Let us now consider the aspect of freedom.
“16 Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.”
To whom do we belong? This passage teaches us that we belong to God and not the American government. We are slaves of God and not man (1 Cor. 7:22-23). Believers have passed from death to life. But, then for a season, God sends us back into this age, not as we were once — as slaves to sin and guilt and the whims of this age and its institutions — but as free people, as aliens who live by other values and other standards and goals and priorities. We do submit. But we submit freely, not cowering before human authorities, but gladly obeying our one true King—God. Our whole disposition of freedom and joy and fearlessness and radical otherness from this world is rooted in our belonging to God — which in one sense is slavery (because his authority over us is absolute) but in another sense is glorious freedom (because he changes our hearts so that we love doing what he gives us to do).[10] Or stated differently, Peter is teaching us that submission should be our mindset even when we are “free.” We are, first and foremost, servants of Christ. Submission is to be the dominant theme in our lives — submission to Christ, submission to governmental authorities, and even submission to our peers and subordinates.[11]
Honor (2:17)
We have considered the aspects of submission and freedom. Let us close this discussion by considering the aspect of honor.
“17 Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.”
Verse 17 greatly expands Peter’s teaching on submission. Submission involves not only submission to kings, but to all men. What do we honor in all men similar to the way we honor the king? The king is divinely appointed by God; thus, his authority and position are to be respected because God gave it to him (Romans 13:1). Likewise, all men are created by God with a certain reflection (although distorted) of His image (see Genesis 1:26). To honor men, is to honor the God who made them and to honor the dignity they have as God’s creatures Ps. 8:3-5). We are to recognize that all men have been created by God and are to be treated as His creatures.[12]
Pragmatically speaking, what does it mean to honor men? We may define what it means to “honor” men in terms of what it means to “dishonor” men (see Matt. 5:21-22; James 2:1-9). We dishonor men by thinking of them or calling them fools, those whom the world would be better off without. God made them. They have value and a contribution to make to this world. We dare not think of them as a detriment or we dishonor the One who created them. We also dishonor men by discriminating against them, giving preferential treatment to those who appear to be of higher value while demeaning those who seem to have little value — little to offer us, little to contribute.[13]
Do you note the progression in this verse? While all men are to be honored, the brotherhood of believers is to be loved. There is a greater degree of intimacy, contact, and relationship between one believer and other saints. Thus, in Scripture, the believer has a higher level of obligation to believers than to unbelievers (see Galatians 6:10). Then beyond that common respect for all and that special love for Christians there is a special fear appropriate to God, and no one else. We are not slaves of men (see verse 16) and so we do not fear men. We give them honor freely. And we love Christians freely. But we bow in fear to God's absolute authority reverently. Finally, the king is to receive honor as the ultimate human authority over men. He is to be honored as a man, the “head man” we might say. But there is a limit to the “honor” he receives. He is only to be honored as a man and never to be worshipped as a god. And so Peter distinguishes between the “honor” the king is to be given and the “fear” God alone is to receive from the saints.[14]
Conclusion
In closing, I want to consider what we can learn from this passage about submission to government from a practical standpoint.
1. What does this passage teach us about civil disobedience?
The only examples we have in Scripture of civil disobedience are those where obedience to God is directly forbidden by a human command. The Bible speaks of the disobedience of those laws and commands which directly contradict God’s commands or laws. Cruelty, and even unjust suffering at the hand of civil authorities, are not cited as a legitimate basis for civil disobedience by Christians. Today Christians who are (rightly) distressed over laws which permit (not command) others (not us) to do wrong (abortion) feel justified to selectively violate other laws. This goes beyond any biblical example of legitimate civil disobedience.[15]
2. What does this passage teach us about respecting “misguided” government officials?
Peter does not make the performance of government officials the basis for whether we submit to civil authorities. Peter makes it clear that government’s responsibility is to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. He does not tell us that we must submit only to those who, in our opinion, are performing well at their task. Peter tells us what God expects of governing authorities, not as a standard for what we should expect or demand, but as the basis for our respect. We are to respect civil authorities because of the dignity of the task God has given them, not because of their success at carrying out these duties. How often Christians excuse their disobedience because their superiors do not meet their expectations? These authorities (including elders, see Hebrews 13:17), will give account to God for their faithfulness in carrying out their task. We will give account for our obedience to God’s command to submit to them, whether they are worthy of it or not.[16]
3. What does this passage teach us theologically?
Peter’s teaching concerning submission to civil authority is based upon the very crucial premise of the sovereignty of God. Government is divinely ordained and exists only by the will of God. Its authority comes from God (see John 19:10-11). It achieves God’s purposes even when it fails to carry out its divinely given task. When God allows government to persecute Christians for well-doing rather than to praise them, even then His purposes are being accomplished. This was the early church’s comfort which must also be ours (Acts 4:23-28).[17]
4. What does this passage teach us about the moral foundation of civil law?
Right and wrong are the foundations of law. If the civil authorities are to punish wrong and reward right, then there must be wrong and right. I suggest that one of our tasks as believers -- not the only one, or even the main one — is to keep saying that. If we do away with right and wrong, laws will be without foundation and will crumble and all that will be left will be anarchy. It is not our job to save America from anarchy. Our job is to proclaim the gospel and live in a Christlike manner so that others may turn to Him, be saved, and give Him glory. Why? Because in that process leaders will be honored, civil discourse will be purged of cynicism, rebellious spirits will be humbled, and the moral foundation of law will be strengthened.[18]
5. What does this passage teach us about patriotism?
You know what patriotism is. Patriotism is a zealous loyalty to one’s country, especially in matters involving other countries. It is a nationalistic fervor, a heartfelt preference for one’s own country over other countries. Unfortunately, there is nothing like that in the Bible. Peter never organized patriotic worship services in the churches of Pontus, Galatia, or Cappadocia. He never spent his time trying to convince others that “Rome is the greatest empire in the world.” Peter was never caught saying: “Rome: love it or leave it!”
American Christians fall into the trap of believing that the model of American government is the pinnacle of human political development. We can’t believe that intelligent people in other countries do not immediately recognize our superiority. Ironically, we are beginning to look at these same institutions with a more jaundiced eye. What a difference a few years (or months) can make. Is there anyone, anywhere who thinks that the American Congress or the American court system is the true solution to the problems of the world? Like Assyria, Babylon, and Rome before her, America has served a purpose in the Lord’s plan. And, if Christ should tarry, she too will in all likelihood also fall under divine judgment and be destroyed.
Peter has nothing to say that comes near to amounting to patriotism – nor does any other biblical author. The only patriotism the Bible knows is the love and the zeal that God’s people have and are to have for the kingdom of God (and the church of Christ). What Peter says about the Christian’s duty to the government applies equally to the American Christian, the Russian Christian, the Sudanese Christian, the Chinese Christian, and the Iraqi Christian. There are some of you who may take offense at this. You may even find something in the Bible that justifies such zealotry. But I challenge you to stand behind such an argument and to do so carefully. That is because I don’t think that the Bible offers any arguments to support patriotism and the Bible is clearly more interested in our efforts to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.[19]
[1] Derek W. H. Thomas, “Help for the Painful Trial: Sermons on 1 Peter”
[2] Robert Deffinbaugh, “The Glory of Suffering: A Study of 1 Peter”
[3] Derek W. H. Thomas, “Help for the Painful Trial: Sermons on 1 Peter”
[4] Adapted from Robert Deffinbaugh, “The Glory of Suffering: A Study of 1 Peter”
[5] Adapted from John Piper, “Slaves of God: Free from All to Honor All”, By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.
[6] Adapted from John Piper, “Slaves of God: Free from All to Honor All”, By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.
[7] Derek W. H. Thomas, “Help for the Painful Trial: Sermons on 1 Peter”
[8] Robert Deffinbaugh, “The Glory of Suffering: A Study of 1 Peter”
[9] Adapted from John Piper, “Slaves of God: Free from All to Honor All”, By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.
[10] Adapted from John Piper, “Slaves of God: Free from All to Honor All”, By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.
[11] Robert Deffinbaugh, “The Glory of Suffering: A Study of 1 Peter”
[12] Robert Deffinbaugh, “The Glory of Suffering: A Study of 1 Peter”
[13] Robert Deffinbaugh, “The Glory of Suffering: A Study of 1 Peter”
[14] Robert Deffinbaugh, “The Glory of Suffering: A Study of 1 Peter”
[15] Robert Deffinbaugh, “The Glory of Suffering: A Study of 1 Peter”
[16] Robert Deffinbaugh, “The Glory of Suffering: A Study of 1 Peter”
[17] Robert Deffinbaugh, “The Glory of Suffering: A Study of 1 Peter”
[18] Adapted from John Piper, “Slaves of God: Free from All to Honor All”, By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.
[19] Robert Rayburn, "Loyal Citizenship for the Lord's Sake" (1 Peter 2:13-17)
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Job Search -- June 21st
MN = Minnesota
NTX = North Texas
Titus II Lesson -- June 21st
You Have Heard it Said ….. The Re-Telling of the Story of Lot
Genesis 13-19
Review/Introduction
For the past many weeks, we have been immersed in a study of First Peter. In 1 Peter 1:13, after having explained the greatness of our salvation in 1 Peter 1:1-12 (i.e., what God has done in salvation), Peter says: “therefore.” That is, in light of this great salvation we are to live in manner that is consistent with this great salvation. So, in 1 Peter 1:13-2:12, Peter sets forth seven calls to action related to our sanctification as believers. Before we proceed to the third section in the book, the submission of believers (2:13-3:12), I want to take a one week excursion into the Old Testament to consider the life of Lot.
A few years ago now, someone at “Despair.com” thought they’d have a little fun and start putting out what they called “De-Motivation Posters” which were sort of poking fun at the whole “motivational poster” thing. In contrast to really inspiring sayings, they started putting out posters that said things like this:
· Inspiration - Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration -- which is why engineers sometimes smell really, really bad.
· Ambition - (bear, standing in a mountain stream, with mouth open, waiting for a salmon) A journey of a thousand miles sometimes ends very, very badly.
· Procrastination - Hard Work often pays off over time. But laziness always pays off now.
· Idiocy - (picture of all these sky divers holding hands) Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
· And my personal favorite is a picture of a cruise ship that is sinking. Immediately you think “Titanic”. At the top of the poster it says: “Mistakes.” At the bottom it says: “It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.”
This morning we are going to look at just such a thing - a man whose life story has been preserved for us in Scripture to serve as a warning and as a sobering reminder of the kinds of the messes that people can get themselves into - even the people of God - people like you and me.
The story of Lot is a very familiar story. Most know Lot as a selfish man, who lives in the midst of sin, offers his daughters to a homosexual mob, drags his feet when told to leave a doomed city, and births two of Israel’s great enemies through incestuous relationships with his daughters. Lot’s sin is in sharp contrast to Abraham’s unselfishness, faithfulness, and holiness. Unfortunately, this picture of Lot (and of Abraham) needs to be revisited. That is because the Bible does not represent Lot this way at all. And it is in this oversight that we miss an incredible lesson that is applicable for us today as “aliens and strangers” in this world (see 1 Peter 2:10-12).
Before we look at that, let’s pray. Dear heavenly Father, please take us from where we are at this moment, to the place we need to be to fully appreciate the good things you have written and preserved for us in Your Word this morning. For Your own sake and for the sake of Your kingdom, please apply Your truth to us this morning in a healing, restorative way - whatever that might mean. Sometimes Your word is like a scalpel, and it cuts deep, not to hurt us but to help us by removing a deadly spiritual “cancer” that is threatening to overwhelm our souls. Sometimes it is more like a balm or an ointment that brings relief and comfort where we are hurting. But in whatever way it comes to us, we know it comes to us by Your hand. In Jesus’ name, Amen.[1]
The Story as it is Actually Told
Let us reconsider the story of Lot, taking a “fresh” look at what is set forth in the Bible. We pick up the story upon Abraham and Lot’s return from Egypt in chapter 13.
“So Abram went up from Egypt to the Negev, he and his wife and all that belonged to him, and Lot with him” (13:1).
What caused Abraham to leave Egypt? Abraham was kicked out of Egypt after lying to the Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister and not his wife. It took the Lord striking down Pharaoh and his house with great plagues to “smoke” out his lie. You have heard it said that Lot offering his daughters to the mob is a heinous sin. Is this sin any less worse than what Abraham does with his wife? Keep that thought in mind since we have the tendency to “honor” Abraham and “denigrate” Lot.
“He went on his journeys from the Negev as far as Bethel…..to the place of the altar which he had made there formerly; and there Abram called on the name of the Lord” (13:3-4).
Why did Abraham worship God? It was because God had unilaterally called for Abraham to leave his country, his relatives, and his father’s house. He chose to worship at the very place in which God had appeared to him and promised his descendants this land (12:7). You have heard it said that Lot didn’t worship God like Abraham because he was not very “godly.” Is it fair to “expect” Lot to worship in a like manner? No. That is because God never appeared to Lot and promised his descendants any land. There was not an altar set up reminding Lot of an appearance by God. We need to be careful to impose upon Lot a requirement to worship when there is not a basis for doing so.
“So Abram said to Lot, ‘Please let there be no strife between you and me, nor between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me; if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left. Lot lifted up his eyes and saw all the valley of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere…..like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt as you go to Zoar. So Lot chose for himself all the valley of the Jordan, and Lot journeyed eastward. Thus they separated from each other” (13:8-11).
What is Lot accused of with his selection of the “valley”? You have heard it said that Lot was selfish. He is accused of not recognizing the danger of living near the wicked sinners of Sodom (13:13). Let me challenge this common belief with three questions.
· What would have happened if Lot had not chosen the “valley”? Abraham would have gotten the “valley.” Abraham would have had to live closer to the wicked in Sodom (though he did not have to live in the city itself as Lot chose to do).
· Is there any reference in the text that Lot sinned in making this selection? No. In fact, if he had chosen the more barren land, Abraham would have gotten the “valley” and he would not have sinned either. Lot’s sin was in what he did once he moved near the “valley.”
· Did Abraham evidence trust in God while Lot did not? No. God had made a promise to Abraham, not Lot. Abraham’s trust that God would provide, even if he got the crummier land, was based on a promise made by God only to him. Thus, it was easy for him to relinquish his rights and trust in God rather than claim his right.
That brings us to a different matter all together. If the land was so great, why was no one was on it? One possible explanation is that the land Lot had set his eyes upon was land that was either right on the border or else was just outside of the land of Canaan (compare Gen. 10:29 and Gen. 13:12). And Abraham, knowing God’s promises pertained to a particular land, chose to remain WELL INSIDE that land and not skirt the borders, even though better pastures were just “over the fence” so to speak.
One final “comment” from J. Ligon Duncan on this selection process is warranted. It is because this “comment” may actually be the best explanation for this whole event. As mentioned earlier, there’s not enough grazing land for both the herds of Abraham and Lot. So, Abraham and Lot agree to separate. Isn’t it interesting how God often uses apparently adverse circumstances in order to advance His cause in our souls? What do I mean? What had God told Abraham to do when He called him out of Ur of the Chaldees? He was to separate himself from his country, from his father’s house, and from his relations. Now Abraham had done that with all his relations to this point, except one: Lot. Lot had been traveling everywhere with him to this point. Could it not be that the real purpose of this contention for grazing land (and the subsequent selection of land) was for God to separate Abraham from Lot so that he could do business with Abraham’s soul? It was through Abraham that the line of the promise would come, not Lot. So, God brings this adverse circumstance into Abraham’s life, not for the purpose of vexing Abraham, not for the purpose of showing Abraham’s faithfulness and Lot’s selfishness, but for the purpose of finally getting Abraham to separate[2] from his relatives (Gen. 12:1).[3] As Bob Deffinbaugh writes: “My friend, one way or the other, God’s will is going to be done. It could have been done by Abraham in Ur, but it was not. God providentially brought an irritation and competition between Abraham and Lot which forced a separation to occur. Sooner or later, God’s purposes will come to pass. If we do not see the need for obedience, God will create one. You can count on it.”[4]
Now skip forward in the text to Chapter 19. There we read:
“The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth 2 and said, "My lords, please turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way" (19:1-2).
You have heard it said that Lot was an ungodly man. Yet, it is worth commenting on the close parallel of Chapter 19 to what happened at the beginning of Chapter 18 with Abraham. If you remember, Abraham was sitting at the entrance to his tent, in the heat of the day, when these three strangers show up. And when he sees them, he runs to them and offers them his hospitality. In a similar way, we find Lot at the entrance to the city when the two strangers arrive, and he rushes out to meet them as well. That is, both men were equally hospitable.
“They (the two angels) said, "No; we will spend the night in the town square." 3 But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate” (19:3).
You have heard it said that Lot was a man of the world. Then why is Lot insistent that they do not try and spend the night in the open? It is because Lot knew of the wickedness of the residents of the city (and grieved over it – 2 Peter 2:7-8) and he was looking out for their interest.
“But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all
the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of
my roof" (19:4-8).
You have heard it said that Lot was a coward. Yet, how does Lot attempt to defuse the situation? Lot’s first step is to go out and try and talk some sense into them - an act which, by itself, would have taken a certain amount of courage. Unfortunately, this does not work. Lot then takes a terrible gamble. He does the virtually un-thinkable. Rather than allowing these men to have the strangers he offers to them his two engaged but virgin daughters.
You have heard it said that Lot’s offering of his daughters is the epitome of his failure to avoid sin. What was Lot thinking? What sort of father would do that? It was a horrible decision to make, borne of an equally horrible situation in which there were no good options -- only bad ones. It is possible that Lot was gambling on at least one thing -- His two daughters were engaged to be married to two of the young men in the city. The text tells us that all men from every corner of the city (some versions say all the men of the city) had turned out and surrounded Lot’s place. That could have included the men to whom Lot’s daughters were married or possibly other members of their family – which isn’t saying much for any of them. Lot was probably hoping that either the son-in-laws or members of their family might step forward to prevent anything from happening to the daughters. While this explanation is not a justification for what Lot did, his action may not have been as disgraceful an act that it appears to be when you first read the story.[5]
“But they [the men of the city] said, "Stand back!" And they said, "This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. 10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door. 11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.”
You have heard it said that Lot was just like the others in Sodom. Yet, what is Lot called? He is called a “sojourner”, an “outsider”, an “alien.” What is it likely that Lot did to warrant such a “label”? Lot had likely distinguished himself from the lifestyles and practices of the people. That is because we know that Lot was righteous and was “oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds)…” (2 Peter 2:7-8). Now that he was playing the part of the judge by speaking out against their wickedness, he is called (and treated as) an alien – which is exactly what Peter said evildoers would do to the righteous (1 Peter 2:11-12).
“12 Then the men [the angels] said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place. 13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it." 14 So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up! Get out of this place, for the LORD is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.”
Now we come to another sad, but telling, moment in the life of Lot. Judgment is on the way. But before Sodom is destroyed, quite graciously, the angels give Lot the opportunity to take with him anyone that will come. So, Lot goes out and attempts to get his sons-in-law. When he does find them, they don’t take Lot’s warnings seriously. Why? There seems to be only one possible explanation: Lot had never mentioned his faith before. His words were not a repetition of his life-long warnings of sin and judgment. They are something totally new and novel. It is one thing to warn men and have them reject our message. It is far worse for them not even to consider our words as spoken seriously. There is no defense of Lot’s prior life and testimony that can be offered.[6]
“15 As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city." 16 But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city. 17And as they brought them out, one said, "Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop
anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away." 18 And Lot said to them, "Oh, no, my lords. 19 Behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life. But I cannot escape to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die. 20 Behold, this city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there - is it not a little one? - and my life will be saved!" 21 He said to him, "Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken. 22 escape there quickly, for I can do nothing till you arrive there." Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.1 23 The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar. 24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven. 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26 But Lot's wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. 27 And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD. 28 And he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the valley, and he looked and, behold, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace. 29 So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had lived.”
The unbelief of the citizens of Sodom is to some degree predictable, but the reluctance of Lot is incredible. Never before has anyone ever tried so hard to keep from being saved. What are possible reasons for Lot being so hesitant to leave? The most common reason given (you have heard it said…) is that Lot was so attached to this “present world” of friends, family, and things that he just could not bear the thought of leaving the city. While this is possibly true, two other reasons for his reluctance can also be offered. First, Lot may not have been fully convinced of the certainty and severity of the judgment. And second, he may have hoped by his delay, to stall for time, in order to preserve friends and family knowing that judgment could not come until he had departed (cf. verse 22).[7]
It is worth also noting that there was a difference between the intercession of Abraham and the prayer (or plea) of Lot. Abraham prayed for the preservation of the cities for the sake of the righteous, particularly Lot and his family. Abraham had no selfish interest at stake. To the contrary, removing the peoples of the cities might have appeared to have left the land open for Abraham to possess. Lot, on the other hand, plead for the city of Zoar. Not for the sake of those who lived there, but for his own convenience. If judgment must fall, could God not make it easy on Lot? After all, wasn’t it just a little city? And graciously, the city was spared (Gen. 19:21).[8]
After the sad story of Lot’s wife, the scene cuts back to Lot and his family, who have escaped to this small village of Zoar. You have heard it said that Lot changes his mind about Zoar because he fears that Zoar might receive the same sort of judgment as Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet, isn’t it just as possible that Lot arrives in Zoar and is quickly reminded of the lesson of living in the midst of sin (Zoar was also a sinful city)?[9]
Whatever the reason, they eventually move out and go up into the hills. Now you might have thought, when you get to verse 29, that this story is over. But it isn’t. Because there is this bit at the end about something that happened in the cave......
“30 Now Lot went up out of Zoar and lived in the hills with his two daughters, for he wasafraid to live in Zoar. So he lived in a cave with his two daughters. 31 And the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father." 33 So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father. He did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 34 The next day, the firstborn said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine tonight also. Then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring from our father." 35 So they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 36 Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. 37 The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab.1 He is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38 The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-ammi.1 He is the father of the Ammonites to this day.”
Whether due to a fear of isolation, or as Robert Deffinbaugh writes, due to having learned from their father that morality must sometimes be sacrificed to practicality,[10] Lot’s daughters lure their father into a drunken stupor - not once, but twice - and get him so drunk that he is not even aware of what is happening. By doing so, they both manage to become pregnant by their father - producing children from whose offspring two of the most wicked nations known to Scripture would arise. One was the Moabites who were involved in fertility cults and orgies and who, one day, would lead the people of Israel into imitating their practices. The other was the Ammonnites who worshiped a “god” named “Molech” in a religion which, among other things, encouraged child sacrifice, and which would also be a plague upon Israel. And so, from a Father who offered up his own children sacrificially, comes a race of people who practiced child sacrifice as a religion.
The Lessons Learned from a Correct Re-Telling of the Story[11]
Why did I spend so much time re-telling the story of Lot? Was it to exonerate Lot? Was it restore a besmirched reputation? No. The reason why I spent so much time re-telling the story of Lot is because we are a good deal more like Lot than we care to admit. Lot was still one of God’s people. He still had a conscience that was bothered and troubled by the extreme wickedness he saw. His failure was allowing himself to be tangled up with the world. He became enmeshed in this godless environment, so much so, that it has affected his judgment, hindered his vision, and resulted in his making choices that had painful consequences for himself, his family, and for generations to come.
Brothers and sisters, we likewise are in danger. We are in a precarious position. I would venture to say that most of us here this morning are either just outside the city walls or (like Lot) have already made ourselves comfortable within the city walls. There is the danger that we ourselves (like Lot) will get entangled with the world. Believers today are no more immune than Lot was in his own day. We are just as prone to put ourselves in questionable, precarious situations - in our businesses, in our family, and in our personal relationships. We, like Lot, think that we’re okay and that we can handle it. And sometimes as we are shifting out tents closer and closer to the city, our better friends will say something to us. They will ask us questions about the wisdom of some of the choices we are making. And what do we do? We get defensive. And we give strong assurances and make all sorts of promises that if there is any influencing that takes place, it will be in the other direction. Our influence on the world around us. I have seen this happen more times than I can count. Christians regularly and consistently over-estimate their ability in these situations and rely on their own strength to pull them through in ways that are just foolish and stupid. To be sure, this is not a call to withdraw from the world, but it is a warning against becoming enmeshed in the world. Christians can and should be a force for transformation in the midst of our culture. But there is danger there, and being an influence like that takes wisdom, because there are times and places where lines need to be drawn and where going any further is not brave or bold -- It’s just stupid. As Kidner points out, a lot of Christians will go into a situation thinking that they will be a Joseph or a Daniel - and they end up looking a lot like Lot instead. They are being influenced more than they are being an influence.
Brothers and sisters, these words are preserved for us as a warning. All of us need to examine our hearts and ask the Lord to show us how enmeshed and entangled with the world we already are. We need to ask God to deliver us from the idolatries that keep us entangled. And certainly, we need to be thankful for the grace that is ours in Jesus to fight against enmeshment with engagement -- by sacrificially giving ourselves to one another and to the service of the Gospel. As an ancient Jewish rabbi once put it: "At first, sin is like an occasional visitor, then like a guest who stays for awhile, and finally like the master of the house."[12] Let not this warning be lost on you. For you are the people of God. And if you are a child of God, then you are a righteous person. But then again, so was Lot.
Conclusion
In closing, it would be easy to comment on how fear and isolation portend spiritual ruin,[13] on how Abraham is like Christ,[14] on what spiritual separation looks like,[15] or on how our salvation is secure.[16] Due to time, I am going to close by pointing out how prominent “grace” is in this story.
Where sin so terribly abounds, as in this tragic tale, God has not left us without a witness of His grace. That is, in the midst of this solemn lesson, there is a bright note of encouragement. We see that in at least three instances in chapter 19 alone. First, Lot and Zoar are shown grace in the agreement of the angels to not destroy the town (the indication given in 19:21). The city of Zoar is a wicked city but it is spared because Lot desires to move there. Second, we see grace in the angels “extricating” Lot from Sodom – even against his will! Finally, we see grace in the birth of Moab[17] – the first son of an incestuous relationship with Lot and one of his daughters. What do you mean? In Deuteronomy 23:3-5, Moabites were specifically excluded from the congregation or entering the assembly of the Lord – even to the tenth generation. Yet in the tenth generation from Abraham, according to the prophecy of the law (Deut. 23:3) and as recounted in the genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:2-5), something wonderful occurred. God healed the ancient quarrel between Abraham and Lot. What an incredible display of redemptive grace, when the covenant child of Lot (Ruth) and the covenant child of Abraham (Boaz) are married. As Boaz acquired the property of Elimelech of Bethlehem through Ruth, the descendants of Abraham and Lot once again dwelt together in the land of promise, sharing in the blessing of the inheritance of the Lord. And Ruth, the bride of Boaz, became the mother of Obed, who was the father of Jesse, who was the father of David, the king (Ruth 4:22). Thus this humble Moabite mother, who in the law was forbidden entry to the tabernacle of God, became the ancestress of Christ, who is the true tabernacle (John 1:14). Truly, where sin abounds, grace much more abounds (Rom. 5:20).
To stay in Sodom was to be judged and lost. But there was an 'out', an exit, a possibility of escape. So it is with the Gospel. To remain as we are is to be under the condemnation and power of sin. There is a way of escape, to something safe, to something better. God effects this escape. While Lot lingered, grace did not linger. The angels took hold of Lot's hand, and took him out. Why? The Bible says - because the Lord was merciful to him (v16). It is because of God's mercy that Lot was not consumed (cf. Lamentations 3:22). God made good on His promise to Abraham (19:29) and cast Lot out of the midst of the overthrow. What he promised, He performed. The Gospel does what it promises because of the covenant work of Jesus, Who died that we might live, and Who lives that we might be saved. Let us never forget Lot's wife. She looked back. She had the same opportunities, the same privileges, the same Gospel as her husband. Yet, her heart never left Sodom, even if her feet took her outside the city. She was drawn to look back. She contravened God's express command. She showed that she had more in what was behind her than in what God promised to give to His people. Lot, in the grip of grace, was saved. His wife, in the grip of sin, was lost. What about you?[18]
[1] J. Scott Lindsey, “Genesis 19”
[2] The need to separate from Lot may explain why “post-Sodom”, the two relatives do not sojourn together.
[3] J. Ligon Duncan, “The Promises of God (The Life of Abraham)(3): A Parting of the Ways” (Gen. 13:1-18)
[4] Robert Deffinbaugh, “Lot Looks Out for Number One” (Genesis 13:5-18)
[5] J. Scott Lindsey, “Genesis 19”
[6] Robert Deffinbaugh, “From City Councilman to Caveman: What a Difference a Day Makes” (Genesis 19:1-38)
[7] Robert Deffinbaugh, “From City Councilman to Caveman: What a Difference a Day Makes” (Genesis 19:1-38)
[8] Robert Deffinbaugh, “From City Councilman to Caveman: What a Difference a Day Makes” (Genesis 19:1-38)
[9] J. Scott Lindsey, “Genesis 19”
[10] “The real problem was not with Sodom, but with Lot. His daughters simply carried out that which they had learned from their own father. These same two girls stood inside the door as they overheard those words from their father (Gen. 19:8). From Lot, his two daughters learned that morality must sometimes be sacrificed to practicality. Lot was willing to turn over his own daughters (who were as yet sexually pure, not corrupted by the sins of Sodom) to the Sodomites instead of two strangers. They learned from Lot that morality must sometimes be set aside in emergencies. Once they saw their father’s plight (and their own) as an emergency, incest was no longer a moral problem, for morality must yield to practicality in emergencies.” -- Robert Deffinbaugh, “From City Councilman to Caveman: What a Difference a Day Makes” (Genesis 19:1-38)
[11] J. Scott Lindsey, “Genesis 19”
[12] Robert Rayburn, “Sin’s Downgrade” (Genesis 19:30-38)
[13] “Fear and isolation portend spiritual ruin. Lot is clearly controlled by fear and not by faith as he departs from Sodom. That lesson should not be lost on us. When we are dominated by doubt and fear rather than faith, we have already opened ourselves up to the tempter. Then when we isolate ourselves from those who either through their good influences would influence us to do that which is right or at least by their gaze would keep us from doing that which is wrong, we have set ourselves in a place which is indeed the devil’s workshop.” -- J. Ligon Duncan, “The Disgrace of Lot” (Gen. 19:30-38)
[14] Just as Abraham trusted God to provide for his needs (as he allows Lot to pick the grazing area first), we see the person whom Paul described as “the” seed - the ultimate descendant of Abram to whom the promises were made and in whom they would be fulfilled – Jesus, acting in ways quite similar to his own earthly ancestor, Abram. We see Jesus, who trusted His heavenly Father implicitly, also refuse to claim what was rightly his, in order that he might be free to live and act in ways which honored his Father, and in order that he would redeem people made in God’s image (see Philippians 2:4-11).
[15] “Lot’s life serves as a powerful exposition on the doctrine of separation. While both our Lord and Lot lived in close proximity to sinners without participating in their sins, the difference between the two was that our Lord spoke clearly of sin and of salvation while Lot remained silent. Christians are to be salt in a wicked society. The essence of salt is that it is distinctive. Lot lost his saltiness in the society about him. There was seemingly no sense of danger or urgency for him. Our Lord clearly came to save sinners. By living in Sodom without being salty, Lot not only failed to save others but he lost his own family. If we do not seek to save others, we may even lose our own families. Many, in the process of trying to minister to others, have lost their own families to the world. The sin of Lot was not being in Sodom, but his motivation for being there. Living in the world is not wrong, but being of the world (John 17:15-16). Living in a crooked and perverse generation is not wrong, but failing to proclaim the message of sin, righteousness and judgment is. Lot’s problem was not so much his living in Sodom, but his lack of salt.” -- Robert Deffinbaugh, “From City Councilman to Caveman: What a Difference a Day Makes” (Genesis 19:1-38)
[16] “Even in the midst of his failures, God spared Lot from judgment, albeit kicking and screaming all the way. What a picture of the security of the saint. The reason for Lot’s security, as ours, is not that he was faithful, for he was not. Lot’s salvation was clearly in spite of himself, not because of his works. What, then, was the basis of his security? So far as our text is concerned, the answer is simple. Lot was saved, not for his own sake, but for Abraham’s. It was not Lot’s faithfulness, but Abraham’s which delivered him from destruction (Gen. 19:29). The same principle holds true for Christians today. We are saved, not on account of our faithfulness, but because of the One Who intercedes for us, Jesus Christ, our great high priest (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25). What a wonderful assurance. We will be saved, not because of our worthiness, but His, Who not only died to save us, but Who continually intercedes for us before the Father (1 John 2:1).” -- Robert Deffinbaugh, “From City Councilman to Caveman: What a Difference a Day Makes” (Genesis 19:1-38)
[17] Warren A. Gage, “Covenant Redemption”, Tabletalk; July 2006
[18] J. Scott Lindsey, “Genesis 19”
